I reiterate.
The Conservative party put a motion AGAINST the third runway, before the Government put a vote asking to approve the Heathrow extension.
As I understand it, Martin Linton did not want to be associated with the Tories and therefore vote with them. Instead he was planning to vote against, on the Government vote to approve the extension that should have happened after.

Unfortunately it backfired. The Tory motion was defeated and the Government, maliciously, decided that it did not need to ask for a vote as it was implicit approval.

I appreciate people who have the courage of their opinion and can rebel against the authority when they don’t find it legitimate (in the movie “I comme Icare” from Henry Verneuil, they refer to the Milgram experiment: Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View – look in Wikipedia for more details). As he was against the third runway, he should have voted with the Conservatives – as some of his honourable friends did… and against the Government should he have the chance later.

It is a miss opportunity, and you might have presented that as a question of courage to defend its constituents. But saying “he voted with the Government in SUPPORT of the third runway” is just a short-cut, politically appealing but misleading. there is not need to “interpret” here, but just to report the facts.

PS: it does not matter too much, but some of my previous comments are still waiting for validation, for example here:
http://jamescousins.com/2009/04/how-politics-are-done-lesson-1-taking-credit/