Amid growing dissatisfaction over his handling of the Rwanda deportation policy, internal dissent and a broader perception of incompetence, the sharks are beginning to circle Rishi Sunak’s premiership, say Tim Shipman and Harry Yorke in the Sunday Times. Here’s an excerpt:
A growing number of Tory MPs believe they are already politically dead and blame Sunak for their demise. Far from uniting, the events of last week reveal a party in a state of disintegration where the leading political maxim has become “every man for himself”.
The immediate cause of the meltdown was Sunak’s handling of the Government’s legislative effort to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling that the Rwanda policy was unlawful. More generally, the uncertain handling of this and other issues has left MPs in despair about the judgment, ability, capacity and delivery of Sunak and his No. 10 team. A senior Conservative on the party payroll said: “In the last few weeks, we’ve announced a major tax cut and massive curbs to legal migration – and yet somehow people are talking about whether to get rid of the Prime Minister before the General Election.”
Robert Jenrick resigned as Immigration Minister on Wednesday after weeks trying to persuade the Prime Minister to go for the “full fat” option, which would have meant disapplying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) from asylum law.
Sunak held three lengthy meetings with Jenrick to try to persuade him not to go. The first, on the evening of Wednesday, November 29th in the Prime Minister’s Downing Street study, led to a decision on Sunday and an announcement on Monday to toughen the rules on legal migration. Sunak had previously been reluctant to respond to suggestions made by both Jenrick and Suella Braverman, the former Home Secretary who was sacked last month. …
Jenrick saw a final version of the Illegal Migration Bill on Tuesday evening and slept on it before concluding that it was not enough and that he could not act as Sunak’s “human shield” for a bill he does not believe will work. They had another hour-long conversation in Sunak’s study after Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, but Jenrick resigned at about 5pm.
Those who want a tougher line believe that Sunak has put his own future after Downing Street – his place on the international circuit – ahead of winning a general election by putting in place the toughest possible legislation to deter illegal migrants.
In one conversation, Sunak told Jenrick: “You would be willing to stand at the dispatch box and say that sometimes vital national interests override contested notions of international law. I’m not. That’s a red line for me.” In public, however, the Prime Minister is saying he is “doing everything I can” to stop the boats. Insiders claim that the objective of Sunak’s aides is “to get a handful of token flights off to Rwanda before an election” rather than actually solve the problem. …
One of Jenrick’s primary concerns is that, while the bill states that Rwanda is a safe country and disapplies the use of the Human Rights Act in a number of areas, it does not shut down the right of migrants to appeal on an individual basis.
He and others fear that those seeking to avoid removal will claim that particular characteristics – such as their political views, sexuality or health – will mean they cannot be looked after suitably in Rwanda. …
The fracture with Jenrick, once a close ally, is also seen by some MPs as proof of Sunak’s poor personnel management.
More widely, Sunak’s No. 10 team is seen as bunkered and out of touch but the ultimate judgment is against Sunak himself. “He’s a really bad politician,” said one ostensibly loyal cabinet minister. …
Into this infighting have stepped pretenders to the crown. Cabinet colleagues accuse Kemi Badenoch, the Trade Secretary, of calling another minister to say: “The ship is heading for the rocks. What are we going to do about the captain?” One cabinet minister entertaining thoughts of a leadership run said: “Kemi’s people are already offering jobs. I know that because one of my people was approached.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All too late now. If they cannot get more than a handful of migrants onto a barge outside Weymouth, then they will never get them to Rwanda.
John Curtice predicting that Reform UK will take votes from bothTory and Labour – no wonder they are all panicking.
Just a thought… maybe if they were to organise illegal immigration, they would make such a porridge of it few would get here.
Love your thinking
Nah. The civil service would allow it to work.
Rwanda seems to be the third cup in the old sleight of hand game. While we are all watching the third cup the pebble gets slipped into the second one. We are focussing on something that is distracting us from the real problem. ———–Lack of political will, and this desire to pretend to be concerned about huge increases in immigration while really pandering to the UN WEF and Supra National treaties that undermine National Identity. Rwanda is an optical illusion like the woman being sawn in half on stage.
The Conservative Party (MPs and leadership at least) abandoned conservatism a long time ago. The MPs are not “troops”. Of the plausible candidates for leadership and cabinet positions, most of the current lot are probably among the worst possible choices from a conservative point of view, but with a tiny number of exceptions the whole damn lot of them are at least useless and often worse. Almost none of them spoke up against lockdowns.
“You would be willing to stand at the dispatch box and say that sometimes vital national interests override contested notions of international law. I’m not. That’s a red line for me.” So who is deciding international law? Not somebody that anybody in the UK has voted for, and where does that leave democracy? What relevance has international law then got in a democracy?
In Europe, judges are usually not elected. But that’s the same criminal law as it is for so-called international law. The term is really a misnomer as law is something enforced by a sovereign government on its territory and there is no such thing as an international government. What it really refers to is obligations resulting from democratically elected governments of the past voluntarily becoming party to all kinds of international treaties. Under mob rule, what you’re wrongly referring to as democracy, law (including treaty obligations) generally doesn’t mean anything. Only the whim of the mob on a certain day counts. But that’s not how the political system in the UK operates, which is based on a concept called rule of law.
Considering that, the question is Is the situation so dire that it justifies the government of the UK reneging on some more of its erstwhile most solemn promises? The oathbreaker (intentional Tolkien allusion) standpoint is clear and it’s Who cares today about what we promised yesterday? but that’s not a viable general strategy for organizing international relations. Treaties, including treaty changes, are usually negotiated in order to influence their shape. In this case, this would mean trying to fix the (perceived) problem with a treaty by renegotiating it.
Perhaps you would give us your considered analysis of the following:
international treaties entered into without public debate and not following a general election in which the proposal was clearly proposed
changes to the above made by bodies of appointed men and women, most of them not nationals of an offended subscriber and without formal acceptance (eg through a supplementary treaty)
changes in the subscribing member whose national interests were at risk as a result of either the original treaty, changed as above or judicial activism which invented new meanings remote from the words set down
It seems to me that is where we are.
To satisfy your wish for procedural purity (despite your acquiescing to points above) we can and should withdraw entirely and maybe (maybe!) re-engage on the parts of the original treaty we can accept; no judicial extensions!
Perhaps you would give us your considered analysis of the following:
international treaties entered into without public debate and not following a general election in which the proposal was clearly proposed
‘Perhaps’ you would like to have a look at constitutional arrangements wrt treaties in the UK. Originallly, this was merely an exercise of royal prerogative, ie the monarch / the monarch’s government would enter into treaties with other states as it saw fit. Since about 1924, treaties have been routinely laid before parliament 21 days before ratification and parliament could block them if it so desired. Since 2010, this must be done and parliament must approve of them for ratification to occur.
That the government and representatives of the people, ie MPs, must not enter into any treaties unless a referendum was held about them – that’s basically the procedure you’re envisioning – might be a constitutional change you consider desirable but it’s simply not current practice. Instead of demanding that your hypothetical procedure must be retroactively applied to already existing treaties you especially dislike (ie, you’ve been told to dislike especially), you ought to campaign for the constitutional change you seem to be in favour of.
Your other points are too vague to comment on them.
A pointless fuss from people who are themselves largely pointless. The Rwanda plan was only ever window-dressing and would achieve bugger all. Nobody is coming out and bluntly saying that the gates to immigration are being locked shut with immediate effect and a program of deportations will be set in motion to remove all those who lack proper qualifications, cannot speak English and do not have a usable trade or skill which would pay £50k + pa. Many thousands will have to be removed but that will be a cost to bear in order to preserve national identity and cohesion.
If any politicians have the common sense to read DS – a stretch I know – you now have your Manifesto. Anything but similar to the above is pointless tinkering so get your lazy, cowardly arses in to gear and get on with it or STFU.
Totally agree, and of course arguably the much bigger problem is legal immigration – far too high IMO.
tof I was lumping legal and illegal immigration together. I see no difference nowadays. So-called illegal immigration is just a distraction to draw attention away from the vast numbers of ‘legals’ that are being allowed in.
100%
I’d argue the bigger problem is welfare and state handouts (which is also the reason for the absurd taxes aka legal plunder). Stop that and immigration will look after itself.
The welfare state does seem to have got out of hand and produces more negative than positive effects with regard to our own citizens.
‘You would be willing to stand at the dispatch box and say that sometimes vital national interests override contested notions of international law. I’m not. That’s a red line for me.’
The Prime Minister should be the second person, after the King, in this country to stand up for our national interests.
Unfortunately, as a consequence of recent public utterances, writings, the country now has doubts about both these individuals.
There is no such thing as International Law, just backroom agreements by the ‘wise and the good’. It provides an excuse. like ‘blame it on Brussels’ used to, for those supposed to be governing on our behalf in our interests to do nothing except what is in their own interest and the interests of their cronies.
National interests no longer matter, just the interests of international committees, NGOs, big corporations, globalist nonsense like climate change and influential multi-billionaires.
Indeed.
‘Just as it is controversial whether international law is truly law, some have also raised doubts as to whether international law should be assessed in terms of the “right to rule” asserted by states. A lot of international law takes the form of treaties that bind only states that are parties to them. It might seem that the idea of a promise or contract, rather than that of legitimate rule, is the right template for assessing the normative force of such treaties.’
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12 May 22
Both the King and the Prime Minister should be a great deal more robust about the real interests and well-being of British citizens.
Their positions, roles, are British exclusively, not internationalist.
Spot on.
So the nitwits who defenestrated Boris and Truss, rejected others more palatable to the rank and file, now want to oust Sushi… because he is useless.
They should, but can we be confident they will replace the ‘returned empty’ with someone competent and actually a Conservative?
My opinion is we may see a hung Parliament – I would prefer a hanged Parliament – probably Labour with the most seats but no working majority. I wonder who ‘piggy in the middle’ will be? Are the Lib Dem’s still a Party? Reform maybe?
I’m certainly not a Boris fan, but ousting him when they did – especially for such a pathetic reason, and with no obvious candidate to replace him – was the start of their undoing.
There is no real choice between “unite or die” and “unite and die” other than for personal integrity.
After seven years of nothing but Tory leadership contests, with a few elections thrown it for good measure, isn’t it time to admit that the Tories are simply incapable of governing the country as they apparently cannot come up with the PM they don’t – almost immediately – seek to defenstrate again in order to come up with a new PM.
Anyone who votes for the Unaparty is brain dead.
Sunak was always useless. A branch manager of a person. Never destined for senior leadership. Should have stayed with the family pharmacy business where he was best employed.
Badenoch, et al will be equally squishy in an age where forceful action is needed to stop immigration completely, violently deal with illegal invaders, attack multiculturalisms poisonous effects on our once great country and give the indigenous British a reason to have children and take their country back.
Voting Reform UK will not see them get seats but it will certainly inflict a painful result for the Conservative Party. I would estimate sub 70 seats and their curtain will be torn asunder. They deserve oblivion. Then Labour will receive the same beating next time. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
“He’s a really bad politician….”
Only just realised that? I struggle to understand WHY those who parachuted him into No.10 thought he stood a scooby-doo of winning a General Election. He has no leadership qualities whatsoever.
A bit of Darwinism might be beneficial. The weak (tories) die and a new species takes it’s place (real Tories)
The Darwinian term is survival of the fittest and that’s dating back to a time where the modern fitness, something that’s supposedly acquired by spending as much time as possible in indoor gyms operating this or that exercise machine¹, didn’t yet exist. It really means survival of those species which reproduce most because they’re better adapted to their environment than others. Practially, this means algae and cockroaches, not that much distant from the current crop of politicians despite very much lacking in individual qualities.
¹ What are these people going to do if they’re ever hit by a raindrop? Melt away?