In amongst the political meltdown of yesterday, one thing became apparent, and that is that the Tories are using populism as their weapon of choice.
No one can be surprised that the UK government lost its case on Rwanda. That country has a terrible track record in processing asylum claims, including rejecting every claim for asylum status from a person from Afghanistan in the last year, and yet that was the task that the UK government wished to entrust them with. It was always, very clearly, an untenable suggestion.
Perhaps the reaction is no more surprising.
The Law Lords and the Courts will be vilified. No doubt we will be hearing much about 'enemies of the people'. That is a direct threat to the rule of law in this country.
Then we heard Tory Deputy Chair, Lee Anderson MP, demand that Rwanda flights take place anyway, whatever the courts said. That is beyond extraordinary: it is political madness on open display.
As if to cap that, Rishi Sunak then joined in. He suggested three things. One was a new treaty with Rwanda, which would change nothing about the situation on the ground on which the court made its decision. Then he suggested a new law would deem Rwanda to be a safe country, regardless of the evidence, meaning that the Court could no longer consider the issue. And third, he said a review of international obligations would be undertaken to prevent the Courts from considering them as well. These will be the so-called 'notwithstanding' clauses that Suella Braverman demanded before she was sacked. That we might be forced out of the European Court of Human Rights and that the Good Friday Agreement might collapse as collateral damage from that appears a matter of no concern to him.
To put it another way, what Sunak proposed was that reality be suspended; that parliament pass a law proclaiming nonsense (next on the last will be that the world is flat); and that the courts be so constrained that they cannot do their job in protecting people in this country from abuse by their government.
All of this is populism - which is the gateway drug for fascism - gone mad.
So why do this? The reasons are obvious.
The first is to appease the far-right in the Tories.
The second is to distract from the glaringly obvious failures of this government.
The third is to create yet more division in society by dividing it around the rights of refugees - who are the most vulnerable of people.
It is classic populist divide-and-rule policy in action.
What troubles me is that I am not hearing Labour call this out.
Why not?
We really are in trouble.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What fraction of the asylum claims from Afghan nationals coming to the UK from France would you have approved?
The average is around 75%
Do you have a link to that 75% approval claim, please?
It doesn’t square with this sentence:
“rejecting every claim for asylum status from a person from Afghanistan in the last year”
I was asking about Afghan nationals arriving from France, and not those who came directly and was wondering what proportion of them you would approve.
It’s the average rate of success on asylum applications, except it’s actually 81% right now. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/top-10-facts-about-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum/#:~:text=4.,refugee%20status%20or%20humanitarian%20protection.
I was asking about Afghan nationals arriving from France. They are a subset of the total. Thanks for the link but I’m not asking about those who came directly, but about that subset. I was wondering what proportion of the arrivals by small boat from France you would approve.
I don’t approve anyone
That is not my job
The state does that, and you have the data on approval rates – and most of them arrived by boat
“What fraction of asylum claims to allow?”
It’s not a numbers problem. It’s a humanitarian problem. If 100% of asylum seekers need refuge, then it’s 100% of the claims we should allow.
When a house is burning, the fireman never says, “I am only going to save 75% of the family I know is trapped inside.”
Hasn’t Lee Anderson broken his MP oath to uphold the law of the land? If we had a vertebrate Speaker he could be censured for such, even suspended long enough to suffer a recall petition.
So agree with t is Richard.
It became clear in an interview on R4 with Cleverley this morning – the whole strategy is NOT to solve the migrant ‘problem’ , it is to keep it in the headlines, and the more their proposals are unworkable the longer they will be in and out of the courts, and front and centreof teh news during election year.
Of course the interviewer didnt ask why they dont process asylum claims faster to get the ‘hotel’ costs down.
Sorry, shouldn’t pick you up on typos, we all make them…but I really love the concept of a Torty Deputy Chair. Miaow!
Corrected!
Thanks
Poland has similar problems.
It will be instructive to see how Donald Tusk gets on.
Particularly, the restoration of institutions, the removal of right-wing apparatchiks from arts and culture, the restoration of an independent, balanced media and the strengthening of Democracy.
“he suggested a new law would deem Rwanda to be a safe country, regardless of the evidence”
Rwanda is unsafe. Changing the law to describe Rwanda as safe enough, is Orwellian doublethink.
Precisely….
Labour are not going to do a dickie bird about it because ‘democracy’ in this country is a reactionary matter now.
On one side you’ve got traditional Tory voters and on the other side a neglected and angry mob whom Labour has deserted or taken for granted who have been stirred up to believe that everyone else is getting what they should be getting and aren’t (especially immigrants and traditionally excluded groups).
Watch this: https://byline.tv/brexitdocumentary/
BREXIT lives on. Its Britain’s own version of the American Civil War.
Also, you’d think focus group politics had had its day by now but it hasn’t.
The Tories seem to be trashing the country deliberately. I can only imagine that it’s so they can blame whoever comes next for the mess, then get back into power at the election after that.
It may not work, but they have nothing to lose by trying and they’re behaving in a manner that shows they don’t really care anyway. Most of them aren’t affected by the debacle they’ve made and seem to be happy to wait until they get their chance again in the future.
The tory chair said his constituents want the government to stop the boats.
What he meant was that his constituents who agree with him want that, because any constituent who disagrees is banned from his facebook or twitter pages!