POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

David, they are already trailing Johnson's evidence.... saying he will apologise. I do note he has gone quiet recently
I saw THIS this morning....
Sir Keir Starmer has credited Margaret Thatcher as a prime minister who effected "meaningful change". The Labour leader said Baroness Thatcher set loose Britain's "natural entrepreneurialism" in an article in the Sunday Telegraph. In a clear pitch to Conservative voters, Sir Keir highlighted immigration and small boat crossings as "matters of serious public concern".
I don't know about 'making a clear pitch to Conservative voters' , it sounds to me like a bid for leadership of the Tory Party.....
Meanwhile, see THIS op ed piece by Laura Kuenssberg.
If you're feeling charitable, you might say things are not going well for the government. But if you're feeling grumpy - perhaps because every morning you're leaving the warmth of your duvet to shiver in the freezing morning cold - then you might suggest No 10 is bouncing from bungle to bungle. The bizarre diplomatic row with the Greeks over relatively niche artefacts (which has even piqued the King's interest). The home secretary's hot-mic swearing. Judges kicking out the centrepiece of Sunak's plan to "stop the boats" (more on that later). And as if that wasn't enough, Boris Johnson is getting his arguments in early before his appearance at the Covid inquiry - Rishi Sunak will soon take the stand too. As the temperature plummets, there is a different risk that might trump all of them: what will happen to the NHS this winter?
In a plug for her political comment programme this morning she says:- "The Health Secretary, Victoria Atkins, is with us in the studio tomorrow and how she fares in the coming months is absolutely vital for her party's prospects. One of her MP colleagues told me: "I'm not sure she realised it when she took the job, but for a lot of us, whether we win is dependent on her."
Could it really be as simple as that? Nothing would surprise me these days!

[Stanley]

See THIS for the latest instalment of the tragic scandal of contaminated blood.
The government faces a rebellion with at least 30 Tories backing an amendment to extend interim payouts to more victims of the infected blood scandal. Up to 30,000 people were given contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 80s. Thousands have died. A Labour amendment will be brought on Monday calling for a new body to be set up to administer compensation. More than 100 MPs, including Tories Sir Robert Buckland, Sir Edward Leigh and David Davis, are backing the move. More than 3,000 people died after contracting HIV or hepatitis C after receiving a blood transfusion on the NHS or a treatment made from contaminated blood products. In a letter sent to Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves called the scandal "one of the most appalling tragedies in our country's recent history."
Rachel Reeves is right of course and well done the Tory MPs who are supporting the Labour amendment. The modern scandal around this matter is the way the Treasury has blocked the obviously deserved pay-outs for so many years. It almost looked as though they were waiting for them all to die off. Surely not......
See THIS also. Not only has Starmer enrolled Margaret Thatcher in the Labour election armament but he's now embracing austerity as well.
Read it for yourself but personally I wonder what happened to social democracy in the UK. It seems to be totally out of fashion and Labour are not just moving into the 'middle ground' but they are shifting further to the Right.

[PanBiker]

See THIS for the latest instalment of the tragic scandal of contaminated blood.
The government faces a rebellion with at least 30 Tories backing an amendment to extend interim payouts to more victims of the infected blood scandal. Up to 30,000 people were given contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 80s. Thousands have died. A Labour amendment will be brought on Monday calling for a new body to be set up to administer compensation. More than 100 MPs, including Tories Sir Robert Buckland, Sir Edward Leigh and David Davis, are backing the move. More than 3,000 people died after contracting HIV or hepatitis C after receiving a blood transfusion on the NHS or a treatment made from contaminated blood products. In a letter sent to Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves called the scandal "one of the most appalling tragedies in our country's recent history."

This was brought about by a shortage of UK donors. It's not much different today, the service still runs on a knife edge with only 4% of eligible donors supporting the entire country. Not just a volunteer problem though as over the years of underfunding for the NHS in general vital ancillary services such a NHSBT have been stripped to the bone as well.
A recent case in point. My last donor session in Burnley. The venue is large so can support more than the standard 9 chairs used for a session. They trialled 12 chairs but were only allocated 2 extra members to the team, (all that could be spared). "Stretched", was the answer to how the session was going. I noticed I had a half hour wait for medical screening rather than the normal 10 -15 minutes. I am going back to the same venue for my next session. It will be interesting to see if it has 9 or 12 donation chairs.

[Stanley]

See the news, the rebels won the vote which is a good thing.
See THIS BBC report on the activities of our new Home Secretary.
James Cleverly is the third home secretary to roll up in Rwanda. Home secretaries 3 — migrants 0 on that score. Priti Patel, the original author of the idea, did the trip. So too did Suella Braverman. Now the turn of Mr Cleverly. It was April of last year when Priti Patel headed to east Africa to make the case that the UK needed a new tool to drive down illegal immigration: the prospect of migrants being sent to Rwanda. But here we are in the final month of 2023 and the policy isn't off the ground, even if plenty of airliners with politicians on have been. This time the plan gets the fountain pen and cartridge paper treatment - a treaty, an agreement between two countries recognised internationally. It is the latest attempt to shove the whole idea into a place where it actually works and escapes the crippling judgements of an array of courts.
It seems to me that the question that arises is how many migrants could Rwanda take and would it be cost effective?

[Tripps]

This is the biggest nonsense of a Government which is awash with nonsense.

I read that the total numbers involved is about two hundred.and after allowing for the agreement to take in return, an unspecified number of Rwanda's most difficult, and probably disabled refugees from other African countries, the net result will be close to zero.

They say 'the boats problem is under control and numbers are down by a third'. They think that if they keep repeating it - then we will believe them, and even down by a third is still an awful lot of people. The number of small boat illegal migrants in the last seven days is one thousand and eighteen. See Small boat migrants

Those people will immediatedly be accommodated in hotels, fed and kept warm, at no expense to them, whilst at the same time a rough sleeper froze to death yesterday.

[PanBiker]

Apparently part of the plan is to ship out team of our Judiciary to oversee the court system because of concerns about the fairness of the Rwandan legal system. Who pays for them for the extended holiday and what will the overall cost to the UK taxpayer be? Can we spare them from our overstretched legal system here or will it be a job for the retired mob who have now been elevated to the Lords? Compare this madness to establishing a proper vetting procedure which is the only way forward and the minimum that we should expect from the establishment.

[Tripps]

part of the plan is to ship out team of our Judiciary to oversee the court system

Well spotted - I'd forgotten about that. Nonsense piled upon nonsense. These are the actions of a doomed and desperate Government who know the game is up.

What do we want?. . . .
When do we want it?. . .

[Tripps]

Mr Fawkes is reporting

. In the back of the new Rwanda treaty under “Other Agreements” is this little addition:

“The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Parties’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees“

Meanwhile “all transfer requests by the United Kingdom shall require approval by Rwanda prior to any relocation” – so Rwanda gets to decide which asylum seekers it wants to take.

Define "a portion" . We could easily end up with more than we send. Did they not read "Negotiating for Dummies"?

The only positive is that it will never happen. M'learned friends will be sharpening their quills already.

[Stanley]

You are both right. It's a farce and I think my cartoon sums it up nicely.
They interviewed one of me learned friends on WATO and he was quite clear that the arrangement can never work for about a dozen reasons, he only mentioned one as an example. the fact that a decision from the high court is needed for any transfer and that one thing takes at least a couple of years....
See THIS for the only news that I trust this morning.....
Speaking about the government's actions in regard to the infected blood scandal
Chairman of the Haemophilia Society, Clive Smith, said campaigners have received only "warm words" while the government worked "at a snail's pace" to compensate victims of the scandal.
What he actually said was even more coruscating than that. He said that "When the government talks about working at pace, they mean snail's pace......
Speaking on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Smith said: "This has never been about politics. This has always been about justice and doing the right thing, and no government should hold out on this. "They have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do this, and Rishi Sunak and the Tory Party, I'm afraid, will be on the wrong side of history and future because it shouldn't have needed to come to this."
In fact I think he is wrong, it was about politics and even more, about cost. The Treasury has never liked the idea of forking out billions of Pounds in compensation and of course it will be even more now.
Mr Smith finished by saying that on the face of it, it looked as though the government was committed to meeting its long overdue responsibilities. My reaction to that is wait and see, I think they will make the process of appointing the independent body as long-drawn out as possible and when figures are finally arrived at will say we haven't got the money. This is not over yet!

[Tripps]

"Game on " in the House.

Statement from Home Secretary. Talk of a Tory rebellion and another defeat for the Government.

Bring it on says I. . . .

6.20 pm "Rumours that Robert Jenrick (immigration MinIster) has resigned" - says Yvette Cooper - Shadow Home Secretary. "Where is he" she asks.

Total Tory shambles

Hopes rising -

6.57 pm PS Andrew Marr is sayng that Jenrick has resigned.

[Stanley]

See THIS BBC report for confirmation that Jenrick has resigned.
Robert Jenrick has resigned as immigration minister, saying the government's emergency Rwanda legislation "does not go far enough". He said "stronger protections" were needed to end "the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme". The government said the bill, unveiled earlier, made clear in UK law Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers. But it stops short of what some on the Tory right were demanding. In his resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, Mr Jenrick said the prime minister had "moved towards my position" on the emergency legislation. "Nevertheless, I am unable to take the currently proposed legislation through the Commons as I do not believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success."
I think that last quotation illustrates the real root of what is happening. Yes, there is real anger in the far right of the Tory Party but this resignation is a symptom of what can only be interpreted as a revolt against Sunak and the precursor to a bid for the leadership, most likely by Braverman.
Anyone who listened to the Noble Lord Sumption yesterday (and he knows a bit about the law and the workings of the Supreme Court) will have heard him say that the new Treaty can't possibly work and that we can't just change the laws that obstruct the policy unilaterally as such actions would have consequences.
See THIS for a cloud no bigger than a man's hand at the moment but possibly one of the major threats to the Tories.
More councils in England are at risk of going bust after the government set out its tax and spending plans last month, local government leaders have warned. Local authorities say a lack of funding in the Autumn Statement has left many facing effective bankruptcy. Leaders of some of the largest councils - including 26 Conservatives - have written to the government warning of "painful" cuts to front-line services. The government says it is open to talks with councils with financial issues. Two of the bodies that represent councils in England, the Local Government Association (LGA) and the County Councils Network (CCN), carried out snap surveys of their members following last month's Autumn Statement. The "worrying" findings paint a picture of a "growing financial crisis", according to the LGA, which said almost one in five of its members were at risk of running out of funds either this year or next.
Sometimes it is the relatively small local events like the bins not being collected that can prove to be the final straw.....
Also, have a look at THIS Op ed piece by Chris Mason.
Senior figures are musing privately that they wouldn't be surprised if Mr Sunak ended up facing a confidence vote from his own MPs. "Lots of MPs are concerned about their seats and the polls, and they're rapidly forming the view the current management is not performing and will not deliver an election win," one senior Tory MP said. "The danger is we get a confidence vote by accident because if one MP says 'I'm putting my letter in' others do too'." The MP added: "I just want him to do better and listen to us. I actually want him to win the next general election, but frankly to please both wings of the party on an issue like this is impossible, and that's where leadership is important." Another told me: "Rishi wouldn't lose a confidence vote. But I wouldn't be surprised if he faced one."

[Stanley]

See THIS BBC report on Sunaqk and the Rwanda Deal.
The UK has given Rwanda a further £100m this year as part of its deal to relocate asylum seekers there. The payment was made in April, the Home Office's top civil servant said in a letter to MPs, after £140m had already been sent to the African nation. Sir Matthew Rycroft said another payment of £50m was expected next year. The revelation came hours after Rishi Sunak vowed to "finish the job" of reviving the plan after the resignation of his immigration minister this week.
I am completely baffled by what is going on here. I heard the Noble Lord Howard say yesterday that Lord Sumption had said that the new deal could work but when I listened to Sumption on Radio4 I could have sworn I heard him say that it couldn't possibly work..... Surely I can't be nearer the truth than Howard?
It looks as though Sunak has bet his political future on the Rwanda deal 'working' although we already know that even if it succeeded brilliantly it can't do more than nibble at the numbers of failed asylum seekers that have to be dealt with. It also seems to be the case that many of his MPs are asking whether he can survive the next few days, never mind lead them into a General Election sometime in the future.
I have a funny feeling he won't last over Xmas..... But it's only a feeling. Keep an ear on the radio news......

[Tripps]

I have a funny feeling he won't last over Xmas....

You may be right - hopefully - but fear of the certainty of losing their seats will concentrate the minds of many Tory MP's who will want another year on the gravy train, and put off the evil day..

Did you notice that Boris after two days of interrogation managed at the end, to get in a mention that the origin of the virus had not really been properly established. It can't be a coincidence that Michael Gove did the same thing during his testimony.

Gove got short shrift from the KC, who quickly said that it was outside the terms of reference of the enquiry, ("and we're not going there"), and Boris got the same from Lady Hallett who reminded him (with a smile) that he was the person who had set those terms of reference. The fact that both of them have tried to raise the matter is interesting. I think we may hear more.

[Stanley]

And I fear you may be right also David.
See THIS BBC report on pressures on Sunaks plan to save Rwanda Scheme.
Tory MPs are coming under pressure from ministers to back the PM's Rwanda plan. Rishi Sunak hopes sending migrants to the African nation for processing and potential resettlement will deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats. He has introduced emergency legislation aimed at overcoming legal issues which have so far delayed the scheme. However, MPs from across his party have concerns about the approach and will be examining the bill over the weekend.
As I understand it, when they say 'overcoming legal issues' what they mean is passing a Bill that makes it legal for Parliament to break what was originally the law. Breaking the law to get round a political difficulty seems to be OK these days in Tory political philosophy. Remember Johnson and his illegal proroguing of Parliament that had to be stopped by a Supreme Court judgement? Also as I understand it Lord Sumption said the other day when asked about this was that even if the Bill passed and became an Act of Parliament the Supreme Court would follow the course laid out in the laws that had been disabled. In other words, each case would be vulnerable on appeal.
I agree with the view I heard expressed yesterday that the present course of events and the reaction to them is damaging the Conservative and Unionist Party in ways that can't be repaired by passing Acts of Parliament.
I have also heard the argument that Sunak's present course is OK because other countries in Europe are looking at the same remedies. Two wrongs don't make a right and what about the EU reaction to the UK government striking down EU legislation to make the Rwanda Scheme work?
The phrase 'can of worms' springs to mind......

[Stanley]

THIS is the political news this morning.....
I know it's nearly Christmas, and maybe the last thing you want to think about is politics. But you might have to. The governing party has to. Because the Downing Street operation is in real trouble. And, while it seemed a bit wild when we talked about it last week, it is not crazy to think that the Conservatives really are in such a bad place that some of them are wondering if a change of leader might be needed. Take a breath - it is not the consensus that rolling a dice to produce a sixth prime minister since the EU referendum would be a good idea. But it is no longer a completely fringe view, for several really important reasons.
Laura Kuenssberg has a point and goes on to explain it rather well. Sunak is on the verge of failure and not only is a leadership challenge a possibility, but also a vote of confidence and a complete dissolution of the government.
We live in interesting times....
(Nice that Cameron can be associated with this phase. After all, it was he who started it!)

[Stanley]

See THIS for a look at Sunak's week.
This is the week when the prime minister's past, present and future collide. At 10:30 this morning, Rishi Sunak sits down in a windowless room in west London and begin several hours answering questions live on television and under oath. Mr Sunak's interrogation at the Covid inquiry will scrutinise his time as chancellor during the pandemic. Furlough, lockdowns and his Eat Out To Help Out scheme are all topics central to his role in government back then. And remember, the government's now Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Dame Angela McLean, was of a sufficiently strong view about the then chancellor incentivising nights out with Eat Out To Help Out that she called him "Dr Death." And witness after recent witness have lined up to say they knew nothing about the scheme until it was about to be announced.
And while Sunak is held captive in the Covid Enquiry a far right and a centre group of his MPs meets today to consider legal opinions on the efficacy of the Rwanda Bill's wording before deciding how to vote on it.
Since I wrote that I have read the rest of Chris Mason's piece and see that I was mistaken, there are not two groups but five!
The European Research Group
The New Conservatives
The Conservative Growth Group
The Common Sense Group
The Northern Research Group
It's my view that it isn't a question of whether Sunak's days as PM are numbered but when he goes. Surely his position is untenable, he has lost all authority and the Party is in free fall....

[Stanley]

There's only one political story that matters this morning and it's THIS
Rishi Sunak is facing a battle to persuade Tory MPs to back his flagship Rwanda bill, ahead of a key vote later. The prime minister is holding a breakfast summit at Downing Street to try to convince potential rebels to support the legislation. The bill seeks to revive the government's plan to send some asylum seekers to the east African country. MPs on the right of the party have said it does not go far enough and will not work in its current form. But more centrist MPs warned against any changes which would breach international law. Former defence secretary Ben Wallace has urged his fellow Tory MPs not to "wreck" the government by voting down the bill.
There is much more in the report but this is the core of the problem.
All other news is peripheral....

[Tripps]

All other news is peripheral....

But not unimportant. When are the political scandals. which are bubblng away beneath the surface of Scottish politics, and are widely discussed - but not in the main stream media - going to emerge?

[Tripps]

They've just gone out to vote on a Labour amendment to the Rwanda Bill. Rumours of a lot of abstensions

Poetic that this is the fourth anniversary of the last election.

I think this may get interesting. . . .

PS predictably (after the event ) - the turkeys failed to vote for Christmas.

[Stanley]

I see Sunak escaped the ignominy of defeat by a hairs breadth.
You are quite right David, they are important but yesterday the possible collapse of the government was the most important thing. (And of course the reason why many gave him grudging support....)
Not so today so have a look at THIS speech from Starmer.
Labour would reduce migration without "the psychodrama", Sir Keir Starmer has said in a direct appeal to Tory voters. The Labour leader accused the Conservatives of "fighting like rats in a sack" over the Rwanda bill instead of governing. In a speech marking the fourth anniversary of the 2019 general election, Sir Keir said he had overseen a "total overhaul" of his party. He urged voters not to hand the Conservatives a "fifth term" in office. "Only a change of government can bring change to our country," Sir Keir said.
I have news for him. If by 'total overhaul' he means he has cleaned out all the old lefties and has the confidence of his party he should think again. The only reason he is tolerated is because there is nobody opposing him of sufficient calibre to succeed. If there was he would be out so fast his feet wouldn't touch the ground..... I have deep misgivings about his 'leadership' and am not convinced that the Tories are certain to lose.....

[Stanley]

I've spent the morning listening to politicians 'explaining' how Sunak got his Bill through its second reading. Funny thing is that nobody has mentioned the unspoken fear that due to ignorance nobody knew what defeat of Sunak would trigger. The unspoken fear was that it could trigger the fall of the PM and the government. In other words loss of the politician's jobs. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.....

[Stanley]

See THIS forecast of one of the characteristics of the present trends in political thought in the Tory Party.
Rishi Sunak had a good day on Tuesday - a rare experience for the prime minister recently. At dawn, it was not totally out of the question that the day would end with Mr Sunak's immigration policy, his authority, even his leadership in serious peril. By the end of it, his flagship Rwanda asylum scheme had progressed to the next legislative stage without a single Conservative MP voting against it. So yes, a good day. But Mr Sunak has been prime minister long enough now to know that in his line of work every silver lining has a cloud. Yesterday's vote became far more difficult than most had expected - and as a result the bill is going to take longer than expected. The sound and fury of this week will inevitably be replicated at later stages, whatever the eventual outcome. And Mr Sunak can ill-afford for his party to look so divided on such a central issue in an election year. "Focus groups are furious with the government about this," one source said. "It doesn't necessarily move the polls but it does bake in existing anger." Importantly, it's not just the legal questions of the Rwanda policy that the Conservative Party is divided on. Many of Mr Sunak's supporters see this week's row as the symptom of a broader split rather than the original cause. "There is a group of MPs who just won't let us govern," one minister said. "They ask for tax cuts, they get them. They ask for more engagement from the PM, they get it. But they're just addicted to division and can't help themselves."
In other words, the commentator believes that Sunak will have a rough ride from now until the General Election.
I suspect he's spot on. I'd go further, I think the Tory Party is ungovernable. It is torn by internal division and we are not going to see any improvement in anything until we get rid of them.

[Stanley]

See THIS sad story. Yet another instance of the Tories ignoring voters....
Parents of children who died in circumstances linked to social media and gaming have accused the government of "watering down" online safety laws. They claim Science Secretary Michelle Donelan is making a "callous" decision to retract a "personal commitment". In a reply to the group, Ms Donelan said she took the commitments she made to them "incredibly seriously". But, she added in a letter, she believes the changes they wanted are covered by existing laws.
Note that the minister feels it necessary to describe her attitude as 'Incredibly serious' But nevertheless leaves the grieving parents feeling let down.
Have a look at THIS shameful report of the government's treatment of people who fought for us and were promised protection but are now in danger of being sent back to Afghanistan and the tender mercies of the Taliban.
Some British Army members who say they tried to vouch for Afghan special forces, who are now in danger of being sent back to the Taliban, were never contacted by the Ministry of Defence. Multiple sources have told the BBC that some people who offered to give Afghan soldiers references never heard back. Many of the soldiers were subsequently denied help by a scheme designed to settle those in danger in the UK. The Ministry of Defence has been contacted for a comment. The issue has resulted in tensions between two government ministers. About 200 members of Afghan special forces, trained and funded by the UK, currently living in Pakistan face imminent deportation to Afghanistan, BBC Newsnight reported this week. The men were told they did not fall under the UK's Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP), which was designed to help those who served alongside the UK military.
This doesn't need a lot of comment it is a total disgrace and a shameful way to treat these people. Whoever was responsible for this decision should be identified and exposed to the full weight of any vilification we can muster.

[Stanley]

My concerns about the management of the Labour Party are not eased at all by THIS report.
The leader of Hastings Borough Council, and five other councillors, have resigned from the Labour Party and set up an independent group. They said the party no longer provided the "policies, support or focus on local government" they needed. A Labour spokesman said the councillors' "performative gesture politics has driven the council to the brink of bankruptcy". Council officers have previously warned that the authority faces bankruptcy. Along with leader Paul Barnett, the other councillors to leave the party are: Maya Evans, Andy Batsford, John Cannan, Ali Roark and Simon Willis.
I don't know the truth of these allegations but it is enough for me that the actions of the party have been cited. This demonstrates clearly that there is unrest in the Party. not a good sign in an election campaign!

[Stanley]

Weasel words from Cameron this morning, see THIS BBC report.
The Foreign Secretary has said he would like to see a "sustainable ceasefire" in the Israel-Gaza conflict. Lord Cameron also warned "too many civilians have been killed" in Gaza. More than 18,000 people have been killed, including thousands of children, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. His intervention in a Sunday Times article marks a shift in tone from the UK Government, but stops short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. Penning a joint article with Germany's Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, Lord Cameron said he supported a ceasefire only if it is sustainable in the long term.
What is needed is for the Israeli slaughter in Gaza to be branded a war crime which is what it amounts to and the place to say this is not in a right-wing newspaper but on the floor of the House and the United Nations.Any other course of actions condones what Israel is doing, and it looks suspiciously like am attempt to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza altogether.
Why aren't we saying that?