In a recent and contentious exchange in the UK Parliament, Home Secretary James Cleverly found himself at the center of a controversy. The Labour MP for Stockton North, Alex Cunningham, accused Cleverly of describing Stockton-on-Tees, the area Cunningham represents, as a “shithole”. This allegation stemmed from a session of Prime Minister’s Questions, where Cunningham queried Prime Minister Rishi Sunak about the high levels of child poverty in his constituency.

Cleverly’s Response

Cleverly’s response to the accusation was a firm denial. He admitted to using “inappropriate language” when referring to Cunningham, but vehemently rejected the claim that his remarks were aimed at the constituency of Stockton North. Cleverly stated, “I know what I said. I rejected the accusation that I criticised his constituency… My criticism, which I made from a sedentary position, about the honourable gentleman used inappropriate language for which I apologise. But I will not accept that my criticism was of his constituency because it was not”.

The Fallout in the Commons

The issue led to a further debate in the House of Commons. Cunningham expressed disappointment at Cleverly’s refusal to acknowledge the alleged remark about Stockton North and called for an apology directed at the people he represents. He accused Cleverly of “talking down” Stockton and Teesside and of hiding behind half-truths. Cleverly, however, remained steadfast in his stance, reiterating that his comments were about Cunningham and not the constituency, and that his apology was for the use of unparliamentary language.

Deputy Speaker Dame Eleanor Laing eventually declared the matter closed, noting that Cleverly had issued an apology for his unparliamentary language. She emphasized that it was up to Cunningham to accept this apology or not.

Analysis

The incident showcases the often heated and complex dynamics within the UK Parliament, especially when it involves accusations of derogatory remarks about constituents or areas represented by MPs. While Cleverly’s apology for unparliamentary language was acknowledged, the dispute over whether his comment was directed at the MP or the constituency remains unresolved in the public eye. This controversy also highlights the sensitivity surrounding discussions of poverty and regional disparagement in UK politics.