This government has many faults, but one really cannot fault them on their comic timing. On the very day when the Americans withdrew support for the Chagos ‘deal’, partly on the grounds that it showed weakness in the face of China, the government also gave approval to a massive new Chinese embassy complete with access to sensitive underground cable systems and an unspecified subterranean complex that definitely won’t be used to torture dissidents.
Inevitably, this provoked questions in the House of Commons. Answering for the government was Security Minister Dan Jarvis. Clearly aware that he was about to get a barrage of difficult questions from unimpressed opposition MPs, Mr Jarvis had deployed a classic Labour two-pronged strategy. Firstly, allude to information that you can’t possibly share in public but is very important and if the opposition were allowed to know it (which they can’t be) they would change their minds. This deranged legal Gnosticism has become a central plank of Labour’s strategy in presenting obvious acts of self-harm to the nation, whether on the embassy or the Chagos themselves.
However when the ‘you wouldn’t know my high-grade security intelligence, it goes to another school’ line doesn’t work and it becomes clear that what the government is actually indulging in is an act of monumental self-harm, then press the ‘if this thing does prove to be bad, it’s the Tories’ fault’ button. This is the preferred solution to all the government’s problems from business rates to the Chagos to the state of the economy. It’s easier than explaining why each part of their increasingly moronic legislative programme represents a terrible idea on its own merits, regardless of their predecessors’ colossal mistakes.
Specifically, Mr Jarvis tried to blame Boris Johnson for a sign-off at an earlier stage of the building’s development. This did not go down well with Tory MPs. Many of them asked whether the embassy would leave the country safer: ‘Yes, or no!’ shouted Esther McVey. Dan Jarvis is not one of the government’s more accomplished liars. For the real premier league you need the PM himself or the oleaginous Darren Jones. Confronted with having to repeat constantly that the deal was ‘good for the country’ even Mr Jarvis seemed to be cracking under the weight of the obvious ridiculousness of his position.
‘Yes or no!’ Tory backbenchers chanted every time the minister began some prolonged windbagging about how the deal was ‘right for the country’. Finally, Mr Jarvis tried to claim that it all wasn’t that important anyway, suggesting that opposition MPs instead focus on ‘what sensible members of the public will be interested in’. Is this the ‘sensible’ 11 per cent of the general public who still don’t hate Sir Keir? Hilariously this is about the same percentage of 18-34 year olds who believe that the pyramids were built by aliens. I know which viewpoint I find less ‘sensible’.
This was about as convincing as Keir Starmer’s attempts to seem like a normal, football-loving man
Veteran Tories were not impressed. ‘In the fullness of history, we will look back on this decision with great regret,’ said Bernard Jenkin. Mark Francois raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and a ‘pattern of behaviour’ in kowtowing to China. ‘He’s right’ replied the minister, ‘the pattern of behaviour is doing the right thing’. This was about as convincing as Keir Starmer’s attempts to seem like a normal, football-loving man in front of bemused members of the public.
Further protestations came from the minister: ‘We’ll be challenging them where we need to,’ he insisted. ‘Challenge’ is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I suppose asking ‘how high’ when someone tells you to jump is technically a form of challenge. Perhaps the best form of defence he could have managed would be to point out that, given the damage the government is inflicting to Britain’s interests by its own efforts, why would the Chinese bother interfering at all?
Comments