My deep suspicion of Olly Robbins stems from his being our chief BREXIT negotiator under the disastrous stewardship of Theresa May. Nevertheless, by all accounts he was doing a magnificent job cutting costs at the Foreign Office, however, what has really sent his reputation soaring in my estimation, was the way he began his evidence to the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He told them there were only two things he could recite by heart, first was his departmental code of conduct, and the second was the Book of Common Prayer. Magnificent! I recite it by heart too, every Sunday. The Church of England has largely abandoned it to the poverty of modern liturgies. No wonder congregations are dwindling, after its memorable phrases gave so much comfort to countless generations.
But, back to Olly’s evidence: whilst much of what he told the Committee was deeply damaging to the Prime Minister, in particular the demand that an ambassadorship be found for Kier Starmer’s -surplus to requirement- Director of Communications (subsequently elevated to the Peerage only to be suspended from the Labour Party after campaigning for a paedophile). Nevertheless, Olly’s evidence cleared the PM of the principal charge, namely that he misled Parliament by denying that he had known that Peter Mandelson had failed his developed vetting.
Two members were rightly forced to leave the Commons Chamber on Wednesday last week for accusing the PM of having lied. As do so many of us, the PM obfuscates, he conceals, but he does not lie.
I tried to nail him down. I asked why, when he was asked by Kemi Badenoch on 4th February “did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with… Jeffrey Epstein?”
The Prime Minister replied, “Yes, it did.”
So how could he deny having ever received the official vetting report?
The answer is that he had simply confused the terminology of the different reports. He was referring to the Due Diligence Report, which he had received, not the Vetting Report, which he hadn’t. Confusing two different reports in quick-fire during Prime Ministers Questions, isn’t lying. He’s off that hook.
Readers will appreciate that I am not an impartial observer, on the contrary, I am a committed partisan. Notwithstanding that I was often a severe critic of the last Tory government -despite having been part of it, I believe that this Labour government is infinitely worse on almost every front.
Of course, the Official Opposition is right to go after the PM for his failures, but do we really want his scalp?
Be careful what you wish for: ‘Hang on to Nurse, for fear of Something worse’. The candidates lining up to replace Kier Starmer should terrify middle England.
There is talk of a vote to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee. Forget it! I wouldn’t vote to refer anyone to that kangaroo court, not after the travesty of their proceedings against Owen Paterson. The notion of politicians sitting in judgement on anyone, should fill us all with horror.
Sir Desmond Swayne TD
