Up next in 10
'You can't handle the truth!' Tory MP delivers explosive verdict on Lord Mandelson scandal with Hollywood twist
Apr 21, 2026
A Tory MP delivered an explosive contribution to the Parliamentary debate on the Lord Mandelson scandal, bellowing an exchange between Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise from the film A Few Good Men.“I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!” Dr Luke Evans shouted in the opening moments of his remarks, adding: “And the court case goes quiet.”
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
Thank you Mr Speaker
0:01
I want the truth. You can't handle the truth. And the court case goes quiet
0:11
Those are the immortal words in the famous film A Few Good Men
0:18
That's the realisation in that court case. That things have moved from process to accountability and responsibility
0:27
If you haven't seen the film, it's about two Marines who are on trial for killing another
0:35
But the real story that unravels is whether command can deny any responsibility of the actions that it set in motion
0:46
Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit
0:56
They acted because of you It belongs to you Let recount the facts that we do though that aren disputed in this House Lord Mandeston was announced as the Prime Minister to be the US Ambassadors
1:11
from the UK in December 24. UK security vetting recommended against developed vetting clearance
1:19
in January 2025. The FCDO overruled that recommendation enabling the appointment and
1:25
the Prime Minister stated publicly due process had been followed. Sir Ollie Robbins, then
1:31
Permanent Secretary, was later dismissed. But what Robbins told us in the committee in
1:37
November 2025 is telling, quote, by the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime
1:45
Minister wanted to make his appointment himself. Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed
1:52
of his decision, acted on it and via the Foreign Secretary sought and obtained the King's approval
1:57
for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and
2:02
formed a view himself and we then acted on that view The FCDO is clear this wasn drift It was acting under direction
2:14
The Prime Minister formed that view, they acted on it. Acting on instruction, acting on direction
2:20
Acting on what the Prime Minister wanted. Yet since then, the Prime Minister's been trying to separate the decision and the consequence
2:33
There's the decision, there are the consequences, but we and this public know you can't separate the two
2:42
If an official acts in the shadow of a settled view, responsibility returns to that source where the shadow was first cast
2:54
And let's draw some more comparisons in the film, because it's quite telling
2:59
Colonel Jessup does not issue the written order. Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting Subordinates act on a clear command and intent The FCDO acted on the political intent The defence by the Colonel was I didn order that
3:19
The defence by the Prime Minister was, I wasn't told. The court finds, though, that authority can't be passive
3:29
We in this House say neither can the Prime Minister be. The blame lands on the subordinates, and the same again has happened here
3:37
In both cases, the controversy is not on the mechanics, but where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides
3:45
Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference. The Prime Minister can't have it both ways
3:52
He can't have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out
3:59
That's not process. That's power without accountability. If the decision was his, is it the responsibility
4:07
his and if not why not and whose is it then
#news