Chris Williamson is a left-wing member of the British Parliament. If Jeremy Corbyn wins the next election and takes the Labour Party into power, Williamson will be one of the most senior government officials in the Home Office.

He'll be partly responsible for domestic national security, immigration, and any domestic crises that occur. The job requires intelligence, competence under pressure, and an ability to appraise reality for what it is.

Sadly, Williamson just showed that he lacks all of these qualities.

The proof came on Wednesday evening, when Williamson joined the BBC's flagship domestic news show. The topic? Venezuela.

This is a sensitive area for many British liberals. With Venezuela now imploding, they are being forced to address their former praise of the Chavez-Maduro regime. For example, in 2013, Jeremy Corbyn lauded the Venezuelan state's "efficiency" in serving its people. To borrow from Shakespeare, that claim of efficiency savors but of shallow wit, now that hundreds of thousands more children are starving than smiling.

Williamson, however, has no such shame.

Confronted by host Evan Davis, Williamson denied that Chavez or Nicolas Maduro are responsible for Venezuela's plight. Instead, he blamed the crisis on the "collapse in the oil price, and of course these violent protests, which have been aided and abetted by the United States of America." Williamson continued by offering an argument straight from the Maduro regime's propaganda, blaming business owners for the food shortages. They have, he said, "manufactured shortages, stopping production of products to create these shortages in the shops."

Davis seemed incredulous at this answer. He followed up, "Your response to seeing opposition leaders bundled out in the night ... is to condemn the United States?"

Perhaps realizing how idiotic his first answer sounded, Williamson then immediately denied what he had just said. "No, not at all. And that's unfair, Evan." He even offered one laughably qualified criticism of the regime, "They didn't do enough to diversify the economy."

Still, Williamson was just getting started. He lamented the "One-sided, one-eyed view" that blames Maduro for Venezuela's ills. Again, he complained about "the United States intervention there."

His hint at a violent U.S. intervention is, of course, bogus. Regardless, Williamson pushed on, attacking recently imposed U.S. sanctions on Maduro. "Clearly it can't be right ... to impose sanctions on the country. Surely it would be far better wouldn't it to actually try and bring the sides together? To facilitate talks and to encourage the right-wing opposition to stop these protests on the streets."

The absurdity of that statement is twofold. First, the sanctions are imposed on Maduro specifically, not Venezuela in general. Second, the Maduro regime is rounding up opposition leaders in the middle of the night. Perhaps that's what Williamson had in mind when he talks about trying to "bring the sides together?"

Regardless, there's an old lesson here. When it comes to economic reality and political ideology, the western far-left is profoundly immoral. As children starve in the nation with the world's largest oil reserves, Williamson and his comrades have a simple message for the Venezuelan people: "Let them eat ... nothing."