Scandal was the talk of Prime Minister's Questions yesterday.
Scandal, scandal and more scandal.
There was even a reference to the dropping of pants. All right, that was entirely above board and linked to a campaign to boost cancer diagnosis. That old excuse.
Neither the PM nor the leader of the Opposition seemed able to do anything other than make scandal accusations.
Lots of Labour MPs' questions appeared to strangle in their throats. Many barely managed to finish their sentence. But it did not matter. All they had to do was eventually mutter the name "Lynton Crosby" and they were met with huge cheers from their own side and large boos from the opposition.
Not to be outdone, Cameron mentioned in quick succession previous Labour lobbying scandals and even the awkward time the party's former leader was questioned by police over loans for peerages.
For his part, the Prime Minister could not understand why Labour did not get it, emphasising his exasperation by dramatically slapping down the sheaf of notes he carries during PMQs.
We pay Mr Crosby, he kept saying, he does not pay us. He can't have lobbied us over plain packaging for cigarettes, Mr Cameron appeared to be saying. We would have known about it.
The reassurances were not enough for Ed Miliband who dubbed him the Prime Minister for "Benson and hedge funds".
All this of course is to suggest that PMQs is a battle of words between the PM and the leader of the opposition. It is not. It is a battle of wits between the PM and Ed Balls.
The Conservative leader clearly thought he was winning yesterday. He reportedly even winked at Mr Balls at one point. Unfortunately this came just moments after he suggested that the Labour leader sack his shadow chancellor.
Heckling from the front bench Mr Balls seized on the Prime Minister's comment that perhaps he did not have to pay the Australian lobbyist to help him defeat Labour after all.
"If you don't need him send him back then," Mr Balls shouted, a dangerous territory for politicians to get into.
After all, there are some who would like to send them all off somewhere. Not quite as pleasant as Down Under either.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article