Boris Johnson’s grip on the prime ministership of Britain is slipping. He has been dogged by a series of scandals, the most persistent being those relating to ‘partygate’, as it is dubbed. This refers to the social gatherings held at No. 10 in defiance of the lockdown regulations which the government itself had instituted across England.
Under duress, Johnson detailed civil servant Sue Gray to inquire into the ‘parties’ and produce a report, while subsequent to that the Metropolitan Police said they would investigate to see if any laws had been broken. Following the publication of Sue Gray’s redacted report, Johnson came under pressure in Parliament from the opposition benches in general and Labour Leader Keir Starmer in particular, and it is his response to the latter which generated yet another controversy.
This one is possibly of some tangential interest, at least, to many of us here on this side of the pond, because the Prime Minister said: “ … the [Sue Gray] report does absolutely nothing to substantiate the tissue of nonsense that he [Starmer] has just spoken — absolutely nothing.
“Instead, this Leader of the Opposition, a former Director of Public Prosecutions — although he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out — chose to use this moment continually to prejudge a police inquiry.”
The problem is that the Savile allegation is a complete fabrication, which he could get away with because he had the protection of parliamentary privilege. Jimmy Savile was an odious celebrity who was a paedophile but was never called to account during his lifetime. He had been investigated by the police, but the Crown Prosecution Service at a regional level decided not to prosecute him. Starmer was DPP when this happened, but the paperwork from the region never crossed his desk, and in fact he knew nothing at all about the matter at the time, something which a subsequent investigation confirmed. After the disturbing facts emerged following Savile’s death, Starmer ordered an inquiry and apologised for his department’s failings.
Johnson had been advised not to use the Savile reference before he went to the House, but he did not take the advice. He also refused to apologise afterwards, despite numerous calls to do so, including several from his own MPs. He did issue what he called a “clarification” by saying he did not intend an attack on Starmer personally, it was merely an acknowledgment of the fact that as head of a department, the then DPP took departmental responsibility. No one believes that, of course, because that is not what he said.
What really gave this story legs, however, was the fact that subsequently Keir Starmer and his Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy, were mobbed by anti-vaxxer protestors who normally congregate outside Parliament, and had to be escorted by the police for their safety into a police car. Some of the crowd were shouting out Jimmy Savile’s name as well as calling Starmer “paedo protector”, among other things. While some of his own MPs said that the Prime Minister’s words had endangered Keir Starmer, Johnson characteristically denied it.
In any event, the Speaker of the House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle did not agree with him. At the opening of Tuesday’s session, he said: “Regardless of yesterday’s incident [the mobbing of Starmer and Lammy], I made it clear last week that while the Prime Minister’s words were not disorderly they were inappropriate.
“As I said then, these sort of comments only inflame opinions and generate disregard for the House and it’s not acceptable.
“Our words have consequences and we should always be mindful of that fact.”
One could only wish that our own Speaker of the House would read these words over and over and internalise them. Mr Manzoor Nadir is perhaps the weakest Speaker we have ever had, to all appearances the least familiar with what is required and certainly not the most even-handed. The conventions in our House of Assembly are very similar to those in the House of Commons, and while the context of the latter is a great deal more sophisticated than what obtains in our Parliament, as has been demonstrated in recent years, behaviour there has still fallen short of what it should be. Mr Johnson’s command of rhetoric in no way excuses the content of some of his deliveries, for instance. In our case, however, it is not just content that local Speakers have to contend with, but simple raw crudeness.
And where that is concerned Minister of Local Government Nigel Dharamlall and APNU+AFC MP Sherod Duncan showed themselves in an adverse light on Wednesday and unworthy of the positions they hold. When the House was sitting as the Committee of Supply during consideration of the Budget estimates for Region Five, Mr Dharamlall stated audibly to what it seems was an opposition MP, “You got to get a dildo, that’s what you looking for”. It is not clear to which MP this was directed. Whoever it was, the Speaker should have taken immediate action, but he did not.
Mr Duncan, ever intemperate, jumped up and shouted, “You are a nasty fella! He is a nasty fella…” He also accused the Minister of being disrespectful to the House and the Speaker of condoning his behaviour. Mr Nadir called on Mr Duncan four times to go back to his seat, which he ignored. Following that the Speaker asked that the MP withdraw himself but again, he refused.
According to the state newspaper Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira, then moved a motion that Mr Duncan be suspended for the next four sittings, and votes were cast in relation to this. The Speaker then suspended the AFC member for the next four sittings. It might be mentioned in passing that Ms Teixeira, while conscious of what the opposition does, does not seem to have lectured her own MPs about what constitutes acceptable speech.
Mr Duncan, of course, is not a very disciplined personality, and this is not the first of his outbursts in totally inappropriate settings. It is true there is no Leader of the Opposition in the House at the moment, owing to the arcane machinations of the PNCR, but since the MP in question comes from the AFC, there is no reason why the Leader of that party, Mr Khemraj Ramjattan, who also sits in the House, can’t lecture him on his behaviour. If he is really incapable of learning how to conduct himself, he should be recalled.
It is not that his objection did not have merit, it is that the way in which it was made was quite unacceptable. A more articulate person would have found other, far more effective means of bringing Mr Dharamlall’s insulting behaviour to public attention, and the Speaker would have ignored that at his peril. As it was, all the MP did was play into the government’s hands allowing an unforgivable misogynistic slur to be covered over – at least for the duration of the sitting.
But then we come to the Minister. He can’t avoid the fact that he made the comment, because a clip went on to Mr Duncan’s Facebook page. Whether in fact it is the case as APNU+AFC claimed later in a statement that Mr Dharamlall had made continuous derogatory remarks directed at APNU+AFC female MPs during the sitting in question, and that he has been doing this since 2020, cannot be proven at the moment, but the remark which caused Mr Duncan’s reaction is not in doubt. And on its own it is bad enough.
The Minister himself might have had second thoughts after realising the comment was out in the public arena on record, because later he issued a statement: “Earlier today this house, had some issues we believe became very detail, I’d like to, Mr Speaker, to indicate to you that if I had said anything that was misconstrued, that it is not my intention to make those statements to that effect. If there were statements which were also (unparliamentary) on my part during the process of the interrogations, then I would like to withdraw them as well”.
Not the most coherent of statements it must be said, and it is of little use if not made in the House. It is an unforgiveable lapse on the part of the Speaker that he did not confront him at the time and insist on an apology and retraction; it is not too late for him to do so at the next sitting. Mr Nadir should also make a statement about what is tolerable speech in Parliament, and remind members that “Our words have consequences.” And he should remember that he is not there as a government Speaker, but as Speaker of the House of Assembly, who should ensure that MPs on all sides conform to the rules, and take action when they don’t.
Mr Dharamlall probably recognises that now his crass and degrading comment has escaped the Chamber, the women’s rights groups will have words of their own to say. One can only wish that our timid Speaker had said them first.
