Politics

In these difficult times, at least we can all count on Nadine Dorries to give us a good laugh. The former Culture Secretary was up early on the Today programme to mark publication day of her book on the supposed ‘plot’ to bring down Boris Johnson. Her thesis, she told a bemused Nick Robinson, was that five Tory leaders in quick succession have been brought down by a cabal of insiders known only as ‘The Movement.’ One of them, Dorries intoned sinisterly, was Dougie Smith, the longtime Tory operative, who, she says, ‘decides who becomes an MP, who becomes a minister, who becomes a Prime Minister and remains as Prime Minister and party

Another day, another row involving Suella Braverman. The Home Secretary has penned a comment piece for the Times in which she accuses police officers of employing a ‘double standard’ on protests whereby they take a softer approach to left wing groups than they do right-wing protests. Braverman accused the Metropolitan police of ‘playing favourites’, likening the pro-Palestinian marches to the sectarian rallies held in Northern Ireland during the troubles. She once again referred to those attending the rallies as ‘hate marchers’. Her piece comes after Sunak warned Mark Rowley – the head of the Met – that he would be ‘held accountable’ if pro-Palestine marches impact this weekend’s Remembrance events.

The Human Rights Act (HRA), which is twenty-five years old today, has always been controversial. It unsettles the balance of the constitution, enabling judges, and lawyers, to attack policy and legislation in a way that is anathema to our constitutional tradition.  Introduced under Tony Blair in 1998, the HRA was intended to help guarantee basic human rights. This was a noble objective, but it does not follow that the Act was a good idea. While securing the rights of others is a fundamental object of government, the act’s main problem is that it disables parliamentarians, and the public, from responsible action, putting parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in doubt.