Tag: United Kingdom

A key question that flowed from the Supreme Court ruling on the government’s flagship deportation plan last week was this: will any asylum seekers make it to Rwanda by the time of the next election, which must be held by January 2025?

Animating this question is a future dilemma for Rishi Sunak — that, having overseen the Rwanda scheme for as many as two years by the next election, Keir Starmer will weaponise the scenario as proof of his failure to “stop the boats”. The media would be interested, too, in why quantifiably zero success has flowed from the government’s foremost “stop the boats” strategy.

And lo, the Conservative parliamentary party is now forwarding schemes that could see Sunak avoid this dire scenario. But ECHR attacks and Suella Braverman’s “tests” aside, one intriguing idea doing the rounds is that the prime minister should embrace this political predicament and, contrary to his cautious instincts, turn it into the glue that cements a snap election campaign together.

In this way, an ally of Braverman briefed the Daily Mail  before the Supreme Court ruled last week: “If the judges reject our plan, then at that point we have to go to the country. … We have to put our case directly to the people”.

Former cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke has since further stoked such speculation: “We should be crystal clear: half measures won’t work”, he said. “We need the legislation that is brought forward to be truly effective, and if the Lords block it — let’s take it to the country”.

Clarke is far from a loyal supporter of the prime minister — but a possible hint as to Sunak’s view on a “stop the boats election” could be found in a media appearance Friday. Asked whether he would trigger a national poll if the Rwanda plan continues to be thwarted, Sunak declared: “Whether it’s the House of Lords or the Labour Party standing in our way I will take them on because I want to get this thing done and I want to stop the boats”. The answer, perhaps tellingly, seemed to be setting up a narrative around which an “stop the boats” election strategy could cohere.

But what would such hypothetical hinderers be mustering their powers to block — what, in short, is Sunak’s Rwanda “Plan B”? The prime minister has signalled a dual-pronged approach following his Supreme Court snubbing last week; in a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Sunak revealed his government would pursue a revised treaty with Rwanda to replace the current Memorandum of Understanding and address the concerns identified by the Supreme Court. And, on top of this, the government now plans to pass emergency legislation to decree to the courts that Rwanda is “safe” for all relevant purposes.

As things stand, the prime minister has yet to lay out the details of his emergency primary legislation. But the act of declaring Rwanda “safe” — any further attempts to override legislation through a “notwithstanding clause”, notwithstanding — would be hotly contested among parliamentarians, first in the commons and, second and more significantly, in the House of Lords. 

With likely less than a year to an election, we have now entered the final session of parliament — it means the Lords is no longer merely a revising or delaying chamber. Rather, given peers can block legislation for up to a year under the terms of the Parliament Act 1949, a majority in House of Lords now has an effective veto on government legislation. The mere “ping pong” that accosted the Illegal Migration Act, as hostile amendments were summarily presented and disagreed with, would be nothing compared to the parliamentary impasse on any forthcoming Rwanda Is Actually Safe Bill.

And if the legislation does eventually pass, the government would likely face further legal challenges, both on the proposed Treaty and Sunak’s primary legislation.

Then, if Sunak’s “Plan B” progresses pass this point, there is the outstanding question of whether the legislation and Treaty actually address the concerns the Supreme Court expressed last Wednesday. 

In the end, what seems fundamentally clear is that Sunak’s updated Rwanda approach will continue to be contested — legally, politically and morally — all the way up to a general election. 

But at some point during the above-described process, there will be the option for the prime minister to call off the lawyers and reach for the lectern. An address to the nation, after months of parliamentary and legal wrangling, would see the PM collect the Rwanda Plan’s acquired antagonists into one amorphous coalition. “Who runs Britain?”, the prime minister would ask as he identifies his opponents, by name or by insinuation, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lords, “lefty lawyers”, the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, charities, campaign groups, etc.

“Get Rwanda done”, he would then bellow, lectern bruised from his enthusiastic thumping. An election would be called, some months before the expectation of his opponents.

Of course, the prima facie case for a “small boats” campaign is strengthened by the fact that this strategy template has, seemingly, succeeded before. Just four years ago, Boris Johnson’s focus on a “get Brexit done” pitch secured for him (alongside a constellation of other Corbyn-connected factors) an 80-seat majority. 

Thus, a “small boats election” has for some time been sold as “Brexit part II” or “Brexit 2.0” by its backers in SW1. While there is no legal connection between such a strategy and the 2016 referendum campaign to leave the EU, legal and political realities need not move as one. The Conservative Party will once again implore voters to “take back control”. 

In fact, an illegal migration showdown with Labour — embracing British politics’ most comprehensible dividing line (pro-Rwanda versus anti-Rwanda) — could serve to reanimate the ghosts of 2019. Labour, alongside its ermine-clad allies and Sir Keir’s lefty lawyer pals (as the Conservative caricature contends), would once more be branded frustraters of the “will of the people”. 

Of course, in taking such a trenchant line, Rishi Sunak would be forced to conscience a few difficult realities. In such a campaign, public discourse would coarsen and anti-migrant rhetoric, spotlighted by an election-readied media, would undoubtedly heighten. On top of this, there’s the quasi-constitutional consideration that single-issue elections do not stable governance make: a pattern that has played out over the preceding four years as the salience of a once-binding issue has inevitably softened. 

But post-election scenarios are unlikely to be much contemplated in No 10 right now; and other possible pitfalls of a “small boats election” are rather more tangible. 

Firstly, there is the obvious question of whether Rishi Sunak is the right man to helm a “small boats”-focussed election campaign. Boris Johnson was able to make a “get Brexit done” campaign work because of his close association with and patronage of the “Leave” cause in 2016. But Sunak inherited the Rwanda deportation plan from Johnson and then-home secretary Priti Patel in October last year — and, since then, he has faced perennial criticism within his own party that he isn’t a true believer in the “project”. A true believer, the Conservative right consistently contends, would embrace a battle with the ECtHR. 

But having taken up the “small boats”-stopping cause enthusiastically as PM, not least of all with his patronage of the Illegal Migration Act (which Braverman appears to have disowned in recent days), Rwanda could, I think, be sold as core to the Sunakian creed to the electorate at large. 

In this way, a more significant problem for Sunak would be that — in so directly playing into the framing of his opponents with a “small boats election” — he opens himself up to criticism through the campaign and, in turn, prepares the ground for a revival of Reform UK. 

In the 2019 election, the then-Brexit Party stood aside in the constituencies the Conservative Party won in 2017, another key factor behind Johnson’s 80-seat majority. But, next time around, the current Party leader Richard Tice has vowed to defeat the Conservatives up and down the country.

This is significant because a “small boats election” strategy would primarily be aimed at the group of voters who backed Johnson in 2019, but who have since become “don’t knows”. However this framing, crucially, ignores the Faragist factor. Reform UK could become the natural receptacle for such voters’ discontents, given they — unlike Labour — can criticise the PM for not being hardline enough.

What is more: in 2019 Johnson was able to corral Brexit-supporting sentiment behind him because he convinced voters that he, and he alone, could break the parliamentary deadlock. But the deadlock ahead of a “small boats election” would primarily be judicial, not parliamentary; it means Sunak will have to tie voters’ discontent directed at judges — and potentially at the Lords — to action at the ballot box. On this, one question will follow him throughout the campaign: “You already have a majority, what could you do after an election that your party could not achieve before?”.

There are other problems, too; because although Conservative strategists might want to construct their entire campaign around one subject, the British people will undoubtedly have other concerns. Indeed, while Sunak will try to point to the South Coast and consequently to his Rwanda plan, the vast majority of the Conservatives’ competitor parties will reject that framing altogether.

In light of this analysis, do we think Rishi Sunak has the political prowess to keep the spotlight fixated firmly on his pitch during an election campaign? Doing so would involve serious feats of political messaging given “asylum seekers and crossing the channels” figures just fourth when voters are asked to name the most important issues facing the country today, according to More in Common polling.

Worse still for the Conservatives, among “Loyal National” voters (socially conservative types who switched from Labour to the Conservative in 2017/2019), only 32 per cent highlight “asylum seekers and crossing the channels” as a key issue. This features third — behind the NHS (44 per cent) and the cost of living (74 per cent). 

So this data shows that the “Red Wall” would only be somewhat animated by a swinging “small boats election”. It begs the question: what will the other, larger half of the Conservatives electoral coalition in the “Blue Wall” make of the ploy?

Ultimately, that strategists are said to be contemplating a “small boats election” is probably itself highly revealing of Sunak’s lack of options politically. Such a strategy would see Sunak seize the moment, sure up elements of his party and, perhaps, stem an immediate sense of drift. But in the process he would invite upon himself a whole host of antagonistic forces — both party-political and electoral. 

Thus, Sunak could in theory fight an early “small boats election” — but there is no reason to think it would prove more effective than any other strategy debuted, say, in January 2025. 

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

Source

David Lammy has accused world leaders of being “content with delusions of wishful thinking” when it comes to the Middles East and the failure to work for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

The shadow foreign secretary’s comments came ahead of a visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, the first from Keir Starmer’s frontbench to do so since Hamas’ 7 October attack.

Lammy is set to meet with politicians such as Israeli president Isaac Herzog as he calls for a “longer pause” to the conflict to alleviate the “shocking” humanitarian emergency in Gaza.

Lammy will also meet with the Palestinian Authority’s deputy foreign minister Amal Jadou in the West Bank.

The shadow foreign secretary also visits with a message for Labour’s Gaza rebels, who backed a ceasefire in the conflict last week in opposition to the Party’s official position. 

In total, 56 Labour MPs backed an SNP amendment to the King’s Speech on Wednesday night calling for “all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire” in Gaza.

10 frontbench resignations, including former shadow Home Office minister Jess Phillips, followed. 

Dozens of Labour MPs break rank to defy Keir Starmer over vote for ceasefire in Gaza

Rejecting calls for a ceasefire, Lammy has said peace “won’t happen simply by affirming that we want it to happen”.

He added: “Hard diplomacy is required with all governments in the region to deliver a longer pause immediately, to respond to the shocking humanitarian emergency in Gaza, secure the release of hostages so cruelly taken by Hamas, and as a necessary step to an enduring cessation of violence.”

It comes as hundreds of pro-Palestine protesters gathered outside the Labour leader’s office in north London on Saturday demanding a ceasefire.

Chants of “Keir Starmer’s a wasteman” could be heard. 

Responding, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News: “In a democracy, we elect our MPs and they make decisions. They represent their constituents but they also listen to all of the evidence. Anything that would attempt to intimidate an MP to vote in a certain way, or to put pressure on them – it is anti-democratic, in my view.”

Lammy also criticised world leaders for failing to realise the threat posed by Hamas ahead of 7 October. 

He said: “The international community, including successive Conservative governments, must learn the lessons of decades of failure to resolve this conflict. For too long our leaders have been content with the delusions of wishful thinking when it comes to peace in the Middle East”.

He added: “There has been a failure to deliver the two-state solution that is necessary to deliver long-term peace, security and independence to both Israel and Palestine.”

Source

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt will not “sacrifice the principles of sound money” amid calls for tax cuts, when he delivers the Autumn Statement on Wednesday.

Treasury minister Gareth Davies said this morning that while “ideally” the government would bring the tax burden down overall, it will not do so “at the expense of sound money”.

The exchequer secretary to the Treasury told Times Radio the government had “always been clear we want to get the overall tax burden down”.

But, he added: “We are not going to sacrifice the principles of sound money. Like I have said, we have managed to do great things on inflation. We need to keep going with that.”

He said: “We have always been clear we want to get the overall tax burden down but that is not going to be at the expense of sound money.

“For what it’s worth, we actually have a lower tax burden than Germany and France for example. … It is something that is not the highest in the world by any means”.

The comments come after Hunt yesterday insisted that the tax burden had to be lowered to get the British economy “fizzing”. 

However, the chancellor also played down the scale of potential tax cuts to come on Wednesday. 

“Rome wasn’t built in a day”, he said.

Hunt said on Sunday that he wanted to cut taxes to “motivate people to work” but would not “jeopardise” the fight against inflation.

Pressed on Times Radio as to whether income tax could be eased, he stressed the need to act “in a responsible way”.

Prime minister Rishi Sunak will deliver a speech in north London today, as he sets out plans to bolster economic growth.

The speech was reportedly originally set for last week, but was delayed following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Rwanda deportations plan. 

The prime minister will use the speech to argue that the economy is on the right track after last week’s news on inflation.

On Wednesday last week it was announced that the UK’s consumer prices index (CPI) dropped to 4.6 per cent in October, down from 6.7 per cent in September. 

CPI was 10.7 per cent when Sunak vowed to half inflation in January — meaning the prime minister had to reduce the rate of price rises to 5.3 per cent to achieve the first of his five pledges.

Rishi Sunak declares victory on inflation as rate falls to lowest in two years

Source

Britain’s mental health is getting worse. Rates of mental health difficulty among children and young people have risen especially quickly since the start of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. As a result, more and more people are seeking help for their mental health. Even with recent growth in NHS mental health services, care is being rationed because the system is overwhelmed. We have to turn this around.

Recent funding announcements from the government show that early intervention in youth mental health is becoming more of a priority. Labour have also focused recent announcements at their annual conference on youth mental health, including early support hubs in every community.

To truly get ahead of the problem, we need election manifestos to take a more preventative approach. Our mental health is shaped by the world around us. The building blocks of health – such as a secure home, enough money to live on, and clean air – are rarely part of the conversation but are a significant part of the problem.

What does this mean in practice? Take an issue like housing — insecure and overcrowded housing is directly associated with stress and anxiety. Housing costs make up around 20% of our incomes (34% for the lowest income renters), and over a fifth of children live in damp homes. And lack of action on these issues is causing lives to be cut short.

The life expectancy of a person with a severe mental illness diagnosis is about 20 years shorter than someone without a diagnosis and the gap is getting bigger. These kinds of health disparities have widened in recent years as deprivation and inequality have worsened.

Addressing poverty and inequality are big parts of the solution. This is never more important than at the start of life. Child deprivation is the most important alterable determinant of lifetime mental health — what happens during our early stages of development matters to us for as long as we live. The stress of poor housing and homelessness cause lasting harm to children’s mental health; yet one child in five lives in a damp home.

You can imagine how these issues could lead to poor mental health amongst children and adults, and the evidence is clear. Children from the most deprived 20% of households are four times as likely to have serious mental health difficulties by the age of 11 as those from the wealthiest 20%.

A comprehensive cross-government mental health plan could tackle the causes of distress to protect people’s mental health throughout life. It could boost affordable housing and heating. It could tackle racism and racial injustice. And it could support schools and workplaces to be more mentally healthy.

The reductions in poverty, inequality, and housing insecurity through affordable, secure rents, and lower energy bills would certainly reduce the levels of stress and anxiety that we see prevalent in deprived areas across the UK.

Both parties have committed to a 10-year cross-government plan, but the Government has had almost two years since this was promised, while we are yet to see the detail of the Labour approach.

Solutions like building more energy efficient social homes would have a significant impact.  A 10-year Affordable Homes Programme of £12bn per year could deliver at least 90,000 social homes a year.

Addressing inequalities is good for everyone. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, health inequalities were estimated to cost the NHS an extra £4.8 billion a year, society around £31 billion in lost productivity, and between £20 to £32 billion a year in lost tax revenue and benefit payments.

And, research shows that more unequal societies experience higher levels of distress than more equal ones such as those in Scandinavia, New Zealand, and Japan. Reducing poverty and housing insecurity will lessen stress and anxiety for people who face the biggest risks to their mental health.

Prevention works. We’ve seen how it can reduce rates of smoking and make our roads safer, and the benefits of vaccination programmes. Now we can do the same for the nation’s mental health.

The building blocks of health are being recognised more and more – Centre for Mental Health is a member of Health Equals, joining 26 think tanks, businesses, and charities in calling for Britain to get well soon by recognising the importance of the building blocks of health.

We are seeing more awareness but what we need are solid commitments from policymakers to take action. We call on the Government to act now and on all political parties at the next General Election to commit to a long-term plan to create better mental health for all. A mentally healthier nation is possible, and it will benefit every one of us.

Source

In the face of extreme violence and a mounting death toll in Gaza, Western leaders seem to have remembered their commitment to a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. But is it too late and are they guilty of negligence and failure?

In December 2022, the prime minister Rishi Sunak pledged to “oppose any actions which stand to harm the peace process and the two-state solution”. He was not the first political leader to do so.

It is a familiar refrain when it comes to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory — albeit  one touted less frequently in recent years.

Indeed, despite the UK’s clear position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace — not to mention the impact they have on Palestinian poverty — it is hard to discern any meaningful challenge.

Routine statements are offered in response to new construction, with warnings of escalating tension and that such action undermines efforts to achieve a two-state solution. But few such efforts are made, and Israel continues to build without consequence.

International inaction toward Israel’s unilateral transformation of the West Bank and its deepening occupation does not just impact negatively on Palestinians. It demonstrates that Israel has never been seriously challenged for illegal activity. Western leaders have contented themselves with opposing formal annexation of territory and ignoring day-to-day actions by the Israeli government which violate Palestinian rights.

Look no further than the King’s speech. The UK Government included the Economic Activity of Public Bodies Bill which effectively bans public institutions from boycotting goods from illegal settlements. The bill has been promoted to ensure local councils and other bodies do not take action that is inconsistent with the UK government’s foreign policy. Which begs the question, what is the Government’s position on settlements?

If there’s any doubt about the positioning of the Israeli government, the statements and sentiment of some of its ministers are instructive. Take Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich. At a memorial service in Paris this year he claimed, “There are no Palestinians, because there isn’t a Palestinian people”.

In 2017, he outlined his vision of “Victory Through Settlement” and that “any solution must be based on cutting off the ambition to realize the Arab national hope between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.” In February, he was given broad authority over civilian issues in the West Bank, enabling him to increase settlement construction and thwart Palestinian development. Western silence has been deafening.

Last week, Ultranationalist MK and radical settlement activist, Tzvi Succot, was appointed to serve as the chairman of the Knesset Subcommittee for Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Following his appointment, he promised “to develop the settlements as much as possible.” In 2012, he was issued with a restraining order for “covert and violent activity against Palestinians” by the Israeli security service, Shin Bet.

For evidence, look at the occupied West Bank. Since October 7, more than 1,500 people have been forced off their land and 900 buildings destroyed. Not only that, but reports Israel is also lobbying international leaders to pressure Egypt into accepting Palestinian refugees is increasing fears amongst Palestinians that if they leave, they will not be able to return.

Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory fear they are facing ethnic cleansing and a second “Nakba”, meaning “catastrophe” in Arabic — fears compounded by Israeli Minister Avi Dichter referring to the current reality as “Gaza Nakba 2023”.

The lack of any meaningful reaction in the face of these developments has allowed Israel to break international law with impunity, while denying Palestinians their legitimate right to self-determination.

This instils a sense of fear amongst Palestinians that forcible transfer and ethnic cleansing are tacitly supported by some in the international community. Such negligence has indeed contributed to failure.

If leaders believe the two-state solution is the answer, then they need to act accordingly. That process must start with an immediate ceasefire. Otherwise, the violence of extremism in both societies will only intensify. With more than 11,000 killed in Gaza and 1,200 in Israel since October 7, the onus is on world leaders to demonstrate principled leadership now.

Source

It will be considered the most consequential week of Rishi Sunak’s premiership: a far-reaching cabinet reshuffle which ditched Suella Braverman and vaulted David Cameron, and a reckoning for — followed by a restatement of intent on — the government’s flagship Rwanda deportation plan. 

Not long ago, it was the Conservative Party’s annual conference that was trailed as the chrysalis chamber from which the prime minister would emerge politically energised and election-ready; the King’s Speech, the epitome of incumbency advantage in our system, was subsequently sold along the same lines. But both set-pieces were judged to have been scuppered for one reason or another — and neither event so changed the dynamics of British politics than those of the past seven days.

On this, Sunak’s most significant statement of intent came first: the elevation of David Cameron — now Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton — to the post of foreign secretary. Although the PM later insisted Cameron hosted one of “the most successful G8 summits of recent times”, it is clear he did not elevate his predecessor-but-three purely on account of his experience. (On Brexit, China and Greensill, the former PM’s worldliness could easily be reframed as baggage).

Rather, this decision was interpreted as Sunak throwing in with his moderate faction, finally embracing the vast collective of one nation MPs who backed him in consecutive leadership contests last year. Prime ministers typically seek to define themselves in opposition to a failed forebear: Theresa May eyed “burning injustices” Cameron was implied to have ignored; Boris Johnson would succeed on Brexit where May failed; Liz Truss pledged to unchain Britannia still-bonded by consecutive Conservative administrations; and Rishi Sunak, well, he rubbished 30 years of failed consensus at Conservative Party conference last month. (Cameron repaid the reproval by calling Sunak’s decision to scrap HS2’s second leg “wrong”).

By embracing Cameron, therefore, Sunak appeared to be doing a few things: (1) ending his ephemeral association with his 30-year consensus/“change” strategy; and, (2), at last, gambling on an ideological programme — vaulting an old liberal Tory bastion alongside some of his political disciples at the expense of the Conservative right. (Laura Trott, once a political adviser in Cameron’s No 10 policy unit, is now chief secretary to the Treasury. Liberal-leaning Victoria Atkins is health secretary; and Jeremy Hunt, once considered the “last Cameroon”, remains in post).

Thus, after months of feverish speculation that a political relaunch would give way to the rise of “real Rishi”, the Rishuffle signalled a genuine new departure in Sunak’s mode of governance. After a year in which doughty professionalism was prioritised at the expense of doctrinaire politics, this was Sunak rediscovering himself. The deliberately cautious, details-obsessed technocrat was being spun anew as a true political being. The mystery about what motivates Sunak seemed no longer moot: the “real Rishi”, it turned out, was in fact “Cameron 2.0”. The days of the PM pandering to populists, with no obvious electoral benefit, was over.

“Real Rishi”, of course, is a rhetorically powerful but substantively meaningless concept. For some months now it has been conjured by aides and allies of the PM at once as an excuse for poor performance and as a promise of better to come. A politician intent on honing a political pitch is less likely to look inwards, rediscovering hitherto buried principle — but outwards, repositioning as focus groups, party-politics and events demand. 

Still, the rationale behind the relaunch was plain: to explain this strategy one need only look at the Conservatives’ electoral predicament. For this appeared to be the PM reinforcing his “blue wall” party heartlands, ransacked as they have been in recent by-elections. With Cameron onside, seats subject to heightened Lib Dem-Conservative competition (the winning of which was crucial to Cameron’s 2015 majority) are reassured. Cameron’s elevation was hence a signal to the Somerton and Fromes of the UK’s electoral geography. 

What is more, amid perennial criticism from his party right that he is too managerial, too nice and not political enough, Sunak seemed to be embracing the support of his more easily satiable colleagues. Some time ago, the party right decided, incongruously, that Sunak is not one of them; so why would the PM undertake to continue to woo the intractable — individuals like Dame Andrea Jenkyns, and to a slightly lesser extent Sir Simon Clarke and Danny Kruger, who have decided Sunak an antagonistic pretender? 

The PM, therefore, was both willing his power into existence — consciously wanting to be seen as authoritative as he shifted the levers of his office — and moderating his mode of governance, by apportioning ministries among a constellation of Cameroon movers and shakers. 

There were, of course, some conciliatory sops for Sunak’s sceptics. But years before Sunak appointed Esther McVey to his cabinet as “minister for common sense” of “tsar for wokedom”, Cameron blazed the trail. “Real Rishi” really did seem to be embracing his new status as a Brexity Dave.

This, therefore, was the political context into which the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Rwanda deportations policy was received on Wednesday: the Conservative right had been dispossessed of high office, but newly invigorated with a betrayal narrative courtesy of Braverman’s sacking. 

On Monday, the New Conservatives argued that Sunak was “walking away from the coalition of voters who brought us into power with a large majority in 2019”. On Tuesday, Braverman got ahead of the ruling by accusing Sunak of having no “Plan B”. By Wednesday, plainly, party right bastions were limbering up for a factional throw-down, with the PM identified — more clearly than ever — as an antagonist. 

In fact, Lord Reed had barely exited the Supreme Court chamber before intra-party hostilities recommenced. 

Lee Anderson urged the prime minister to “Put the planes in the air. Ignore the laws and send them straight back”. Simon Clarke called the whole affair a “confidence issue”. The New Conservatives, established now as the most influential party right faction, called for Sunak to “introduce legislation to insist that… the principle of the Rwanda policy is legitimate and shall have immediate effect”. How would — how could — Sunak respond, having signalled on Monday a more moderate tilt? He had seemingly boxed himself into a Cameroon corner. 

Indeed, rather than let his intra-party opponents’ discontent harden his intent (Starmer-style), his reaction was twofold: first, he revealed he would pursue a revised treaty with Rwanda, to replace the current Memorandum of Understanding and address the concerns identified by the Supreme Court. And, second, he would pass emergency legislation to decree to the courts that Rwanda is “safe” for all relevant purposes.

Legal innovation aside, such a response is ideologically and politically striking. Because the prime minister’s language about “not [allowing] any foreign court, like the European Court of Human Rights, to block these flights” suggests he is now, once more, throwing in with his party right critics. The populistic pandering continues in earnest. 

Like the reshuffle, this was PM attempting to turn a crisis into an opportunity. At a moment when he might be considered exposed, he was seizing events by adopting a trenchant, unsparing line: once more willing his power into existence. 

But this ostensible strategic consistency is belied by the fact that both initiatives pull in diametrically opposed directions, politically, ideologically and geographically. Reductively, Cameron’s appointment faces the “blue wall” and those liberal-leaning MPs in the Conservative parliamentary party, and the Rwanda response at the “red wall” and the Leave-minded, right-wing of his party. That’s the problem: there is no overriding narrative when viewed in full. “Real Rishi” — defined deliberately on such clear lines on Monday — softens to the point of indistinction. 

It begs a few questions: was David Cameron a mere dead cat to distract journalists, thereby ensuring he could remove Suella Braverman without a day of headlines about Conservative division? Did the prime minister underestimate the scale of the reaction to the Rishuffle, and the bitter antipathy of Braverman, and therefore work to overcompensate post-Rwanda? Does the reshuffle, therefore, mean anything for the long-term political direction of the government?

In the same week, therefore, Sunak both defied his right flank and then worked to appease it. The failure to cohere a vision, supported both by policy and personnel (a clear strategic strength of Starmerism, for example), is making Sunak seem isolated in his own party and, worse, even politically incoherent.

Ultimately, we were promised the “real Rishi” after a reset period, and this week was begun by a genuine and unmistakable attempt by Sunak to remould his government. But it soon proved a false dawn, exposed by his Rwanda ruling response. After having expended so much political capital on a controversial reshuffle, who does No 10 want us to think the “real Rishi” is? That seems no clearer. 

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.

Photo by No 10 flickr.

Source

The House of Lords has had an unusually high-profile year. The upper chamber likes to conduct its business in the background with the public eye drawn more towards the dramatics in the commons. Yet the surprise elevation of David Cameron, to enable Rishi Sunak to drop the former prime minister into his cabinet as Foreign Secretary, has again thrust the second chamber to fore of public debate. 

It caps a year when the Lords — and especially the process of who gets appointed to its crimson benches — has become an object of national scrutiny. This year alone has seen police investigating Baroness Michelle Mone in connection with Covid contracts awarded by the government, followed by the controversies over Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list. 

This first saw a 29-year-old and 30-year-old awarded life-long peerages that could see them legislating, unelected, for half a century. Johnson’s resignation list then ignited a secondary controversy when former culture secretary Nadine Dorries went public with her anger at allegedly being denied a peerage after being nominated by Johnson. This is all before Liz Truss is reportedly due to add yet more peers for the upper house’s heaving benches with her own resignation honours.

These controversies have cast a spotlight on how appointments to the Lords are handed out. The impression that emerges is that the right to sit in the Lords is often traded in a tawdry manner by our political class and given out to people more because of their relationship with a prime minister than merit.

However, Lord Cameron’s elevation caught the public’s attention in a whole different manner and highlights a disconnect between how our political class and the wider public view the Lords. For many in Westminster, the idea of people being dropped into the Lords to serve in government is not a particularly surprising one. Baroness Nicky Morgan served briefly as a peer in Boris Johnson’s cabinet as culture secretary after stepping down from the commons in 2019 and Gordon Brown parachuted Peter Mandelson into the Lords in 2008 so he could sit around his cabinet table as Business Secretary. Government departments routinely have a peer as a junior minister to ensure they have a representative in the Lords.

Yet seeing a former prime minster suddenly take up one of the most powerful political offices in the country without any democratic involvement has left much of the public perplexed, partly as it is an unprecedented move in modern politics. The last time one of the great offices of state was held by a peer was when Lord Carrington served as foreign secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s first cabinet from 1979 to 1982.

Another precedent for Lord Cameron is the short-lived Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home. He renounced his hereditary peerage in 1963 to take the post as prime minister after Harold Macmillan resigned due to ill health, and only served for 363 days. Douglas-Home later became Foreign Secretary under Ted Heath between 1970-74, albeit while still serving as an MP.

The wider optics for the public are that the ennoblement of Lord Cameron is the latest in a line of controversies about the role the unelected Lords plays in our politics. What the public have seen over the last year is how the upper chamber gives prime ministers past and present extraordinary and untrammelled powers of patronage. Power that mean they can gift anyone they please a seat in the Lords, handing them a job-for-life shaping our laws, which pays £342 a day. 

The sheer size of the Lords shows how this patronage is out of control. At around 800 members, the Lords is the second largest legislative assembly in the world after China’s National People’s Congress and creates the embarrassing situation for the UK of having a parliament that is majority unelected. That is before you get to the fact that it also contains 92 all-male hereditary peers, who have a life-long seat in parliament due to birth-right.

There are few who would argue that this is a system fit for a modern democratic country. The last year has underscored the growing case for urgent reform of the Lords. It is time that the current unelected Lords was abolished and replaced with a smaller elected chamber, something Labour have already proposed. This would place our second chamber on a clear and sustainable democratic footing underpinned by the foundational principle that it is the people of this country, not politicians, who should decide who sits in parliament.

Why David Cameron is back

Source