I loved it, obviously. A Labour cabinet minister telling the sentimental wing of her own party that it had to face up to some tough decisions if it wanted to deliver compassionate, social democratic policies for the people.
For those of us who think that, on balance, Tony Blair was a good prime minister, it was a thrilling moment in the House of Commons: Shabana Mahmood, on top of her brief, swatting aside critics on both sides. But above all, someone who was prepared to tell the naive elements of her own party that she wouldn’t take any holier-than-thou pieties from them, that she knew what her Labour values were and that she was prepared to do whatever it took to put them into practice.
It was, of course, most enjoyable to watch her put the sanctimonious Liberal Democrats and Greens in their places – not to mention the SNP and Plaid Cymru. While so many in her party go all soft at the knees at the thought of Ed Davey and Zack Polanski stealing Labour voters, and think that Labour should copy its rivals to the so-called left, she was having none of it.
When Max Wilkinson of the Lib Dems lectured her about “stoking division by using immoderate language” for claiming that the country is being “torn apart” by immigration, she said: “I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and the asylum system is creating across this country.” She then dramatised her own experience of racism by dropping the f-bomb, possibly the first time the word has been used from the despatch box.
When Carla Denyer of the Greens took up the theme, accusing her of boosting “toxic, racist narratives”, Mahmood said: “It is Green Party politicians who are absolute hypocrites, because they talk great language in here and then oppose asylum accommodation in their own constituencies.”
But the serious business was to take on the critics from her own side. When Richard Burgon, whose membership of the Parliamentary Labour Party was restored earlier this year after a period of suspension for disloyalty, accused her of trying to out-Reform Reform, she told him: “I do not care what other parties are saying on these matters. First and foremost is my moral responsibility to the people of this country as I fulfil my duty as home secretary. I have a series of reforms that are underpinned by the values of the Labour Party and the values of the British people: fairness and contribution.” She told him to go away and read the details of her reforms.
Obviously, I admire Mahmood’s clarity and conviction. She is not afraid of Kemi Badenoch playing politics with the issue, offering to support the government to get its legislation through against the opposition of Labour rebels. She knows what Badenoch is trying to do – namely to encourage more Labour MPs to oppose Mahmood’s plans by identifying them as “Tory”.
Mahmood swept that aside by pointing out that it was the Conservative government that made such a mess of the asylum system in the first place.
But she was not afraid of Nigel Farage or even Tommy Robinson saying approving things about her policies either. When Farage jokingly invited her to join Reform, she resorted to profanity again, telling him to “sod off”; as for Robinson, she did not need to pay any attention, she said, to someone who didn’t think she was English because of the colour of her skin.
The real criticism from the Labour so-called left is not, of course, that Mahmood is trying to appease Farage, as was given away by Cat Eccles, the rebel Labour MP, on Times Radio this morning: “It just feels that they are trying to just be seen to be doing something just to appease the electorate.”
Mahmood’s confidence at the despatch box was a rare treat. I enjoyed the way she was underlining and writing on her notes as she spoke, as if she was multitasking, drafting her constituency correspondence while addressing the chamber, because she was so sure of what she was saying.
But what sent an electric current down the spine was the feeling that this was a big moment in history: that this was a minister rising to the level of events. Or at least, trying harder than anyone else to do so.
It may be that she will not succeed in stopping the boats. When MPs do look at the details of her measures, they may conclude that many of the changes will affect small numbers of people. They may realise that the changes will do little to reduce the “pull factors” that encourage people to take terrible risks to cross the Channel.
But they will know that she has won the argument for doing “whatever it takes” to restore control over immigration – and that the only criticisms that count are those that propose more effective ways of stopping the deadly small-boat traffic.
‘Narrative of far-right lies’: Readers debate Labour’s asylum plans
Labour is at a crossroads on illegal migration
Why the ECHR and its tone-deaf Strasbourg court need reining in
Is Mahmood right to use Trump’s playbook to curb small boats?
The Syria I love is in ruins. I want to stop history repeating itself
