MUCH comment has been occasioned by parochial Britons banging on about “partygate” while bombs rain down on Ukraine.

Great-ish Britain has played a key role in the conflict, as army surplus store to the brave Ukrainians. We’re Private Godfrey of Dad’s Army in this war, though there’s something more Ealing Studios about the UK’s position.

Our opening shot shows horrific bombings and massacre abroad, before cutting to the scene of a red bus sedately ambling past a bonging Big Ben on a sunny day under cloudless skies. Posh voiceover: “Meanwhile in Britain …”

Yes, meanwhile in Britain, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition pounded each other mercilessly over cake-haunted social gatherings. At Prime Minister’s Questions, Labour’s Keir Starmer began by listing Government-associated figures who’d resigned over Covid-era indiscretions, and asking Boris Johnson why he hadn’t done the same.

Not unnaturally, your Prime Minister replied with learned reference to a science fiction television programme about a cosmic being who lives in a police box. “I fear,” quoth Mr Johnson of Sir Keir, “he’s in some kind of Doctor Who time warp. We had this conversation yesterday.”

Yep, they’d already had an epic battle about the same subject in the Commons. Boris was fed up with such trifling piffle, adding: “We’re going to get on with delivering for the British people.” He sounded like the poor man’s Hermes, or whatever it’s called now.

Carried away with his own histrionic oratory, the PM then made the mistake of turning his back on the Speaker as he hollered to his backbenchers about the “intellectual bankruptcy of Labour”. Sir Lindsay Hoyle was outraged. No wonder. From his position, the Prime Minister was talking out his backside.

“Prime Minister, sit down!” the Speaker ordered. “I want to hear what you’ve got to say. I can’t help you when you’re talking that way.” He pointed to the far end of the chamber.

Sir Keir pointed to the Tory back-benches, deriding them as “the party of Peel and Churchill reduced to shouting and screaming in defence of this law breaker”.

Boris’s apology, he averred, had just been shallow show for the cameras. As soon as these left, he reverted to type at a private meeting of Tory MPS, laying into poor innocent boobies like the Archbishop of Canterbury for being less critical of Putin than of the Rwandan plan for illegal immigrants. Well, if an archbishop can’t virtue-signal, who can?

Boris had been “taken aback” at being slated for trying to end deaths at sea caused by cruel people-smugglers, adding that a “Blairite” Labour Home Secretary had proposed a similar “21st century solution” in 2004.

What did Mr Starmer, “a Corbynista in a smart Islington suit”, think of that? Odd thing to say, considering that, not so long ago, Mr Johnson had inhabited a £3.75m townhouse in the same upmarket ghetto.

Matters became seriously heated when Sir Keir averred that Boris had also accused the BBC of not being critical enough of Putin: a slap in the face to its front-line correspondents.

A warning “great country” klaxon sounded as the Labour leader asked: “How can the Prime Minister claim to be a patriot when he deliberately attacks and degrades the institutions of our great country?”

Boris vehemently denied traducing the BBC’s journalists, demanding Sir Keir withdraw the allegation, and claiming: “He must be out of his tiny mind.”

His own massive cerebrum ordered his mouth to add: “We get on with the job while they flip-flop around like beached flounders on the beach.” Flip? Flop? Flounders? What can it all mean?

Talking of marine life, when SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackbord rose to ululate, one colleague, trying to imitate the hyah-hyah of Tory backbenchers, made a noise like a seal choking on a plump haddock.

Mr Blackford, often unfairly described (here) as a glandular halibut, reheated the red herring of partygate to no avail, while his colleague Richard Thomson called on “this Pinocchio Prime Minister to pack his bags and go".

The P reference was not to being wooden or highly strung, but to lying. Mr Speaker wasn’t having that: “Pinocchio is not acceptable.” Glad we cleared that one up.

Rupa Huq (Lab) wanted to clarify if the PM stood by an article he wrote in the Daily Telegraph in 2011, which talked of leaders acting "solely in the interests of self-preservation". The PM expressed delight at Dr Huq reading the Telegraph, but advised her to read to the end of the article. Wot, unlike most readers?

Which brings us to the end of this article. Hello? Anyone still there?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.