It’s Wednesday so that means another ritual humiliation for Keir Starmer at PMQs. As his government limps towards the May elections, the weekly spankings by Kemi Badenoch often seem to blur into one. But this week’s session will stand out in the annals for the sheer torrent of criticism directed at Starmer over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the British ambassador to Washington. Oh Mandy…
But while Labour MPs fume over another fine mess which Starmer has got them into, Mr S was intrigued by the beleaguered premier’s response to a different line of questioning this lunchtime. On Monday, Mark Francois, the Tory shadow defence minister, raised the question of Starmer’s work with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner, struck off for vexatious claims about British troops in Iraq. Two days ago, the Defence Secretary John Healey blustered his way through the session – but there was no such protection for Starmer in the House today.
Up popped Charlie Dewhirst, widely regarded as one of the nicest Tories of the 2024 intake. A former leading light at the National Pig Association, Dewhirst duly took Starmer to market, asking him ‘Was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?’ Sir Keir replied by, er, dodging the question. ‘Let me be absolutely clear about this, as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.’ Not exactly a yes or no eh…
Dewhirst duly raised a point of order on the subject, brandishing a copy of a 2007 case on which Starmer’s name appears alongside that of Public Interest Lawyers – but Starmer had already left the chamber. Alas, perhaps he can answer the point next week. So much for open government eh?
Comments