How much longer can this Prime Minister continue in office?
In the first place his policies appear chaotic. He has said he wants to help ‘working people’ defined by him as those who do not have savings, yet the public sector employees who have been awarded pay rises also tend to have generous final salary pension schemes, a gold-plated form of savings for old age increasingly unavailable to those in the private sector. Also the pensioners who were to be hit worst by the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance are retired workers on a low income and with little or no savings.
He wishes to ‘fix the foundations’ yet the main burden of NIC increases has fallen on the private sector since the Government gave extra funds to the public sector to compensate for the tax. Was it not foreseeable that employment in the former group would stall, together with the economy as a whole?
And then there is Chagos. How could it possibly benefit this country to give away a territory and then pay many billions to rent it back? Especially one that sits at a key point in the Indian Ocean, like a queen in the centre of the chessboard? It is all very well saying that our use of the islands is secured into the next century, but so was Hong Kong in 1898 and the lease on that ended too.
I had begun to wonder whether Starmer simply intends to destroy the nation, deluded by some Marxist fantasy that something better will replace it - as the anarchist Bakunin said, “the urge to destroy is also a creative urge.” World government sounds like a wonderful idea, until you see the white cat strokers and crocodile-faced billionaires who would love to run it.
Perhaps the truth is more tawdry. If the Mail’s Dan Hodges is right, we are near broke so Starmer is going round the world with his “Union Jack-embossed begging bowl” so he needs to do China’s bidding to help keep our finances afloat. It’s not he who is in charge says Hodges, but the “48 Group” (est. 1954) of British traders with China. Connect the dots: a new giant Chinese embassy allowed to be constructed in the heart of London, complete with - allegedly - an underground dungeon; the surrender of a key military asset in the Indian Ocean; and now the collapse of a China-related spy trial because our security adviser - sorry, just his deputy Matthew Collins, nobody else was involved, it is claimed - was unwilling to say that China, which has been stealing our secrets for years, is a potential threat.
We weren’t even going to have sight of what the adviser said, but thanks to Press pressure now we are; though possibly we will not see what the adviser was advised, and by whom.
And now Hodges is saying Sir Keir is an outright liar on the matter. When the Leader of the Opposition challenged him to say that Collins had not discussed the subject with the Home Secretary or anyone in Downing Street, the PM said that was so.
At the end of PMQs this week, according to Parliamentary sketchwriter Quentin Letts, Conservative MPs “shouted 'False! False!’ at his retreating heels.” This does not appear in Hansard’s record, but Letts was there.
Another reason for those shouts at him may have been the concluding point of order raised by Sir James Cleverly (Con) who said that he had been misquoted by Starmer in this session (and earlier this week by the Security Minister) as stating that describing China as a threat was merely “unwise”; actually he had said that to sum up our position *in one word* was unwise, but had gone on to say “First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity… and when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.” The Speaker noted that Cleverly had now put it on record and “I will leave it at that.”
Speaker Hoyle also allowed (“do not question my judgment”) the PM to make a preliminary statement about Chinagate before answering questions.
Another bit of backtracking before verbal combat commenced was the PM’s reference to the fourth anniversary of Sir David Amess’ murder and that of Jo Cox. He took “this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threats made against the hon. Member for Clacton [Nigel Farage].” Doubtless that put him back on the side of the angels after Labour’s recent concerted attacks focusing on Reform’s Leader so Zia Yusuf need not hold Starmer responsible should there be a Charlie Kirk-type incident.
If Sir Keir had hoped his opening China spy trial peroration would take the wind out of Badenoch’s sails he was mistaken, though she was seen to cross out some sentences from her script during his speech. His responses to her vigorous questioning were a farrago of blameshifting, misquotation and (allegedly) lies, topped off with woolly aspirational distraction, the last cornily patterned soundbite likely crafted by one of his assistant wordsmiths: “Labour is building a better future; the Conservatives cannot even come to terms with their past.” I make no space here for his guff-fest but leave it to readers to boil what he said down to something relevant and fully truthful, if that is at all possible.
Instead let us make room for other participants.
Tom Rutland (Lab) offered the PM the chance to talk about Labour’s plans for apprenticeships.
Baggy Shanker (Lab) ditto, on knife crime in Derby.
Daisy Cooper (Lib Dem deputy leader) sought assurances that Hong Kong immigrants to the UK would be protected from Chinese persecution; she was not quite comforted by the PM’s reply. She also deplored Elon Musk’s legal expenses assistance to “far-right, racist hate-preacher Tommy Robinson”; Starmer declined to comment as the trial was ongoing.
Alex McIntyre (Lab) called on the PM to commemorate next year the last stand of the “glorious Glosters” in Korea in 1951, preventing the capture of Seoul. Starmer referred this to the attention of defence ministers and noted Labour’s commitments to veterans.
Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru) twitted Sir Keir over his reluctance to appear in the Caerphilly by-election next week where local support for Labour was collapsing; the PM riposted with what money the Government had given Wales and how much independence would cost the Principality.
Lloyd Hatton (Lab) asked for a new special school in Portland, Dorset and was referred to the schools minister for an update.
Sir Julian Smith (Con) re-raised the issues of family farms, inheritance tax and national food security. He was treated to the familiar boilerplate on farming policies, the devils of which are in the details not touched on here.
Ben Goldsborough (Lab) urged the compulsory testing (“Zoe’s law”) of all skin moles for cancer, from which he himself was now suffering.
Peter Bedford (Con) asked whether the PM would consider scrapping stamp duty on residential property, as LOTO was promising (or at least commit to no rise in property taxes.) Sir Keir said that would mean unfunded tax cuts, and more austerity for public services.
Sam Rushworth (Lab) called for a public enquiry into suicides among mental health patients in her area and the failings of its NHS mental health trusts. Starmer said the Health Secretary was “currently considering the best way forward.”
Rebecca Smith (Con) said she was launching a small business survey among “small and medium-sized enterprises” (SMEs) in her constituency, in the hope of abolishing or limiting business rates and taxes; the PM said he would supply her with Labour’s small business strategy so she could give copies to them.
Jim Dickson (Lab) asked the PM to agree that Labour were addressing the need to repair transport infrastructure; he did.
Tom Gordon (LibDem) called for the provision of local mental health in-patient beds in his constituency; Starmer spoke of related nationwide NHS recruitment, hospital building and increases in mental health spending.
Kirith Entwistle (Lab), a “second-generation immigrant,” reminded the PM of his Conference words on the need for national unity and asked him to agree that “some of those on the Opposition Benches who seek to stoke division and keep close company with those who accept Russian bribes cannot and should not be trusted to govern this country?” Ignoring the Russiagate theme Starmer noted it was National Hate Crime Awareness Week and “an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.”
Susan Murray (LibDem) spoke of the financial burdens the Government laid on for example, a beauty salon. The PM replied with points about lower rates for some types of small business, stimulus for lenders to them, and a package on support for late payments.
John Whitby (Lab) returned to the Russian bribe theme re Labour’s coming elections Bill “to protect our democracy from foreign interference” (China was, however, not mentioned.) Starmer was happy to tar Reform’s Farage and Tice with guilt by association with their Party’s former regional leader in Wales (who had taken Russian money in 2018/19 while a UKIP/Brexit Party MEP.) The PM said Britains’ choice was “Kremlin cronies sowing division or Labour patriots working for national renewal.” Farage was not invited to respond and later fumed. Starmer thus reaffirmed his patriotism but neglected this opportunity to do the same for his Christianity as he did last month (“I was christened, so that is my church, has been all my life”) A pity: surely he is at least as pious and proud of his fatherland as a Welsh choirboy.
Tom Tugendhat (Con) reverted to the China spy trial and asked “what political direction did this Government give to their officials before they went to give evidence?” Came the answer: “Absolutely none—absolutely none.”
And so, aside from Sir James Cleverly’s point of order, that was that. Exit the PM, pursued by Conservative catcalls.
No comments:
Post a Comment