Raedwald thinks that cancelling PMQs yesterday sent the wrong message.

Firstly, it elevated the importance of the grief of the political class above the grief of the rest of us; Oborne has said they have more in common with each other than they do with us, and they demonstrated it yesterday. The life of a Fusilier in Afghanistan, or a black teenager in Peckham, is worth no less than the life of a politician’s child – but yesterday’s gesture gave a very different message to the nation. It was self-indulgent and divisive.

With respect, Raedwald, what a load of twaddle.

Firstly, it doesn’t ‘elevate the importance of the grief of the political class above the grief of the rest of us’. The Members of the House of Commons are David Cameron’s colleagues. If a footballer had lost a son on the morning of a match you would expect the rest of his team to show respect and solidarity with their friend and colleague.

Secondly, the deaths of the soldier in Afghanistan and the teenager in Peckham are no less tragic, but their deaths are events which the Government should be held account for. They don’t specifically affect proceedings of Parliament like a death in the family of the Leader of the Opposition. Suggesting the two can be equated is misguided at best.

Thirdly, how would it be appropriate for the Commons to be ‘business as usual’ and embroiled in arguments and shouting matches when one of the two most important players in the game is absent for such a terrible and emotional reason? How would it be appropriate to expect Gordon Brown, who was undoubtedly and understandably moved by Ivan Cameron’s death having been through a similar trial himself, to engage in the PMQs brawl?

How, in short, could party politics have carried on as usual on a day like yesterday?