Let’s be generous to Priti Patel. She’s by far the dimmest member of the cabinet – a low water mark in a confederacy of dunces – so it’s possible no one has told her that Boris Johnson has changed his mind on Ukraine from his 2016 assessment of Russia’s invasion of Crimea, which he blamed on the EU. So she may think she is doing the government a favour in blocking the flow of Ukrainian refugees to the UK. There again, the home secretary is also vicious, so she may just enjoy the sight of hundreds of thousands of women and children seeking sanctuary. Either way, Priti Vacant isn’t having a good war. While the rest of the country sees a homeless population trying to avoid a war zone, she just sees people who are somehow looking to take advantage of the UK. The home secretary has never seen a refugee she really trusted to go back home when it was safe. At least, that’s the appearance she gave in the Commons on Monday afternoon. By any normal standards, Patel ought to have been giving a ministerial statement on the government’s handling of the refugee crisis; but instead she merely gave the Commons a quick heads up during Home Office departmental questions. Mainly, presumably, because she didn’t feel she had a lot to say. The EU might have decided to temporarily waive visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees, but the UK most definitely would not be following suit. There was far too much chance of us taking the wrong kind of refugee. People who could have been better accommodated by other European countries. Criminals with fixed penalty notices for breaking lockdown rules. Russians masquerading as Ukrainians. Or “the” Ukrainians. Patel insisted on calling Ukraine “the Ukraine”. It was all very confusing. Patel was adamant that the visa requirements were being made more generous, only for her to contradict herself by saying that the new rules would only let in people with immediate family in the UK. She didn’t sound at all pleased to be allowing up to 100,000 of the Ukrainians into the country. Not even the thought that other European countries were taking in significantly more people could cheer her up. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, tried to make sense of the muddle. So were we making it easier for refugees to get into the UK or not, she asked. Because it wasn’t at all clear from what Patel had said so far. Vacant looked vacant and did what she always does when she’s on the back foot. She snapped and got angry. She had said all that needed to be said, and if no one had quite understood everything then it was their fault. She couldn’t be blamed if no one could quite keep up with her. Had it been a ministerial statement, there’s a fair chance that Patel would have come under pressure from many MPs on her own side who are upset by the UK’s lack of generosity to refugees. They want their government to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. But given that it was just departmental questions, there was no time for anyone to interrogate the home secretary’s thinking. Though they may get a chance on Tuesday as the Speaker made it plain he was dissatisfied at Patel trying to stifle debate and would be happy to grant an urgent question the following day. Still, Patel wasn’t the only one getting it in the neck. Earlier in the session, the shadow junior Home Office minister Stephen Kinnock had asked Kevin Foster, his opposite number, to unreservedly apologise for his tweet suggesting that Ukrainians could come to this country via the seasonal workers visa. If Foster had had a shred of dignity he could have just said he had been off his head when he had tweeted on Sunday. Instead he doubled down. He wasn’t going to apologise – though curiously he had deleted the tweet – and many Ukrainians had been in touch with him to say how grateful they were to be offered the opportunity to pick fruit at some point in the future. So Labour should just learn to get with the programme. Foster is nothing if not loyal to his boss. Though he may just be as half-witted. For a lesson in taking the Commons with you, Patel could have learned a lot from Liz Truss, the warrior queen who won’t rest till every UK citizen is fighting in Ukraine, who gave an update on sanctions immediately afterwards. The foreign secretary may be hopelessly vain and see almost everything as an Instagram opportunity, but she is at least aware of her limitations. Or maybe she’s just very good at blocking out her mistakes. But in her favour, Truss can do some of the basic niceties. So by striking a collaborative tone and thanking MPs for their support, she effortlessly carried the opposition with her. Apart from the patronising Barry Sheerman, who said he was much more experienced than her and she ought to take his advice on asking the oligarchs for help. Truss even managed to ignore him without causing offence. Best of all, though, was Matt Hancock who really didn’t have anything to say but felt the need to say something anyway. So he burbled on about there being no need for her to blame herself for Putin having gone nuclear. Which she hadn’t been doing in any case. In fact she was thrilled to have been considered so influential. After all, it doesn’t happen that often. But what Matt really wanted to talk about was how much in love he was. There had never been a love story quite like his and Gina’s. The star-crossed lovers who had managed to conquer all. He wanted to shout his love from the rooftops. And not just from some embarrassing podcast. He had so much love to give, he had all his life to live. Whoops … that was the Suspect’s song. Gissa job. Need and teenage hormones dripped from every pore. No one quite knew where to look. • An evening with Marina Hyde and John Crace Join Marina Hyde and John Crace looking back at the latest events in Westminster. On Monday 7 March, 8pm GMT | 9pm CET | 12pm PST | 3pm EST. Book tickets here