IF you want to know how united the House of Commons chamber was during Prime Minister’s Questions, picture fiery socialist Angela Rayner nodding along to the words of Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The mood was set when Mr Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, announced that the Ukrainian ambassador was in the gallery. Every member stood to give him a long standing ovation, as the chamber swelled with genuine passion, solidarity and commitment.

Under such circumstances, the tricky part for the leader of the opposition, in an environment specially designed for verbal confrontation, is to raise points that don’t risk degenerating into a fight. For the Prime Minister, the trick is not take the huff at the least sign of criticism or doubt.

On the face of it, in print, Sir Keir’s initial questions – about failure to sanction Chelsea football owner Roman Abramovich or Putin’s former deputy prime minister Igor Shuvalov – might look rather, well, critical.

But they were put, shall we say, in a collegiate spirit, even the one that asked the PM if he did not share Sir Keir’s shame that it took a Russian dissident to expose Shuvalov’s ownership of two properties worth £11 million “not five minutes’ walk from of this House”.

The PM thanked Sir K for his general support, and outlined what the Government was already doing. It’s just a pity that it came out as a litany of boasts. Repeatedly, the House was told to be be “proud of what we have done already”, of how Britain had “led the way” on this and was “among the first” to do that, and of how it was “still out in advance of several of our friends and partners”.

Leadership looks more like leadership when leaders don’t boast about leadership. As the Chinese sage Lao Tzu put it: “When the best leader’s work is done the people say, ‘We did it ourselves.’”

Talking of sages, the SNP’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, also put on a decent display of statesmanship, making well thought out, powerful points in a non-confrontational manner. This is doubly difficult for him as an opposition leader in a parliament that he both deplores and respects.

When the PM dodged his first question about meeting to discuss prosecution of Russian war criminal Vladimir Putin at the Hague – Mr Johnson said he was up for such a meeting “in principle” – Ian thanked him for “that answer”. Usually, he complains he didn’t get an answer. Which he didn’t actually get on this occasion.

The SNP man’s second question concerned dropping visa restrictions for refugees. Scotland, averred Mr Blackford, “stands ready to open our borders and our hearts.” Wha’s like us, eh? Well, pretty much everybody, actually.

The UK’s much criticised position, as outlined by the PM, is slightly different, involving the “sensible” retention of checks based on “reasonable security concerns about people coming from that theatre of war.” At any rate, the country was still prepared to take hundreds of thousands, the PM said.

Backbenchers’ questions were less parochial than usual, mostly about Ukraine, and in particular the amoral, mercenary, unprincipled and inhumane forces the invasion had unleashed. That is to say, lawyers.

Regarding corrupt Russian money, Bob Seely (Con) complained about law firms that “intimidate those who would investigate”. Debbie Abrahams (Lab) said the corruption couldn’t happen without “the enablers: the lawyers, the accountants, the PR specialists”.

In the day’s most powerful contribution, Chris Bryant (Lab) called for the use of parliamentary privilege “so the lawyers can’t attack the sanctions”. More dramatically, he pointed down the chamber to shields commemorating 23 members who “gave their lives for plucky little Belgium”. Then he pointed up the chamber to shields commemorating 22 who’d done the same for Poland.

He was “ashamed” Britain was not doing more to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The PM said lawyers had been reminded about the need to comply with sanctions regulations, and that those involved with oligarchs had been warned their actions were under scrutiny.

He also understood the frustration of not being more directly involved to help Ukraine, but said such a move would “not be easy to control”.

In this regard, Mr Johnson has not made much of the “Churchill moment” that commentators keep adducing. The disappointed might say he has transposed “We shall never surrender” to “We shall never get involved”.

But, for better or worse, Boris is being himself, drawing on hitherto unsuspected reserves of responsibility. And for the time being, out of solidarity, his political enemies on the home front are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

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