Tag: United Kingdom

This week, the dispossessed, the never-possessed and the otherwise perennially discontented in the Conservative Party took aim at Rishi Sunak over his bid to implement the Rwanda deportation scheme, vying to bend the vulnerable prime minister to their collective ends.

But after days of speculation, stoked by a “star chamber”, incessant pressers and a breakfast in No 10, the “bastards” (as John Major once referred to his recalcitrants) misfired. Sunak’s rebels mustered a mere 29 abstentions when the lobby doors were locked on Tuesday — that is despite making it fundamentally clear that the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill failed to meet their set tests.

The rebel factions that comprise the so-called “five families” claim to collectively represent more than 100 MPs overall. Thus, having marched much of SW1 to the summit of a steep hill through Tuesday — including with an eleventh-hour pool clip placing Mark Francois alongside fellow family figureheads — this was a clear defeat for the Conservative Party’s anti-Sunak battalion(s).

So how did the “five families”, having been successfully stared down by the prime minister, respond? Well, in public, flowed a face-saving operation, that saw associated MPs insist the PM had, after all, informed colleagues he is “prepared to entertain tightening the bill”.

But, in private, the families’ factional pitchforks turned inward — as hostile briefings were picked up by friendly journalists. On the day of the vote, The Sun’s Harry Cole reported that Francois was being referred to by his internal family critics as “Fredo”; some other more sanguine rebels admitted to the well-connected political editor that Francois’ shadow whipping was a “s***show”; “Not every meeting needs a pool clip”, decried another in a clear swipe at the spotlight-drenched European Research Group chair.

Thus, today, as we consider the political futures of the “five families” — with hostile amendments set to be drafted over the festive season — it is worth further scrutinising some of the collective’s recent claims and largely dismissed founding myths.

In full, a mere six days separated Sunak’s announcement of the emergency Rwanda legislation from its appearance on the commons floor. Simply put, at some point during this period, the “five families” appeared on the SW1 scene to declare themselves central to events. The pace of politics — as pool clips were filmed and star chambers reported — simply far outstripped SW1’s ability to truly grip and analyse developments.

Still, I am not doing anything journalistically novel in pondering: “who are the five families?”. (See reports in The Mirror, The Independent, Guido Fawkes, the i, the i again, The Spectator, The Telegraph, The Guardian and the BBC). And this, I fear, is just the tip of the SEO iceberg; oh, how Francois’ factionalism has quivered the fourth estate. But the nuances of how the five families interact with each other, as well as with Rishi Sunak, has arguably been lost in the process.

Who are the ‘five families’, really?

It is worth outlining at the top, the key known unknowns about the “five families” — that is their sizes separately, and size together. 

Mark Francois, as I have already stated, has insisted that where he leads, 100 MPs follow. But this figure appears to be based on “vibes” more than anything else. 

It certainly makes sense — as far as the ERG chairman’s political purposes go — for Francois to refuse to over-scrutinise the “five families” numerical make up, publicly at least. For that 100-MP figure succeeds in conjuring the image of an amassing rebellion on Rishi Sunak’s right flank; it also neatly mirrors the standing of the 106-MP strong One Nation group, Francois’ foremost factional antagonists. It suggests Sunak is being pulled in two directions with equal factional force. 

However, fortunately for Francois, there is no obvious way of testing this “100 MP” claim — membership lists aren’t available for a series of these groupings and supporter groupings are likely to be dynamic. 

More crucial still, it is easy to make a category mistake when treating “support” for an intra-party faction. In short, is a supporter/faction member an MP who, (a), signs a letter written by the grouping; (b), attends a founding meeting; (c), retweets a caucus’ official statement on X (formerly Twitter); or, (d) some combination of the above? Do we, then, have to differentiate between “supporters” and “members”?

Plainly, factionalism is not an exact science — and certainly not when it comes to this Conservative Party. 

Take, for instance, this illustrative snippet from Tom Hunt (who I judge to be outwardly involved with four/five of the “five families”). At the founding of the New Conservatives in May, he confused reporters by declaring that there were a “wide group of MPs who are supportive of our work” — but, crucially, they were not listed as specifically endorsing the policies then-presented. 

Here flows another point: because Hunt is not nearly the only Conservative MP who is splitting his eggs into different factional baskets. Sir Simon Clarke, as far as I can tell, is supportive/a member of all five. And, alongside factotums Hunt and Clarke, there is also Sir John Hayes — who serves both as chairman of the Common Sense Group and president of the New Conservatives. 

Still, spreading oneself thin across the Conservative factional spectrum does not require the same ritual acts of ideological apostasy — that, say, a Labour MP would have to swallow if they were simultaneously signed up to the Socialist Campaign Group and some Labour Together parliamentary offering.

For instance, when viewed together, very little splits the New Conservatives and the Common Sense Group ideologically. The same tried and tired culture war tropes underpin both groupings’ platforms — of course, they jointly majored on them at the National Conservative conference back in May. 

The ostensible distinction, cited by members at the New Conservatives’ founding, is that the grouping group is comprised of MPs elected since the 2016 EU referendum — giving it a distinct geographical (Red Wall-centric) and temporal tilt (post-2017 election). The insinuation is that the grouping offers much-needed institutional protection to this new guard of Conservative MPs — defined deliberately in opposition to “old” one nation grandees. But this purported founding principle does not account for the presidency of Sir John Hayes, an MP since 1997; or the membership of Chris Green, an MP since 2015 and reportedly a New Conservative. 

What is more, before the establishment of the New Conservatives, the Northern Research Group (NRG) was set up after the 2019 election to champion red wall MPs’ interests — again, with a largely right-wing tilt. It was founded by Sir Jake Berry, who served in the cabinets of both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. But it is now chaired by John Stevenson MP.

Sir Jake also happens to be a leading light in the Conservative Growth Group, a Trussite cabal, alongside Sir Jacob Rees Mogg, Dame Priti Patel, Sir Simon Clarke and Ranil Jayawardena. The grouping is said to have the support of 60 MPs, although a full list is once more lacking.

Finally, we have the European Research Group, which — as I wrote earlier this week — is the de facto leader of the “five families”. This is likely because of its long-established position within the parliamentary party; it was set up in 1993 and, of course, featured centrally in the Brexit debates from 2016-2019. Because of its pedigree, there appears to be less crossover than with the newer groupings; but Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Suella Braverman, who are associated with the other families, are both former chairs. 

But here’s the crucial point: such crossover MPs notwithstanding, it strains credulity significantly to treat these caucuses’ individual memberships as coming together to form one overriding “five family” whole. 

This was plain to see after a mere 29 Conservatives abstained on Tuesday, a development which clearly exposed the “five families” lack of unity. More than this, several high-profile MPs linked with the “five families” publicly backed Sunak’s legislation, such as John Stevenson, NRG chair who declared ahead of the vote that Sunak’s proposed legislation would be “overwhelmingly” supported by northern MPs.

This brings us to another important point: because if you skim the top of the caucuses that make up the “five families” and zoom in on the most outspoken advocates from each, you are presented with the prime minister’s essential “awkward squad”. 

You will find before you individuals such as Danny Kruger, Sir Simon Clarke, Miriam Cates, Sir John Hayes, Sir Jake Berry and Mark Francois. These named MPs all abstained on Tuesday and have been conspicuous in the aftermath of the vote in looking ahead to a “tightening up” amendment. 

When we talk about the “five families”, therefore, as some unity grouping, it is really these individuals and a constellation of allies that we are talking about. Indeed, add to this equation recent government flotsam and jetsam, respectively Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman, as well as some aye-voters on Tuesday, such as Rees-Mogg, and the anti-Sunak, the Rwanda maximalist cabal grows somewhat larger. 

In this way, the “five families” moniker — while derided by many — helps us demarcate those MPs who see factionalism as an end in itself in opposition to other figures on the Conservative right (like Rishi Sunak and much of his government). This is a pertinent analytical distinction, and one which is too frequently overlooked. 

Thus, from here, we can say the “five families” vs. Rishi Sunak dynamic — as it has been styled in the media and across SW1 in recent weeks, concealed rather a lot more than it reveals. 

In fact, it is worth relating is that the manifold difficulties Rishi Sunak will face in the New Year will not flow from his dynamic with the “five families”. But, rather, as a result of clashes at committee stage between Rwanda minimalists (One Nation MPs) and Rwanda maximalists (the Sunak awkward squad). Sunak will be left as a mere spectator, desperately trying to locate a consensus where none exists. 

Indeed, senior One Nation MPs Matt Warman, Damian Green and Robert Buckland have all urged the prime minister to reject the representations from his right flank. They will hope that the “five families’” misfire on Tuesday will be interpreted in No 10 as illustrative of the weakness of Sunak’s “awkward squad’” relative to the one nation clique. 

Furthermore, Sir Robert Buckland, a member of the One Nation group, is reported to be considering tabling an amendment of his own in January to ensure that the proposed legislation is compatible with the European convention on human rights. “It could get support from across the house, unlike amendments that may be tabled by the right”, Buckland told The Guardian. 

This amendment may prove far more tricky to Sunak than anything emanating from the right. This will certainly be the case if it is backed by a large section of the One Nation grouping, as well as — tacitly — influential moderate cabinet members (such as Alex Chalk and Victoria Prentis) and perhaps some pragmatic opposition MPs looking to deepen the Conservative Party’s discontent.

“How will Francois respond?”, I hear you ask. One assumes he will at some point stand in front of a camera, flanked by Kruger, Cates and Hayes, in an attempt to will his power into existence. It won’t work. Just ask Rishi Sunak — his party-management strategy appears to run according to similar principles.

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

A doctor’s consulting room is a special place, a space where we can share our most private thoughts and concerns. When we go to a hospital, we reveal ourselves so that we can get help. We trust our doctors. And doctors take a solemn pledge to uphold that trust.

It’s a principle as old as medicine itself, enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath as a promise to keep anything heard “in the course of my practice… sacred and secret within my own breast”. But it’s a principle increasingly at risk in the modern world.

Healthcare in the 21st century is spread across surgeries, hospitals and clinics. And the NHS is putting systems in place to send medical information at the click of a button, so that doctors can have that information at their fingertips wherever they are.

But data that can be sent electronically is difficult to control – a problem health professionals know all too well, after hundreds of drug companies, private providers and universities were found to have breached data sharing agreements.

In this networked world, once information is released it’s impossible to get it back in the bottle. In the wrong hands, medical records are like dynamite.

So when the NHS starts to use new technology to share our health records, it has to be done right. It has to be done with our consent.

Sadly, the current system is a mess. NHS England uses confidential records in two ways: for individual treatment, and for research and planning. Patients can stop their data being used for research and planning through the National Data Opt-out. But it’s not clear what this opt-out does in practice, or even what the NHS actually means by the phrase “research and planning”.

Good Law Project is working with data experts to get to the bottom of this and work out exactly how the NHS deals with data privacy requests. We’re working with patients to find out if the NHS is acting in accordance with the law and preparing legal challenges in areas where we believe it’s not.

We think the National Data Opt-Out doesn’t comply with data protection law. Article 21 of the GDPR, known as the “right to object”, provides a vital safeguard so that anyone can stop their personal information being used in ways they oppose.

Some of the data held by the NHS has been “de-identified”, a process which is supposed to make it impossible to connect the data with individuals. But conflicting statements from NHS England have raised doubts over whether the right to object under GDPR legislation applies to de-identified data. And the NHS has so far failed to reveal the steps it has taken to make sure this data is properly anonymised.

This isn’t the first time the NHS has tried to modernise its data systems. The National Programme for IT launched in 2002 with an initial cost of £6.2 billion, but was mired in concerns over patient records and dismantled in 2011. The care.data scheme launched two years later, but foundered over similar problems and was scrapped in 2016 at a cost of £10 billion.

Instead of getting its house in order, the NHS has given a £330 million contract to the US spy-tech company Palantir, owned by a Trump-supporting billionaire who thinks the NHS “makes people sick”.

NHS England says Palantir’s Federated Data Platform will join up the information held by different trusts, improving treatment, reducing waiting times and supporting both research and planning across the healthcare system. But it’s unclear what rights patients will have to determine how their data will be used.

To have confidence in the new platform, patients need to know where they stand. We want to make sure the National Data Opt-Out is fit for purpose. We want to make sure we can all trust the system that handles our medical records as much as we trust the doctors we speak to in the privacy of the consulting room.

Source

The decision to not to appoint a new dedicated minister of state for disabled people has been criticised by rights campaigners. 

The move had been left vacant after Rishi Sunak’s mini reshuffle last week, which saw the previous minister for disabled people, Tom Pursglove, appointed minister for legal migration. 

The mini reshuffle came after Robert Jenrick’s resignation as immigration minister. Downing Street subsequently decided to split Jenrick’s old post in two, creating a new legal migration minister and illegal migration minister in the process. 

Tom Pursglove was appointed legal migration minister, with the position of illegal migration minister given to Michael Tomlinson. 

Amid criticism that the government was still yet to the fill the post of minister for disabled people criticised this week, Mims Davies was appointed to the post yesterday.

However, she remains a parliamentary undersecretary of state rather than becoming a minister of state — an apparent downgrade of the post.

Davies wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in the wake of her appointment: “Honoured to confirm my appointment as the representative for disabled people in government. I’ll work as hard as I can to ensure disabled people’s voices are heard loud and clear. …

“I’ll continue to champion opportunities, progression [and] life chances with my new portfolio [and] look forward to working with the sector [and] delivering for them. I’ll have a continued focus on social mobility-both reflecting the voice [and] needs of young people in DWP & all across [government]”.

Disability groups had previously voiced concerns over how long the minister for disabled people role might be left vacant.

Disability charity Sense said the job of minister for disabled people is “a vital role in Government to ensure disabled people’s interests are represented” and insisted it should not be taken on by someone who is “already juggling other responsibilities”.

Scope’s director of strategy, James Taylor, described the move as “an appalling and retrograde move by the Government”.

Reacting to the appointment of Mims Davies as a parliamentary undersecretary of state, Vicky Foxcroft, the Labour MP and shadow minister for disabled people, said it was “outrageous it took the government so long to finally agree to appoint a minister for disabled people”.

She said: “When they finally do, they have demoted the role to parliamentary undersecretary of state and the role was previously minister of state. Disabled people deserve better than this.”

Scope’s James Taylor said: “Disabled people have been waiting a week for an announcement on who will have responsibility for disability in government. And now we’re seeing a downgrading of the role.

“We’d urge the government to reinstate the dedicated minister of state position, to reflect the need for the UK’s 16 million disabled people to be treated as a priority.

“We need full-time leadership of disability strategy in government, to make sure policy doesn’t leave disabled people disadvantaged.” 

However, a No 10 spokesperson denied this week that the role was being downgraded.

“It’s not right. We will have a minister for disabled people who will lead on that important work”, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said. 

Pressed on the fact that the minister will not be dedicated solely to disability issues, he said: “What you will continue to see is a Government showing strong support for disabled people and for disabled issues.”

Source

Lord Cameron, the foreign secretary, stands accused of a “cover up” over his business interests which were disclosed yesterday.

Transparency documents showed that the cabinet minister holds his financial interests in a so-called blind trust, which separates Lord Cameron from key financial knowledge of their assets.

He is listed as in a “Blind trust / blind management arrangement” as well as the “prospective beneficiary of a family trust with no oversight”.

Following the release of the documents, Lord Cameron has been urged to share more details “if he has nothing to hide”.

It is stated that “On appointment [to the Foreign Office on 13 November, Lord Cameron] resigned from all previous remunerated roles and a number of unremunerated roles”.

In total there were five paid and unpaid roles judged “relevant” for publication by independent adviser Sir Laurie Magnus.

In full, these were: 

• Speaker, Washington Speakers Bureau
• Visiting Professor, New York University, Abu Dhabi
• Co-Chairman, Council on State Fragility; previously Chairman, LSE-Oxford Commission on State Fragility, Growth and Development
• Board Member, ONE Campaign
• Co-Chairman, Pew Bertarelli Ocean Ambassadors

Reacting to the transparency release, Wendy Chamberlain, chief whip for the Lib Dems, said: “This is yet another Conservative cover-up. The public deserves to know the full list of Cameron’s clients and any potential conflict of interest.”

She added: “The full list of David Cameron’s financial interests when he took the role needs to be published immediately. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.”

Steve Goodrich of Transparency International UK said the latest declaration was supposed to show there were no conflicts of interests. “Yet how are we to know whether this is the case when it’s hidden in a trust arrangement?”

Luke de Pulford, the executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said Lord Cameron should “come clean”. 

The campaigner added that the latest data release “falls way short of the minimum standards of transparency the people of Britain are entitled to expect”.

“If Cameron has received money to lobby on behalf of foreign states, he must be open about it. This is starting to look like a cover-up, and I’d be surprised if we didn’t see formal complaints to the authorities.”

Source

Twelve years ago, I received a shock cancer diagnosis. I was one of the 17,000 people diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer each year across the UK. Gruelling surgeries followed, only for the cancer to return two years later and although it might not sound like it, I was one of the lucky ones. I have been cancer free for a long time, almost ten years. A milestone that felt unattainable as a teen following diagnosis.

Now, as an MP, I am running the VAT Burn campaign – calling on the UK government to remove VAT from sunscreen. Let me explain why.

We must do this because far too many families endure much worse than I did. Over 2,300 lives are cut short by melanoma in the UK each year. That figure, like the number being diagnosed, is increasing dramatically and has more than doubled since the early 1990s. Behind each number is a father, mother, son, or daughter, a family in despair and facing weeks, months, and years of anxiety. The human cost of melanoma is far too high. So, too, is the increasing financial burden on our NHS.

I paint a bleak picture, but unlike most cancers, melanoma is almost entirely preventable. Nearly 90 percent of cases could be avoided by staying safe in the sun, including wearing sunscreen. This gives us hope.

These are thousands of lives that could be saved by a simple behaviour change. It sounds easy – we just need to encourage more people to regularly wear sunscreen. To do that, we first need to understand why people in the UK don’t wear sunscreen. Is it because people don’t see a need due to the dreich weather? Is it because many people in the UK want a bit of colour added to their fairer skin? Or perhaps there are other reasons.

Leading skin cancer charity, Melanoma Focus, conducted research to find out. They discovered that the cost of sunscreen is a major barrier, with 67 percent of people saying they would wear it more if sunscreen was 20 percent cheaper.

So, you see why I launched the VAT Burn campaign. As well as calling for VAT to be removed from sunscreen, I want to see a national awareness campaign to encourage people to stay safe in the sun. These are clear, tangible, and simple actions we must take to save countless lives.

Cancer charities were quick to back the campaign, and our recent letter to the Prime Minister received significant support from medical professionals, melanoma patients and survivors, and MPs from every major UK political party. We all believe action must be taken now, but sadly our view has not been shared by the UK government.

The same tired excuses are trotted out by Whitehall every time I raise the issue in the Commons. Ministers claim sunscreen is already available on prescription for people with specific medical conditions, and wilfully ignore the fact this provision is extremely limited and does not even include melanoma patients. It’s not there as the preventative it’s supposed to be.

As lives hang in the balance, ministers dither over technicalities. Although, there is one objection from the Treasury that is worth giving more serious consideration. That is the argument there is no way to ensure VAT cuts result in a reduced price for consumers, with the risk retailers swallow the additional profits. However, there are two flaws to this reasoning.

First, if VAT reductions are not passed on to consumers, why did the UK government remove VAT from sanitary products and why was that policy extended in the recent Autumn Statement to include reusable period pants? If period products warranted action to make them more affordable, why does the same logic not apply to melanoma prevention? Is slashing thousands of avoidable cancer deaths not sufficient rationale?

Second, while there is a mixed picture about the success of removing sales taxes from specific products in Europe, there are three examples from further afield that illustrate how we could remove VAT from sunscreen and, as a result, bring down the cost for consumers. In Australia, Malaysia, and India, each government accompanied the removal of sales taxes with anti-profiteering measures.

This leaves us with three clear components to overcome the financial barriers to regular sunscreen use. First, the UK government must introduce legislation to zero rate any product primarily marketed for sun protection of SPF 30 and above. These are essential healthcare items, not luxury goods as the VAT implies. Second, new powers must be given to a body like the Competition and Markets Authority to guarantee retailers forward savings to consumers through hefty penalties if needed. And third, the UK government must launch a public awareness campaign, like the successful Australian ‘Slip, Slop, Slap’, so people understand how to reduce the risks associated with sun exposure.

The VAT Burn campaign will continue pressuring the UK government, gathering supporters, and raising awareness. But the power to save lives lies in ministers’ hands.

I cannot begin to imagine the grief and anger of losing a parent, son, or daughter when it could have been avoided – when the government could have made a simple, relatively inexpensive, policy change.

The VAT Burn campaign has shown there is a need. It has shown there is a way. Now we need to see a bit of willingness from UK ministers. Lives literally depend on it.

Source

The prime minister has denied he is “tetchy” in a recent interview, saying of the criticism: “I don’t understand that”.  

The criticism emerged in the wake of his diplomatic spat with the Greek prime minister over the Elgin Marbles, which saw Rishi Sunak call off a meeting at the eleventh hour over his Greek counterpart’s comments. 

Speaking to The Spectator magazine, the prime minister said there was “nothing tetchy” about him.

Pointing to the Conservative leadership election in the summer of 2022, which he lost to Liz Truss, he said: “That wasn’t an easy time for me, I was taking a lot of criticism and flak. But I just fought hard for what I believed in – every day, seven days a week for six weeks. 

“I’m the same person now, I am fighting for the things I believe in. There’s nothing tetchy. But I am passionate. When things are not working the way I want them to work, of course I’m going to be frustrated”.

It comes as the prime minister has been given his lowest ever net favourability score of minus 49, a drop of ten points from late November.

New polling from YouGov shows 70 per cent of Britons have an unfavourable view of the PM, with just 21 per cent having a favourable view.

Sunak is on his lowest ever net favourability score of -49 — a 10-point drop from late November.

The new figures mean Sunak’s overall net favourability score is comparable with Boris Johnson’s during his final months in office.

Johnson’s net favourability score was -46 immediately after he resigned. However, Sunak is beating Liz Truss on this measure, her score dropped to minus 70 in her final days in office.

Elsewhere in his Spectator interview, Sunak said critics focusing on the rising tax burden rather than recent tax cuts are taking a “glass-half-empty” approach. 

The prime minister told The Spectator: “That’s a really glass-half-empty way to look at it. You’ve got to differentiate.

“Look, why is the tax burden as high as it is? It’s because we had a once-in-a-century pandemic and we had a war in Ukraine, both of which necessitated an enormous response from the Government.

“I think it’s completely fine to have said the Government should not have responded to help everyone with energy bills, the Government should not have responded during Covid… If one person had consistently said that throughout, totally fine.

“[But] nobody did, not a single person said that you shouldn’t have done all those things. I was very clear at the time, we should do those things but let’s be clear that that will have consequences and we will have to pay that money back and yes, like a Thatcherite and actually just a good Conservative, if you borrow money it does have to be paid back.

“The choice at the next election is between me and Keir Starmer. A Labour party that wants to borrow £28 billion a year is not going to control welfare or public spending. A Conservative party is going to do those things – and cut your taxes instead.”

Source