The Left proves it is progressive by being transgressive. Customs are for breaching, rules for breaking. How else is one to smash the system?
So it was that the Lord Chancellor turned her back on the King after delivering his Speech; that the PM removed Mrs T’s portrait from Number 10 and Rachel Reeves followed suit in Number 11 - replacing Nigel Lawson’s with one of the early British Communist Ellen Wilkinson (no Che Guevara poster?)
Parliament must be disrespected, too. Speaker Hoyle had to roast Reeves a couple of days ago for her ‘extreme discourtesy’ in leaking Budget details in advance to American reporters; and after PMQs today the Deputy Speaker reminded ministers and the Treasury bench that such infractions were a discourtesy to the Speaker and the House and went against the Ministerial Code. Did their faces look bovvered?
Now, off to the races with the PM. We are early in the steeplechasing season and this session was a lesson in how not to set up fences.
Rishi Sunak’s were easy ones, more for Thelwell ponies than mighty steeds. His stepping down from leadership was an opportunity for the PM to wish him a ‘joyful’ Diwali (was he thinking of Kamala?) and to thank him for his service. There was a flick of the hoof as the PM said that, seeing how fast the Conservatives went through leaders, he might possibly be facing Sunak again sometime.
Sunak’s response to Starmer’s congratulations on being the first British Asian PM was to self-identify as a Yorkshireman and hope that Sir Keir would support cricket in schools - the latter agreed, of course. The pair also concurred on the importance of AI for the economy, and of support for Ukraine and NATO. Rishi’s wish to keep Stormont going was a gift to his oppo, who reflected on his own work in Northern Ireland.
This last was a high hedge that the final questioner, Mark Francois, could have used to make Sir Keir come a cropper. In 2023 Starmer committed himself in Opposition to repeal the Northern Ireland ‘Legacy Bill’ that gave British servicemen immunity from prosecution for alleged war crimes, and as PM reaffirmed it in July 2024 over Guinness with the Irish Taoiseach. There was a more carefully qualified statement a few days later, saying ‘it would be irresponsible to repeal the Act in its entirety without anything to replace it’ but giving various citations of the ECHR to show its conflicts with the Act’s amnesty. It is a most serious matter, threatening ex-servicemen in the autumn of their lives with the prospect of endless investigations.
But Francois fluffed his chance, in two ways. Here is his question: ‘Why, Sir, are you throwing these veterans to the wolves to pander to Sinn Fein?’ Despite over twenty years in Parliament he had addressed the PM in the first person rather than through the Chair, which caused the Speaker to remind him that Hoyle was not ‘you.’ This bought a few moments for Starmer to frame a short and ambiguous response: ‘I’m not.’ Not amending, or alternatively repealing and replacing the Act? Not doing it to satisfy Sinn Fein, some of whose fugitive supporters may themselves have received ‘comfort letters’ that indemnified them against prosecution for their own crimes? Over the safety barrier and away rode Sir Keir, free and clear.
Another imperfectly erected obstacle was the work of Lincoln Jopp, who has only been an MP since 4 July. He made a tyro’s mistake of raising three issues at once: the army of Labour MPs interfering with the US Presidential election, the ceding of the Chagos Islands, and the Foreign Secretary’s unsatisfactory performance at the recent Commonwealth Heads of State conference. Did the PM have full confidence in Lammy? ‘I was going to say he was an upgrade on his predecessor,’ came the reply, charging straight through the gap in the shrubbery. What a shame: either of the first two could have been challenging, if framed correctly.
Similarly, Rachael Maskell asked whether Starmer would set up a pensioner poverty task force, but because she had also mentioned child poverty the PM expressed his concern about that alone. Carla Rayner (Green) came a little closer to tripping him, deploring Israel’s hampering aid to Gaza and banning UNWRA, but when she used the word ‘genocide’ Sir Keir expressed his worry and concern yet said he had never described Israel’s actions with that term; a skilful swerve.
The Opposition benches need to study the example of the late Tam Dalyell, whose undodgeable queries used to instil ‘fear and Lothian’ in ministers.
No comments:
Post a Comment