Ukraine: How Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is leading political battle from the front with statesmanship – Tom Richmond

Gavin Williamson knighthood; time to tell the truth as Downing Street, Cabinet Office and CCHQ stonewall these questions amid ‘corruption’ claims – Tom Richmond

It’s no way to pick a Cabinet when his predecessors at the Ministry of Defence include (Sir) Gavin Williamson – remember him? – and when Wallace’s leadership in the Ukraine crisis has earned the level of cross-party respect that the likes of Home Secretary Priti Patel will never enjoy.

Now Wallace is indispensable for Boris Johnson as Russia’s bombardment of Ukraine includes the barbaric bombing of a children’s and maternity hospital in Mariupol as Europe faces its gravest crisis since 1945.

But it is his political qualities – in these desperately depressing times – that offer hope this weekend to those who do still place a premium on statecraft and statesmanship in spite of Downing Street’s tawdriness.

First, Wallace had the foresight to work with Nato, and others, to supply Ukraine with defensive equipment prior to Russia’s invasion just over two weeks ago – he did so quietly, authoritatively and without any self-aggrandisement.

Second, he’s conducted himself impeccably in media interviews – even finding time to listen sympathetically and sensitively to the appeals of desperate Ukrainians – because of the importance of their voices being heard.

Third, Wallace found the words to express his displeasure with the visa shambles – and fury over the Home Office’s insensitivity, inflexibility and intransigence – without sounding disloyal. That, in itself, is no small feat.

Fourth, he had the respect of Opposition MPs when he updated Parliament on the military assistance that Britain is offering Ukraine. As Labour’s Ben Bradshaw observed: “At the risk of destroying the Defence Secretary’s career, the reason he is getting so many questions on refugees is that hon. Members on both sides of this House wish he were in charge of the Home Office.”

Finally, Wallace is a diplomat. His speech over-ran because of the level of detail. So did the response of his opposite number John Healey, the Wentworth MP.

Yet, as Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, began to rebuke the pair, the Defence Secretary apologised for not giving “the Labour Front Benchers long enough to examine the statement; it was fairly short notice for them”.

How bittersweet that it is taking the destruction of Ukraine, and her fledgling democracy, to see, in Britain, an example of how politics should be conducted.

Inevitably, there will be occasions when Ben Wallace’s decision-making falters, but I’m not surprised that he’s a frontrunner to be the next secretary-general of Nato in the best traditions of the security alliance.

The question is whether Britain can afford to lose a politician who personifies the best of ‘public service’ and is devoid of ambition when they have better qualities than many of those who hold more senior positions in government – including the Prime Minister.

BEN Wallace’s conduct over Ukraine completely contrasts with Priti Patel’s misconduct. The Home Secretary told Tory grandee Sir Roger Gale on Monday that a visa application centre for Ukrainians “has now been set up en route to Calais, that we have staff in Calais”.

She was winging it – and that’s being generous. As Sir Roger told MPs the next day: “That was untrue, and under any normal Administration that in itself would be a resignation issue.”

But what does it say about Britain – and the example that it is supposed to set the free world – when misleading Parliament is the ‘new normal’ and so few MPs appear exercised by this?

THE historical context is critical to this week’s report that effectively ended the career of John Bercow after a report found the ex-Speaker to have been a serial bully towards his staff.

Bercow was elected in 2009 to clean up politics following the MPs’ expenses scandal after his predecessor, Michael Martin, became the first Speaker in history to be forced to resign.

Yet, while MPs are now subject to greater transparency, Bercow brought Parliament into disrepute with his pomposity, verboseness and grandstanding before his handling of Brexit left him even more diminished.

And the fact that he was so antagonistic in media interviews, after Parliament’s Independent Expert Panel said it would have also recommended he be expelled from the House of Commons if he were still a MP, laid bare his obnoxiousness.

What I want to know is how Bercow became a Labour peer – the still incomparable Betty Boothroyd OM sits as a cross-bencher – and how it can be renounced. After all, it’s as unedifying as the knighthood given to Gavin Williamson, the disgraced former Education Secretary, by Boris Johnson as a reward for failure.

TALKING of Labour, they appear content over West Yorkshire mayor Tracy Brabin’s decision to use public funds to appoint an activist ‘head of press’ on at least £63,000 a year in addition to a head of marketing on a comparable salary.

I’m surprised given the party’s desire to be more prudent with spending – and when the West Yorkshire Combined Authority is also advertising for a ‘Head of Passenger Experience’ on another £63,000 a year salary. It sounds like a new gravy train when travellers simply want their trains and buses to run on time.

[email protected]

Support The Yorkshire Post and become a subscriber today. Your subscription will help us to continue to bring quality news to the people of Yorkshire. In return, you’ll see fewer ads on site, get free access to our app, receive exclusive members-only offers and access to all premium content and columns. Click here to subscribe.