DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Partygate tantrums of Commons cry-babies 

Was there ever a more tiresome bunch of self-important whingers than the Commons privileges committee?

Having condemned Boris Johnson for misleading Parliament over Partygate on dubious evidence, Harriet Harman and her band of political makeweights now complain that some of the ex-PM’s supporters had the nerve to criticise what they saw as a vindictive decision by a kangaroo court.

Why shouldn’t they criticise? This is the Mother of Parliaments, not Communist China. If politicians believe an injustice has been done, they are perfectly entitled to say so. It’s called free speech.

After all, the result of this shabby inquisition was never in doubt.

Ms Harman, the chairman, had previously accused Mr Johnson of lying and another key member, Bernard Jenkin, had labelled him dishonest. (The same Sir Bernard, incidentally, who himself stands accused of partying during lockdown.)

Ms Harman, the chairman, had previously accused Mr Johnson of lying

Yet they clutch their pearls and act like victims when called to account. The poor dears claim to have been subjected to ‘unprecedented pressure’. Really?

Unprecedented pressure is what Mr Johnson was under when trying to steer the nation through a pandemic with opposition politicians and half the scientific establishment snapping at his heels.

What these committee members endured was piffling by comparison – no more than the everyday rough and tumble of politics.

Yet they have now run crying to teacher, asking the Commons to sanction seven MPs and three peers, claiming their protests about the inquiry constituted a contempt of parliament. They appear to be confusing contempt for parliament with contempt for the conduct of a particular inquiry.

Anyone could see this committee was prejudiced from the start. The criticisms, from Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and others, merely articulated what most fair-minded people were already thinking.

Rishi’s Rwanda test

In a decision which will have delighted the liberal Left and the people traffickers they work so hard to keep in business, the Appeal Court yesterday declared the Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing to be unlawful.

It’s not the final word. This was a split decision, with the Lord Chief Justice disagreeing with his two fellow judges. There will now be an application for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

But it is a setback, delaying the first removal flight at least until the late autumn – perhaps permanently.

Significantly, the court did not say the policy was intrinsically unlawful, nor that Rwanda was fundamentally unsafe. Its fear was the risk that refugees might be sent back to their country of origin. If Rwanda can give assurances that this won’t happen, the Government may yet win its appeal.

This measure is an integral part of Rishi Sunak’s strategy to stop small boats crossing the Channel packed with migrants. He must persevere with it.

If he loses in the Supreme Court, Rishi Sunak must consider withdrawing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper sneers while wreckers in the House of Lords use guerrilla tactics to thwart any reforms to our broken asylum system.

But they have no alternative plan, save throwing open our borders to all comers, and placing even more unbearable pressure on housing and public services.

If he loses in the Supreme Court, Mr Sunak must consider withdrawing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights, which played a crucial part in yesterday’s ruling. It would be a radical step, but could be a vote-winner in the general election.

And it would put a clear distinction between the Tories, who are serious about wanting to stop the small boats and the traffickers behind them, and Labour, who really couldn’t care less.