WE saw MPs crammed on to the green benches in the House of Commons last week. It was the first fully in-person meeting of the chamber for more than a year, as MPs gathered to discuss the Afghanistan crisis.
The big screens we’ve become accustomed to during the pandemic were gone and so too were all the problems that came with them. Nobody was cut off mid-sentence by a dodgy internet connection and nobody forgot to unmute. While welcomed by many, it was still a jarring sight. Although many on the opposition benches chose to wear a mask, most on the government benches did not.
We know by now that we wear masks to protect others, not ourselves. It looked like an imbalance of altruism between the political parties.
Official guidance recommends that masks are worn in crowded and enclosed spaces. On Wednesday, only two on the government front bench chose to do so. Boris Johnson, a man who is never knowingly selfless, was not one of them.
READ MORE: Sainsbury's Aberdeen store sorry for broadcasting English mask rules to customers
Mike Clancy, the general secretary of the Prospect union, which represents many parliamentary workers said maskless MPs showed “contempt” for the safety of their colleagues and those working on the parliamentary estate.
He said: “It is abundantly clear large numbers of MPs believe rules simply don’t apply to them, and are comfortable with recklessly undermining public health messaging. With the Commons set to resume full-time in just a few weeks, it is time to rethink the light-touch approach to mask-wearing in the chamber. It has demonstrably failed, and more rigorous enforcement must be considered.”
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab was one of the maskless. Which is odd, you’d think he would have seized the opportunity to cover up his tan. Although I suppose that while masks are good for many things, disguising a brass neck is not one of them.
For once, MPs of all parties were united. The UK Government’s lack of preparedness in withdrawing from Afghanistan was described as “humiliating” and “catastrophic” by MPs – including those on the Tory benches. At times during his opening statement, the Prime Minister struggled to be heard. He, more than most, was looking forward to the return of a full House of Commons. But not like this.
Our unserious Prime Minister likes the noise when it is comprised of boorish shouting and cheering in his favour. Far less so when it comes in the form of criticism or worse – derision – as it did on Wednesday.
The Foreign Secretary being missing in action when Kabul fell to the Taliban was also a focal point. Keir Starmer accused both Raab and the Prime Minister of a “dereliction of duty”, telling the pair: “You cannot coordinate an international response from the beach’’.
It was left to Raab to make the closing speech on behalf of the government. He sought to answer the many questions that had been put to him in as vague a way as possible.
It was a statement of platitudes and a masterclass in evasion. When the time ran out before the end of his speech and the Speaker had to cut Raab off, you got the sense he wasn’t too disappointed about it. A cynic might suggest that was his intended outcome. Filibustering is far easier than frankness.
In the days since the debate, Labour has called for Raab’s resignation as Foreign Secretary. This comes after it was revealed that while Raab was on holiday he failed to make contact with Afgan ministers about evacuating translators. Raab said he had delegated this task to a junior minister. That call, we learned, never actually took place.
Being the Minister for Mojitos at a time of international crisis is not a good look. It is embarrassing for the government and shows that Johnson’s infamous laziness looks to be catching up with him.
The papers – including those usually sympathetic to the UK government – are having a field day. Raab is under increasing pressure so the question is: will he resign or be sacked? Unless Johnson emerges from summer recess with a radical change of approach, history would suggest not.
The Prime Minister likes to set his own boundaries on what is acceptable and what is not, what counts as incompetence and what is merely a slip-up. He sets these boundaries with little regard to political precedent. His approach is not “do as I say, not as I do” but more like “what I do isn’t that bad, so you can do it too”.
READ MORE: Opinium: Boris Johnson's approval rating as PM falls to lowest point ever
It is a consistent approach but not one that makes for good governance.
Underpinning all this is the Prime Minister’s desire to look strong and in control. He won’t be told by the tabloids who he should have in his Cabinet. He won’t sack ministers for bullying, incompetence or conducting office affairs when they should be leading our response to the pandemic.
Disloyalty is one of few crimes Johnson does deem to be a sackable offence. As long as his Cabinet of shirkers and sycophants remain loyal to him, they’ll remain in a job. But that is a sign of Boris Johnson’s weakness, not his strength.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel