If you can’t nail a jelly to the ceiling you can catch it in a bowl.
Kemi Badenoch has recently grasped the power of relentless persistence and yesterday used all her six questions to trap Starmer into a blatant display of truth-dodging that has lit up the MSM as well as the internet.
KB (1): … did he personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?
PM: … mistake … process … Iran …
KB (2): … did he speak to Peter Mandelson about that [Epstein] before the appointment? Yes or no?
PM: … Mandelson was asked questions and gave untruthful replies… Iran…
KB (3): … The Prime Minister told us on the record that he “believed the lies” that Mandelson told him, but if he did not speak to him, how can he say that?
PM: The process is clear… [KB] appointed Nick Timothy… [who] said last night that Muslims praying in public [was] an “act of domination”… she should sack him.
KB (4): We can only assume that he did not speak to Peter Mandelson. [Starmer] left the questioning… to two of Mandelson’s closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile. Asking those questions should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty?
PM: … shadow Justice Secretary … Muslims … Even Tommy Robinson … [Badenoch] is too weak and has absolutely no judgment.
KB (5): … The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had kept up a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein… had been warned about appointing Mandelson. He claims he was lied to. Mandelson had twice been fired for dishonesty, so why did the Prime Minister believe Peter Mandelson over the vetting documents?
PM: … Hindus … Jews … Christians … Muslims praying … the Tory party has a problem with Muslims -
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answers? I just have to say that.
KB (6): … [Starmer] appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?
PM: [Badenoch] said we should rush into war … NATO … Greenland … Iran … failure to condemn and sack -
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers, but this is certainly not Opposition questions.
PM: - the shadow Justice Secretary for the poison and division that he spreads. It is turning out to be quite a month for the Leader of the Opposition who claims that she never makes any mistakes.
Minutes later:
Andrew Snowden (Con): Every week, the Prime Minister comes to the Chamber and reads out this pre-scripted nonsense that bears no resemblance to the questions that he is actually asked… So I ask him again: … did he speak to Lord Mandelson personally before appointing him as ambassador to the United States?
PM: We have set out the process … Opposition Members do not want to talk about the war … Nor do they want to talk about the shadow Justice Secretary saying that Muslims are not welcome to pray in Trafalgar Square. The Leader of the Opposition should remove him from the Front Bench, or I suspect he will be sitting up on the Reform Bench next.
**************************
This sh*tshow generated multiple POOs (Points Of Order).
Sir Julian Lewis (Con), Paul Holmes (Con), Sir John Hayes (Con) all asked in various ways what could be done to make Ministers give answers relevant to the questions put.
The Speaker refused to be drawn, saying that the first was not a Point Of Order, the next had “a real weakness… because there is an assumption that the person knows the answer” and Sir John was “just continuing a debate that I think I have already given the answers to.”
Dawn Butler (Lab), MP for two decades and former Gordon Brown PS loyally used a Point Of Order to help the PM muddy the waters by asking whether it brought Parliament into disrepute when Badenoch stated (according to Ms Butler) it was “following British values to attack Muslims praying.”
That was a distortion: nobody denies the general right of Muslims to pray, which they can and do anywhere if it does not seriously inconvenience others; but the shadow Justice Secretary had described (not in Parliament) a mass Muslim prayer event in Trafalar Square as “an act of domination” and in PMQs Badenoch had stated he was “defending British values.” For Muslims there is no discontinuity between religion and politics. That event was certainly not the first assertion of their political strength and will equally surely not be the last. A Justice Secretary’s brief includes dealing with issues of public order. The local elections on May 7th will give us plenty to discuss.
Mr Speaker: “This is an important point: we need tolerance, and it is about respecting one another. You have put your point on the record, but I am not going to enter into a debate. I will leave it at that for the moment.”
Some are beginning to think that Sir Lindsay Hoyle, former Labour MP for Chorley and himself the son of a Lancashire Labour MP may be, despite his habitual and commendable defence of Parliament’s privileges and traditions, overly reluctant to persuade the PM to be fully honest with the Opposition.
But Starmer’s habitual contempt for PMQs protocol was so outrageous on this occasion that we wonder whether he can continue in office even as far as May 7th.
If he does, and more, perhaps we are lost instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment