Politics

Munira Mirza is a British political advisor who was the Director of the Number 10 Policy Unit under prime minister Boris Johnson, until she resigned today, 3 February 2022. She resigned in protest at Johnson’s false claims about Labour leader Keir Starmer. In Parliament yesterday, Johnson claimed that Starmer was responsible for the failure to prosecute the serial sex offender Jimmy Savile. Mirza previously worked under Johnson as Deputy Mayor for Education and Culture when he was Mayor of London.

The Resignation Letter

Dear Prime Minister,
It is with great regret that I am writing to resign as your Head of Policy.
You are aware of the reason for my decision: I believe it was wrong for you to imply this week that Keir Starmer was personally responsible for allowing Jimmy Savile to escape justice. There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion. This was not the normal cut-and-thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse. You tried to clarify your position today but, despite my urging, you did not apologise for the misleading impression you gave.
I have served you for fourteen years and it has been a privilege to do so. You have achieved many important things both as Prime Minister and, before that, as Mayor of London. You are a man of extraordinary abilities with a unique talent for connecting with people.
You are a better man than many of your detractors will ever understand which is why it is desperately sad that you let yourself down by making a scurrilous accusation against the Leader of the Opposition.
Even now, I hope you find it in yourself to apologise for a grave error of judgement made under huge pressure. I appreciate that our political culture is not forgiving when people say sorry, but regardless, it is the right thing to do. It is not too late for you but, I’m sorry to say, it is too late for me.
Yours sincerely,
Munira

On 10 December, Nicaragua severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and started diplomatic relations with China. That reduced from fifteen to fourteen the number of countries that recognise Taiwan (The Republic Of China) as an independent country, not part of China proper.

Just to step back in time for a moment, hostilities between the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek who fled to Taiwan in 1949 and the Communists (who remained on the mainland) never formally ended. As a result, relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have never been established on an official basis.

The fifteen, now fourteen, countries that recognise Taiwan are very small countries. So on one hand, the loss of one country is of minor importance. On the other hand, if the trend were to continue then Taiwan’s claim to be an independent country would suffer to the point of being a pariah among nations.

Mainland China has been making noises about reclaiming Taiwan. So what is the chance of it happening? Australia has strong ties with Taiwan, as has the United States. Any move from China would be seen as aggressive. Would China care?

• Taiwan is about 160 kilometres (100 miles) across the Taiwan Strait from mainland China.
• It has a substantial army for its size, but it is a small island compared to the giant of Mainland China.
• It is a world leader in chip manufacturing.

Put all that together, and on the one hand it would seem so easy for China to invade. But threatening the world’s supply of chips could have consequences such that no one could foresee where it would end.

I am reminded of Subi The Volcano, by Burt Cole, with American forces fighting a war in a country not unlike China.

Nicaragua severed relations because it again has a Leftist Government in power, and the last time the Leftists were in power they made a promise to change allegiance. Then it was ousted and the Rightist Government reversed the decision. Then the Leftists got in again. So now that the Leftists are in power, the severance of diplomatic ties will not have come as a surprise.

Yet it must have caught Taiwan somewhat by surprise because the Taiwanese ‘sold’ their diplomatic buildings to the Church in a hurry at the last moment, for a token amount. The Nicaraguan Government has overturned the sale, and presumably mainland China will just walk in and take over the buildings. What could the Church do? What power does it have to oppose this? Maybe none.

Kathryn Stone is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards of the House of Commons.

The Commissioner is an independent officer of the House of Commons, and the Commissioner’s remit is to investigate allegations that MPs have breached the rules found in paragraphs 11-18 of the House of Commons’ Code of Conduct for Members.

Once the investigation is concluded, the Commissioner reports to The Commons Select Committee On Standards.

In October 2021 the Commissioner found that Owen Paterson had breached the paid advocacy rules for making three approaches to the Food Standards Agency and four approaches to the Department for International Development in relation to Randox and seven approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Lynn’s Country Foods.

The Commissioner said Paterson had “repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the house into disrepute” and that “no previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests”.

Acting on her report, The Commons Select Committee on Standards recommended that Paterson be suspended from the Commons for 30 sitting days. The Government decided they didn’t like that and voted to overturn the suspension. The uproar that followed resulted in Own Paterson resigning as an MP.

Before the uproar, the Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng told Sky News that he believed Kathryn Stone should review her position after her suspension of Owen Paterson was blocked by Parliament.

But here’s the thing. She didn’t suspend him. She reported to the Committee and they suspended him.

According to the Committees page of Parliament the current members of the Committee on Standards are:

Chris Bryant MP Labour Rhondda Commons Chair
Dr Arun Midha Lay Member
Mrs Jane Burgess Lay Member
Mr Paul Thorogood Lay Member
Mrs Rita Dexter Lay Member
Mrs Tammy Banks Lay Member
Dr Michael Maguire Lay Member
Mehmuda Mian Lay Member
Andy Carter MP Conservative Warrington South
Alberto Costa MP Conservative South Leicestershire
Allan Dorans MP Scottish National Party Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
Mark Fletcher MP Conservative Bolsover
Yvonne Fovarque MP Labour Makerfield
Sir Bernard Jenkin MP Conservative Harwich and North Essex

How did they arrive at their decision on the penalty to impose on Mr Paterson? There are four Conservative MPs on the Committee. How did they vote?

Bearing in mind the Commissioner’s finding that “no previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches” was as bad as Mr Paterson’s, it might have been more appropriate for the The Commons Select Committee on Standards to suspend Mr Paterson for the rest of the Parliament.

If Parliament had not voted to overturn the suspension, then Mr Paterson would not have resigned and he would have been suspended for 30 sitting days.

The Standing Orders of Parliament dictate the consequences of being suspended.

45. Members suspended, etc., to withdraw from precincts
    (1) Members who are ordered to withdraw under Standing Order No. 43 (Disorderly conduct) or who are suspended from the service of the House shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
    (2) Suspension from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so suspended from serving on any committee for the consideration of a private bill to which he may have been appointed before the suspension.

45A. Suspension of salary of Members suspended
The salary of a Member suspended from the service of the House shall be withheld for the duration of his suspension.

So there is a financial penalty, assuming ‘withheld’ means that it is never paid to the MP, rather than held back and paid later.

So how much is it? The basic annual salary of an MP in the House of Commons is £81,932, as of April 2020. How does a withholding of pay for a sitting day tie into that? The Commons Library records the number of Commons sitting days by session since 1945, and from the latest figures (2015-2016) there seems to be around 150 sitting days. So would Owen Paterson have forfeited 30 of 150 of £81,932, which would be £16,800?

Or would it be 30 of 365 of £81,932, which would be £6,700? Or something else?

The newspapers reported that Mr Paterson made something around four times his MP’s salary as a consultant. So having his name in the public eye associated with sleaze may have hurt more because those who hired him as a consultant might be wary of continuing to do so.

All of which is blood under the bridge, because he resigned and lost all his pay.

Who could have predicted that outcome? And bearing in mind the 80 seat majority that the Conservatives have in the Commons, what skin was it off their nose if one of their MPs was suspended for 30 days? It makes you wonder.

Now he is no longer an MP, unable to use the leverage that his position gave him, will anyone want to continue to use him as a consultant?.

Update 17 December

On this 17 December the voters of North Shropshire gave the Tories a bloody nose. And for what? If the Government had not forced a vote to overturn Owen Paterson’s 30 day suspension given to him for breaking standards rules, then he would not have had to resign after the furore caused by the vote.

Then there would not have been a by-election in which the Conservatives lost. It shows the poor judgement of the Government in getting the mood of the country so very wrong. And that will cause the Grandees in the party to desert Boris Johnson all the more. The only thing lacking is a replacement.

North Shropshire by-election result
Votes
Lib Dem Helen Morgan 17,957
Con Neil Shastri-Hurst 12,032
Lab Ben Wood 3,686
Green Duncan Kerr 1,738

A quick recap. Sergei Skripal was a Russian agent and then a double agent working for the British in the 1990s. Then On 4 March 2018, he and his daughter Yulia, a Russian citizen who was visiting him from Moscow, were poisoned at their home in Salisbury. As it transpired, the poison was spread on the handle of their front door. The allegation is that the poison was developed by the Russians and that the assassination attempt was ordered by President Putin.

Various scenarios were imagined at the time, and I had this idea that Mr Skripal wasn’t a retired spy at all, but an active agent. It came to me as a possibility in trying to make sense of what had happened in Salisbury.

I thought maybe his handlers had decided to end the relationship by killing him, perhaps by leaving a message for him and lacing it with poison. The reason I thought this was a credible scenario was that whatever the container that the poison was stored in, it had not been found. My line of reasoning was that Mr Skripal purposely hid the container after he looked at the message addressed to him.

Then Charlie Rowley, a local, resident, found the container and thinking it was perfume gave it to his partner Dawn Sturgess, and the two of them were poisoned.

Could it really be that the police would be unable to find the container? After all, Mr. Rowley found it. The police would surely have found it, wouldn’t they? They had dozens, perhaps hundreds, of officers out searching. Perhaps they didn’t find it because it was really well hidden? Except now Charlie Rowley says that what he and his girlfriend were exposed to was in a glass bottle with a plastic dispenser in a cardboard box with a plastic moulding.

And the police couldn’t find it?

Be that as it may, that container doesn’t seem like the perfect object within which to place a message. But then, maybe it is exactly the right kind of container.

I don’t think this detail is an invention put out by Mr. Rowley at the coaching of the Security Services. If that were the case, how could they control what he might say in the future?

But if it is true that the poison was in a bottle of what seemed like it was perfume, then are we to believe that the poisoners just dumped the bottle somewhere it could be found? Or hid it well enough that a search party of policemen couldn’t find it but Mr Rowley did? Are we to believe they dumped it under a bush, or somewhere that only an ex junkie would go looking? If he found it, then anyone could have. The police could have – they devoted enough time to looking for it. How inept would the poisoner with this sophisticated poison have to be to leave it were it could be found? 

Still, the question remains as to who wanted to kill Mr. Skripal and for what reason.

Note

The possibilities I dreamed up about Mr. Skripal are a product of my imagination. They live in – a what if universe.

They are not intended to cast any aspersions on, raise doubts or questions about, or be in any way related to the real facts about any person living or dead. The people I am talking about are just corralled in my thoughts.

If I write any more of these imaginings, the same will apply. I might, for example, imagine that Michael Gove is working for the Russians and that Boris Johnson is an agent of the Turkish Government working for the eventual restoration of the Ottoman Empire.

Update 12 July 2020

Apparently the perfume bottle was thrown into a skip and that’s where Mr Rowley found it. He was a recovering addict and poor enough that he had to look in skips for cast off things that he might use. That still doesn’t establish who threw the bottle into the skip.

In the TV dramatisation of the Salisbury poisoning, there is a scene that follows after the scientists aiding the police and public health authorities have examined the perfume bottle. A scientist (I think it was Professor Tim Atkins) says to the main character, Wiltshire’s Director of Public Health, that the bottle contained enough poison to kill thousands.

That amount of poison would have made Salisbury uninhabitable for 50 years.

Let’s suppose for a moment that the assassins had broken the bottle accidentally and the poison was released. Or let’s imagine the very real probability that the bottle would have been broken at or en route to a landfill. The result would have been a catastrophe of such size that it could have started a Cold War with every Western country against Russia. Would the Russian Government have sent assassins with an amount of poison that risked such an outcome? It seems barely credible.

Another possibility, of course, is that the TV dramatisation was inaccurate as to the amount of poison in the bottle.

Update February 2022

Thinking about Ukraine, I searched for more information about the amount of perfume in the bottle. According to an article of 21 September 2021 in the Independent:

Dean Haydon, the senior national coordinator for counterterrorism policing, said investigators had not established how the bottle was brought into the UK.
“The amount of novichok in that bottle was quite significant, and could have killed hundreds if not thousands of people if it had come into wider circulation in the public,” he told a press conference.

But then Charlie Rowley is reported in a 2018 article in the Guardian as saying

The British man poisoned with the nerve agent novichok has claimed the substance that killed his girlfriend and left him critically ill came in a bottle disguised as a legitimate perfume in a sealed box…. Experts from the top secret research facility at Porton Down in Wiltshire are trying to establish if the novichok was from the same batch. But if Rowley is correct about the perfume bottle being boxed and sealed, it may undermine the line of inquiry that the novichok that he and Sturgess came into contact with had been discarded by the attackers of the Skripals.

If it wasn’t the same bottle, did assassins bring more than one container into Britain? The consensus in Britain is that Russian assassins smuggled a bottle capable of killing thousands into Salisbury in 2018 on Putin’s orders. If that assessment is true, then Putin is careless with the risk of things spinning out of control. That now includes Ukraine.