During debates of great import in the Commons, it’s often said that the contributions show “Parliament at its best”. Sadly, the second reading of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill showed it at its worst.
Instead of rising to the moment, several MPs lived down to expectations. There were some thoughtful contributions, for sure, but so many Tory backbenchers depicted asylum seekers as effectively the enemy within that the result was a singularly unedifying spectacle.
It was perhaps no surprise that “Red Wall” MP Nick Fletcher referred to ghettos, litter and crime. But when former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who described himself as a “One Nation” Conservative not long ago, talked about the need to “help our country to fight back against this great scourge”, even Labour MPs were shocked.
Social Democratic and Labour Party MP Claire Hanna was pretty scathing in response, describing the bill as “just red meat for a common sense group with no common sense, a research group that does no research, and a star chamber that has no stars”.
In the end, the bill getting its second reading – don’t forget legislation almost always gets a second reading because this is when legislation is debated “in principle” – really wasn’t a surprise. For all the sound of fury of the right-wing “rebels”, voting against at this stage was never a real option.
But what will certainly worry Rishi Sunak is the unity of the five different backbench groupings, and their warning that they will vote en masse against the bill at third reading if he fails to “tighten” the legislation. With 38 of them abstaining, they sent a signal that they have the numbers to defeat Sunak if needed.
If the PM does indeed toughen this bill in January, the centrist “One Nation” caucus will finally be confronted with the reality of just how far their party has lurched to the right over the past decade.
Boris Johnson found to his cost that “when the herd moves, it moves”. But the herbivores of the Tory party will probably keep on munching their reservations rather than risk a vote that could trigger a general election.
Even if this legislation does indeed go through in the new year, it is unlikely to include the “full fat” option of disregard of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that even Sunak refuses to swallow.
Yet that option will curdle away in the background, particularly if no flights to Rwanda ever get off the ground before the next election (either in May or October). And given that we will be in election year, the real test for Sunak will be whether he includes in the Tory manifesto that hardline option of effectively pulling out of the ECHR. There will be plenty of party members, and not just MPs, who will want that.
Such a move would indeed create an even bigger “wedge” between the Tories and Labour. Don’t forget this whole Rwanda plan is about performative politics – trying to signal to migrants not to come to the UK, and signal to the voters that the Tories are doing everything to “stop the boats” while Labour isn’t.
But given that disregarding the ECHR is such an extreme move (it would even jeopardise Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement) it risks driving an even bigger wedge between the Tories and their natural liberal Conservative, Middle England supporters. Even some moderate Tory MPs may refuse to stand on such a platform.
The ECHR withdrawal could also be a new “Brexit” divide – but not in a good way, given former Leave voters are already changing their minds about the benefits of quitting the EU, and given how much of Labour’s vote is now pro-EU.
Even if Sunak opted against putting the full-fat option into his manifesto, the debate is sure to reignite if his party goes down to a landslide defeat at the hands of Keir Starmer. Tory leadership contenders will turn it into a new virility test, just like Rwanda was meant to be. Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman will be flirting with the idea. There’s nothing as comforting for a defeated party as the warm embrace of its own members’ prejudices.
If the boats do indeed keep on coming, Starmer in office would be vulnerable to such a hardline plan. But he may also benefit if the voters simply conclude that the Conservative Party has given up on basic belief in the rule of law, whether domestic or international.
Sunak’s reprieve over the Rwanda bill second reading was a headache delayed until January, but the ECHR issue is a mega migraine that looms for the entire party in 2024.
Rishi Sunak avoids Rwanda headache – but mega migraine is looming
2
0
12.12.2023
During debates of great import in the Commons, it’s often said that the contributions show “Parliament at its best”. Sadly, the second reading of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill showed it at its worst.
Instead of rising to the moment, several MPs lived down to expectations. There were some thoughtful contributions, for sure, but so many Tory backbenchers depicted asylum seekers as effectively the enemy within that the result was a singularly unedifying spectacle.
It was perhaps no surprise that “Red Wall” MP Nick Fletcher referred to ghettos, litter and crime. But when former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who described himself as a “One Nation” Conservative not long ago, talked about the need to “help our country to fight back against this great scourge”, even Labour MPs were shocked.
Social Democratic and Labour Party MP Claire Hanna was pretty scathing in response, describing the bill as “just red meat for a common sense group with no common sense, a research group that does no research, and a star chamber that has no stars”.
In the end, the bill getting its second reading........
© iNews
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
