In a recent parliamentary session, the Liberal Democrats initiated a debate focused on the controversial figure of ex-Prince Andrew, providing MPs with an opportunity to express their criticisms.
While it is typically frowned upon to criticize royalty, the Liberal Democrats decided to break tradition and allow for an open discussion on the matter.
Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, stood up to address the house with a firm resolve. Known for his principled stance, he passionately criticized the establishment for its previous oversight regarding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
Sir Ed declared that the former prince had “shamed our country” for far too long and lamented that MPs had been previously restricted from voicing their criticisms. He lauded the late MP Paul Flynn, a noted republican, who had openly questioned Andrew’s conduct in a 2011 debate.
Interestingly, as noted by Radio 4’s Nick Robinson, the trade minister who defended Andrew during that same debate was none other than Ed Davey himself. A glance at the Hansard transcript reveals that Mr. Davey didn’t merely echo the official stance at the time.
In fact, he went further, expressing strong support for Andrew by stating, “I, for one, believe the Duke of York does an excellent job… he has been a long-standing success… has built a substantial network of contacts at high level… has made a valuable contribution… a real asset for our country… excellent value for money.”
Sir Ed, reminded of that debate, did his eye-narrowing thing. Ah well, yes, look, ahem. ‘I apologise for that,’ he snapped, before claiming he was merely ‘taking a brief from someone else’.
What a weasel. Ghastly suck-up in 2011, now a prize hindsight-artiste and icky opportunist. Why do Lib Dem backbenchers put up with the pious prig? Incidentally, there were only 25 of them in the Commons yesterday to hear him. Maybe they’re as sick of him as the rest of us.
‘A quivering sound signified that His Magnificence Sir Ed Davey was on his size 10s. Most principled of seers. The boobies’ booby’
Minister at the despatch box was Sir Chris Bryant, long an Andrew critic. Sir Chris took pleasure in denouncing him as ‘a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle’.
He once visited Tonypandy Sea Cadets in Sir Chris’s area, insisting on arriving by helicopter, and showing little interest in the youngsters.
‘Of course, that is not a crime,’ conceded Sir Chris. ‘Nor is arrogance – fortunately, I suppose.’ This was nicely done, for Sir Chris himself is not above a little vanité.
Numerous Lib Dem women, and a few mousy blokes, piled in to denounce Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. He had once been beastly about Dolly the Sheep. Diplomats thought him a liability. He insisted on swanky hotels and travelled with an ‘ironing board’ (euphemism for a massage table).
He even – shield your eyes, children – met executives from Shell oil. A Lib Dem in a green suit gasped that ‘women and girls are most vulnerable to climate change’. That’s right. Global warming was all Andrew’s fault.
Monica Harding (Lib Dem, Esher and Walton) growled that the cur even once pooh-poohed the RAF, thus upsetting her late father-in-law, an air vice-marshal.
‘Numerous Lib Dem women, and a few mousy blokes, piled in to denounce Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’
If that was Air Vice-Marshal Sir Peter Harding, he was hardly the most upstanding specimen, being the one who quit as Chief of the Defence Staff after being caught doing loop-the-loops with Bienvenida Buck.
Jamie Stone (Lib Dem, Caithness) ambled in, wearing a Gordonstoun old boys’ tie. Entre nous, I understand Mr Stone’s younger brother fagged for Andrew at school and developed a somewhat waxen view of the prince’s qualities.
Ian Sollom (Lib Dem, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) spoke, and the world stopped turning. Mr Sollom, an academic, has a leaden voice. His PhD was on ‘The Bayesian Analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background Beyond the Concordance Model’. I refuse to believe it was not more interesting than his speech in this debate.
All of which foolishness mattered less in human terms than a morning event Kemi Badenoch held with parents whose children died after internet abuse.
Maybe I’m getting old and watery round the eyeballs but it was one of the most moving pressers I have attended. Having arrived with my usual libertarian scepticism, I left suspecting the Tories are right to propose a social-media ban for children.
