logo
Commons at pompous worst as Afghan data breach proves too much bother for Badenoch

Commons at pompous worst as Afghan data breach proves too much bother for Badenoch

The Guardian5 days ago
For a moment it felt as if the dam might be about to burst. To let the anger in. On Tuesday, the Commons had been at its most pompous, most clubbable worst. Drowning in self-righteousness as the defence secretary, John Healey, gave a statement on the leaked Afghan email, the superinjunction and the £850m bill to the taxpayer. It was deeply regrettable, MPs on all sides agreed, but in the end probably just one of those things. Best to move on and not rock the boat. Parliament at its best and all that.
On Wednesday, we got to hear Keir Starmer's view on the scandal in his opening remarks at prime minister's questions. He seemed to have moved on from Healey's acquiescent cover-up. Yes, Labour in opposition had shared the previous government's commitment to protecting Afghans who had worked for the UK army, but he had consistently warned of the Tories' handling of the crisis. The failings were manifold and former ministers had a great deal to answer for. The gloves were off. This was a party political issue.
And that was the last we heard about the cover-up. Kemi Badenoch had nothing to say about it at all. Not even in passing. Maybe she didn't think it was that important. After all she couldn't be bothered to attend an urgent security briefing about it back in March. Yes, she is that lazy. She only got to find out on Monday. But then almost everything is too much bother for Kemi. God knows what would happen if she wound up in Downing Street. Luckily, no one is about to find out.
Or maybe she didn't want to land Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps in it. On their watch, there had been several data breaches. It was almost embedded as part of the system. She could even have had a go at Robert Jenrick, who as immigration minister had been responsible for running a secret scheme to admit Afghans into the country while at the same time building a career based on hostility towards foreigners. Then Tories seem able to live with that level of hypocrisy.
Whatever. Kemi kept silent. But what of the backbenchers? Surely one of them would have wanted to have their say on a cover-up that had not only been kept secret from parliament and the public but from the very people whose data had been leaked. I guess the thinking was it's best not to know if a Taliban death squad is after you. No. Not one of them. Not even Tory Lincoln Jopp, who picked up a Military Cross on active service and commanded the Scots guards in Afghanistan in 2010. Afghans? Lincoln didn't remember them. Not today.
It makes you wonder why these people went into politics in the first place. Was it really to be lobby fodder for the whips? To do as they are told on the off-chance they get a promotion to minister or shadow minister? Is that the summit of their ambition? A gleaming red box and the occasional use of a shiny black limo?
This was a huge, huge story. A government using a superinjunction for far longer than was necessary. Not to protect the men and women whose data had been leaked: that information had almost certainly ended up in the hands of the Taliban years ago. But to cover up the previous Tory government's blushes. Not just the leak but their embarrassment of running a secret immigration scheme at the time they were encouraging everyone to hate foreigners. So if not this, what do backbenchers care about? What will wake them from their comatose state?
The kindest thing that can be said about the rest of this week's episode of PMQs was that it was like a third rate panto coming near to the end of its run with its two stars merely going through the motions. Affected anger, pre-cooked put-down and a general lack of interest. Summer recess can't come soon enough for Keir and Kemi. They have both long since run out of ideas. Just counting down the days till the Commons packs up on Tuesday.
Kemi basically reused the same questions she had used at the last three PMQs. She may be a climate sceptic but she thinks highly of recycling her own ideas. Ideal for someone who has made a virtue of never doing more than was strictly necessary. Why go the extra mile when you can stay in bed picking fights on X? It also says a lot about her ambition. It hasn't been as if her last three outings at the dispatch box have been a great success. More like a scoreless draw.
But we are where we are. Two leaders who would quite like to be anywhere but in the Commons on a Wednesday lunchtime. Kemi going on and on about how the economy had been in tiptop shape last summer and had been tanking steadily since Labour took over. Keir going on and on about the dreadful legacy Labour had been left and how things were now basically looking up. You could take your pick. Maybe things had never been that great and still weren't.
Not for the first time, one of the more interesting contributions came from Ed Davey. He talked of war crimes in Gaza and suggested Benjamin Netanyahu should be hit with sanctions. Starmer was like a rabbit in the headlights. He keeps saying how appalled he is, but his appalledness never reaches a level where he is actually moved to do anything about it. You can imagine him standing by an aid truck doing nothing while the IDF take pot shots at children, tears in his eyes as he says how appalled he is.
The rest is best forgotten. Graham Stuart trying to be funny by comparing the Labour manifesto to The Salt Path and asking Starmer to name his summer read. It would be nice to report that Starmer said Taking the Lead by John Crace but he couldn't think that fast on his feet. Jopp also fancied himself as a comedian by suggesting Jofra Archer and the England Test win showed Labour needed more pace and less spin. A gag that died on its arse as it was spin bowler Shoaib Bashir who took the winning wicket. Recess can't come a minute too soon.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Records reveal how Palace tried to secure show of support for a new royal yacht
Records reveal how Palace tried to secure show of support for a new royal yacht

Glasgow Times

time24 minutes ago

  • Glasgow Times

Records reveal how Palace tried to secure show of support for a new royal yacht

By 1993 it was apparent that, after 39 years, Britannia was reaching the end of its life, but John Major's Conservative government had yet to decide whether to invest in a new yacht at an estimated cost of £50 million. It was widely thought Queen Elizabeth II strongly favoured the commissioning of a new yacht but the royal family could not afford to be seen to be trying to influence political decision-making. John Major had to decide whether there should be a replacement for the Royal Yacht Britannia (PA) However files released by the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that senior courtiers privately approached No 10 to see if the prime minister would make a Commons statement stressing Britannia's 'inestimable value' to the nation. But the plan – which amounted to a thinly veiled show of support for a new yacht – was scotched by the Cabinet Office, which warned that any such comments would be highly 'prejudicial'. One senior official noted caustically that a claim by the Palace that the Queen was 'indifferent' as to the outcome of a review of the yacht's future 'hardly rings true'. The issue of a new yacht came at an extremely difficult time for the government and for the Palace, with support for the royals at a low ebb. There had been an angry public backlash the previous year when ministers announced the taxpayer would pick up the bill – which eventually ran to £36 million – for the restoration of Windsor Castle following a catastrophic fire. In the aftermath of her 'annus horribilis' – which also saw the separation of Charles and Diana – the Queen agreed that she would for the first time pay taxes. With Mr Major due to announce the historic move in a statement to parliament, the Queen's private secretary Sir Robert Fellowes saw an opportunity to secure what would amount to a show of support for a new yacht. He asked the prime minister's principal private secretary Alex Allan if Mr Major would insert a passage referring to the importance of Britannia as well as the Queen's flight and the royal train. He suggested the prime minister should tell MPs that it was not just a question of cost 'but also the style in which we wish our head of state and members of the royal family to represent us' in their public duties. 'It is always difficult to put a price on prestige but I have no doubt that over the years these items have been of inestimable value to this country.' Sir Robin's proposed addition to Mr Major's statement went on: 'I would also like to make clear that there is not, and never has been, any pressure from the Queen to build a replacement for HMY Britannia. 'Should the government decide it is in the national interest for the yacht to be replaced that would be of course another matter.' However, Nicolas Bevan, the official heading the working group set up to consider the future of the yacht, warned that the proposed remarks could be 'prejudicial' to any future decisions. 'For example to say that the royal yacht has been of inestimable value to this country will not be a helpful remark if ministers in due course decide not to replace Britannia,' he said. A rare show of emotion by Queen Elizabeth II as Britannia is finally decommissioned (John Stillwell/PA) 'Equally it hardly rings true to suggest that it is a matter of complete indifference to the Queen as to whether Britannia is replaced or not.' Despite the palace's protestations of neutrality, the files suggest courtiers were involved in what amounted to some none too subtle lobbying on behalf of a new yacht. On May 13 1993, senior government officials, led by the cabinet secretary Sir Robin Butler, were invited to a 'splendid lunch' on board Britannia where they were regaled by the former lord mayor of London, Sir Hugh Bidwell, and the Earl of Limerick, a senior banker, on the value of the yacht to UK business. Expressing his thanks afterwards to the master of the Queen's household, Major General Sir Simon Cooper, Sir Robin noted that the setting had 'brought home the issues to those involved in a unique way'. However, when news of the meeting leaked out, government press officers were instructed to impress upon journalists – unattributably – that the Queen and royal family were 'not fighting any kind of rearguard action on the yacht'. Despite misgivings over the costs, the Major government finally announced in January 1997 that they would build a replacement yacht if they were returned to power in the general election later that year. The move was however widely interpreted as a desperate attempt to shore up support among wavering Tory voters, and when Labour was swept to power in a landslide they promptly reversed the decision. When Britannia was finally decommissioned – after returning the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, following the handover to China – the Queen, who rarely displayed any emotion in public, was seen to shed a tear.

President George W Bush 'feared Saddam Hussein would attempt his own version of 9/11 terror attacks', newly declassified records reveal
President George W Bush 'feared Saddam Hussein would attempt his own version of 9/11 terror attacks', newly declassified records reveal

Daily Mail​

time24 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

President George W Bush 'feared Saddam Hussein would attempt his own version of 9/11 terror attacks', newly declassified records reveal

President George W Bush was desperate to topple Saddam Hussein amid fears he might orchestrate a repeat of the 9/11 terror attacks, newly declassified records reveal. Private remarks from the US President in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq underlined his commitment to 'ridding (the world) of evil-doers', according to the UK's ambassador in Washington. Sir Christopher Meyer said Americans broadly trusted President Bush's decision making on foreign policy, even if, in late 2002, the public were 'not keen to go to war with Saddam'. Documents released to the National Archives in Kew hint at Tony Blair 's initial reluctance to invade Iraq on the basis of Iraqi tyrant Hussein's claim that it had destroyed its WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). And the Ministry of Defence (MOD) also warned there would be 'significant levels of internecine violence' in the aftermath of any invasion. The UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, leading to Hussein being ousted, with images memorable of jubilant Iraqis toppling a statue of their overthrown former president in Baghdad. But an inquiry led by Sir John Chilcott later found Mr Blair's case for invasion was not justified, and that Hussein posed no imminent threat. Mr Blair stood by the decision to go to war - which many perceive to have tainted his modernist legacy - but apologised for mistakes made. The newly released documents show Sir Christopher, the UK's man in Washington, told Downing Street in December 2002 about President Bush's intentions - and his binary philosophy of good and evil. He wrote in an end-of-year dispatch: 'If Bush decides to invade Iraq in 2003, as looks increasingly likely, it will make or break his presidency. 'Much of the impulse for deposing Saddam Hussein comes from Bush himself. More than anything else he fears another catastrophic terrorist attack on the homeland, especially one with an Iraqi connection. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers.' The files also reveal how Mr Blair had travelled to Camp David in January 2003 to urge President Bush to allow more time for diplomacy work. But Sir Christopher warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war at this stage unless Hussein surrendered.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store