Barbara Rymell deserved dignity

There is no getting around the death of Barbara Rymell. When I read the Telegraph’s story about this 91-year-old who died while care home staff struggled to speak English to a 999 operator, it sounded too tailored to anti-immigrant prejudices. Surely this was nothing more than sensationalist reporting. Then I read the Regulation 28 report issued to the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social Care. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 requires coroners to report any circumstances which they believe could create ‘a risk of other deaths’. The report in the Rymell case, prepared by the senior coroner for Somerset Samantha Marsh, does indeed raise concerns about the English language skills of care home staff and does so in fairly stark terms. 

On 8 August last year, Rymell was left unattended on a stair lift at Ashley House residential home in Somerset. This was despite the risk assessments saying she was too physically and cognitively incapable to use the machine on her own. Marsh determined that Rymell, left sitting there, had attempted to climb the stairs herself but had fallen, ‘causing her head to become wedged in between the chair seat and the stairs at an awkward angle’. This impaired her breathing and staff were unable either to free her or administer first aid. She was pronounced dead upon the arrival of the paramedics. The death was recorded as misadventure with ‘mechanical obstruction of respiration, presumed fall downstairs’ and ‘senile myocardial atrophy, dementia, general frailty’. 

According to Marsh, neither of the two carers on duty that evening were ‘native English speaking nationals’, one being Romanian and the other Indian. After finding Rymell lying on the stairs with her head trapped under the chair, one of the carers called 999. However, the coroner says it was ‘obvious that neither of the care staff were sufficiently proficient in English’ to ‘explain clearly the nature of the medical emergency’. Their grasp of English was so limited that they didn’t understand the difference between ‘bleeding’ and ‘breathing’ or ‘alert’ and ‘alive’. The coroner said the carers’ inability to understand basic English ‘made any meaningful triage of Barbara’s condition virtually impossible’ and ‘severely hampered’ the call handler’s attempt to find out if Rymell was conscious and breathing. 

There is nothing in the report to suggest that the carers’ poor English was causative of Barbara’s death. Nonetheless, Marsh was sufficiently concerned by the findings to state that ‘there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken’. Specifically: 

I am concerned that those working with vulnerable people who are in a position of trust and responsibility must be able to demonstrate a sufficient proficiency in English to enable to summon appropriate emergency medical attention when needed. Vulnerable people, by very definition, are unable to often appreciate the need for help; take steps to keep themselves safe and/or summon help for themselves when they need it.

She goes on to warn that ‘deaths will continue to arise’ where vulnerable people require emergency medical attention but are being cared for by staff ‘unable to speak the native language of England with any proficiency’. Acquiring a visa to work in the UK involves proving your ability to speak and understand English to Level B1 and passing a Secure English Language Test (SELT). Marsh, having looked at the Level B1 test, describes it as ‘comparable to a KS2 curriculum being studied by Year 6 students’. She concludes that it ‘appears to be wholly insufficient for those working in the direct care and protection of vulnerable people’. As for SELT, one of Rymell’s carers hadn’t actually passed the test, so according to Marsh ‘was not qualified or permitted to work in the UK’. 

Perhaps this case is just a fluke. Perhaps there aren’t more widespread problems with the English proficiency of care sector staff. Perhaps it is highly uncommon for frail and vulnerable people to be left in the care of those who cannot communicate proficiently in an emergency. Perhaps it is unheard of for migrants to obtain a visa without passing SELT or while being unable to comprehend English at a Year 6 level. But given the dismal state of both the Home Office’s immigration regime and standards in the residential care sector, I suspect otherwise. 

It would be easy for those of us who believe in legal immigration to avert our eyes from Marsh’s report. To pretend its glimpse into the skills profile of low-paid migrant workers is fatally skewed. To console ourselves that there are no lessons to be learned from this incident, only a tragedy to be weaponised by anti-immigrant bigots. This would be a mistake for several reasons, not least because believing in immigration is not the same as believing in the inalienable right of any sector of the economy to have uninterrupted access to cheap labour regardless of the risks. Nor is it the same as believing that we should overlook where the Home Office’s administration of immigration is dangerously slack and focus only on where it is objectionably harsh. Believing in immigration is not about burnishing your progressivism or signalling your high-status attitudes. It is about ensuring that the UK maximises the opportunities of inward migration while minimising its drawbacks. 

Migrants who are unable to proficiently understand the primary language spoken in the country to which they have migrated is very much a drawback. If you cannot speak English with enough proficiency to make a 999 call, you should not be working in residential care. That is not an anti-immigrant statement and only the chronically London-brained would think otherwise. No one has an inalienable right to migrate here. If you get the opportunity to work in the UK, you accept obligations that you must meet or you render yourself ineligible to remain. 

The carers’ English may not have made any difference to the timing of Barbara Rymell’s death.   The stated medical cause of death was unrelated. However, she deserved dignity in her final years. She deserved to die knowing that the people she was relying on to care for her could call for help quickly in an emergency. Regardless of the causes of Barbara’s death, Marsh’s report is clear that there is a risk in respect of future deaths.

Revealed: Sturgeon’s ministers used personal devices for government business

And back to the SNP’s Scotland, which is not quite the land of milk and honey that the Nats would like to make out. It turns out that former first minister Nicola Sturgeon and the majority of her ministers refused to use government-issued mobile phones during her time in office. Cover-ups? Surely not!

Government officials confirmed to the Times that the former first minister and her most senior colleagues used only personal devices to call or text workmates. It reports that, in fact, only a quarter of those ministers in post between February 2020 and January 2022 were recorded as having official phones. Interestingly, 26 of the 30 ministers currently working under Humza Yousaf, the first minister, have government-issued devices. Junior minister and Green co-leader Lorna Slater is one of those who doesn’t. Hapless Humza getting something right — who’d have thunk it?

A spokesperson for Sturgeon said that whether or not she had a government device would have ‘no impact on FOIs [Freedom of Information requests] or security’. But what of the impact on reputation? Mr S notes that former PM Boris Johnson has already come under fire for missing WhatsApps from the start of the pandemic — and current Scottish government ministers were criticised by the inquiry itself for not sending over their messages. Are politicians forgetting that their constituents might be rather interested in, er, honesty?

Yet another example of that famed openness and transparency the nationalists are so good at going on about…

The EU has become paralysed by its own bad decisions

In 2019, France’s president Emmanuel Macron famously called Nato ‘braindead’. Think what you will about the health of the defence alliance, but it is increasingly the European Union, not Nato, that seems paralysed, unable to think more than just a step ahead. 

The EU has been trundling along in this state for some time now. On the European Commission’s recommendation, EU leaders are due to make a decision next week about opening accession negotiations with Ukraine. Yet, little groundwork has been laid to turn even this initial step into a success. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has already fired his opening salvo, refusing to even discuss the issue and threatening to derail the €50 billion (£42.8 billion) fund set aside to assist Ukraine over the years 2024-2027.

This is just the latest in a long line of own goals the EU has scored recently. Last month, just days before the election in the Netherlands which brought the Eurosceptic Geert Wilders to the forefront of Dutch politics, MEPs in the European Parliament narrowly approved a proposal to reform the EU’s treaties. The new rules, which many see as prerequisite for EU enlargement, will strengthen the parliament’s role – giving it the right to initiate legislation and co-legislate on the EU’s budget. It will also trim the number of areas in which the Council (of which the European heads of state are members) can decide policy by unanimity. However, it still needs said EU heads of state to approve it.

Of course, therefore, the proposal is dead in the water. Nationalist governments in Hungary and Slovakia – not to speak of Italy and prospectively the Netherlands – are not going to give up their veto power over critical EU decisions. 

It is true that prior enlargements of the bloc have been accompanied by treaty changes. It also remains the case that the most recent push to change EU treaties, initially through the failed constitution for Europe (2004) and then the Lisbon Treaty (2008) whose ratification required two referenda in Ireland, was acrimonious. Yet, it also happened under far more benign political circumstances than those that characterise European politics today. 

Then there is the European aspiration at strategic autonomy. For understandable reasons, EU policymakers are petrified of the prospect of another Trump administration, which may well deal a death blow to transatlantic support for Ukraine and possibly even to Nato. 

Yet, very little is being done, especially collectively, to prepare for such a scenario. The EU is lagging behind its pledge to produce a million artillery shells for Ukraine by March next year. Efforts to build a European defence industrial base are running into inevitable disagreements over how open such a system should be to friendly non-EU actors, such as the UK.

The common thread running through these examples is the outdated idea of the EU as a state-building project, meant to seize every opportunity to move closer to the ideal of a federal state. As these and many other setbacks show, the EU is now too diverse an entity to fit into such a straitjacket.

For Eastern Europeans, even if they are concerned by Trump’s return, reliance on Berlin and Paris is an inadequate substitute for investing in the transatlantic partnership. Seen from Warsaw or Tallinn, it is better to take one’s chances with the Americans than to be left at the mercy of feckless Western Europeans.

Likewise, members of the EU don’t sufficiently trust each other or have an alignment of interests to justify abandoning the bloc’s largely intergovernmental nature and reliance on unanimity rule in favour of a stronger parliament and majoritarianism. Finally, while Orbán is posturing on Ukraine in bad faith, his opposition to accession talks is finding resonance with those who feel their interests are threatened by Ukraine’s accession – such as Poland’s farmers and truckers – not to speak of many in Western Europe. 

There is an alternative path. Those in the EU who want defence and industrial cooperation should pursue it. Similarly, Poles and Balts shouldn’t be stopped from building leverage with Washington should they wish to by purchasing as many US-made weapons systems as possible. It is also time to accept the current EU rules instead of trying to rewrite them by pushing the continent into another pointless ‘constitutional convention’. 

Finally, it is also time to be creative and act with urgency on Ukraine, instead of blindly following the template of past enlargements. There is no reason why, instead of framing membership as a binary process, Ukrainians cannot already be extended some of the most desirable perks of EU membership, such as market access, free movement of labour (which is mostly a reality already because of the war), or access to schemes such as Erasmus.

The solution to the EU’s current stasis does not lie in trying to reshape the EU into a one-size-fits-all utopia. It is time to accept that the EU institutions are just platforms for bargaining and cooperation on subjects that are of mutual interest to Europeans – not the future government of a budding superpower.

Sunak defends Rwanda plans under fire

After the resignation of Robert Jenrick last night, Rishi Sunak sought to get on the front foot this morning with a press conference in No. 10. The Prime Minister cut a somewhat frustrated figure as he defended his new Rwanda legislation, insisting that it ‘blocks every single reason that has ever been used to prevent flights.’ ‘The only extremely narrow exception will be if you can prove with credible and compelling evidence that you specifically have a real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm’ Sunak told reporters.

If the government face challenges from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, Sunak repeated that he would not allow a foreign court to block flights. But were the bill to go any further, Sunak warned, the Rwandans will pull out and the scheme will collapse, pointing to Kigali’s statement last night. The Prime Minister ended by reiterating his absolute commitment to seeing the Rwanda plan through, calling on ‘everyone’ to support his new Bill and trying to turn the tables on Labour. ‘We have a plan’, he told the room ‘What is their plan?’ he asked. He also, crucially, confirmed that next Tuesday’s vote on his legislation will not be a vote of confidence in his government.

Sunak’s appearance came shortly after the ministerial changes were announced to fill the gap left by Robert Jenrick. His Immigration brief has now been split in two. Michael Tomlinson assumes responsibility for illegal migration while Tom Pursglove takes the legal migration brief. Robert Courts meanwhile steps into Tomlinson’s place as Solicitor-General. These appointments appear to be designed to reassure the right of the party: all three men are Brexiteers who left their posts on principle during the Theresa May years.

Now that the Rwanda legislation has been published, there could well be a temporary pause in hostilities before the Second Reading of the Bill on Tuesday. There is no urgent government business to debate or vote on today so a lot of Tory MPs are now already on their trains back home. There they will no doubt be taking soundings from their associations and constituents over the weekend. Members of the One Nation Group are understood to have concerns about the Bill’s claim that Rwanda is a safe country and that no court can say otherwise, with power ultimately lying with ministers without review. The European Research Group’s legal team are meanwhile confident that their findings will be ‘available, at the very latest’ prior to the debate on Tuesday.

There will likely a big push from No. 10 in the coming days to win round wavering MPs to back their Bill; the fact that Sunak is not wielding the ultimate threat suggests that as it stands he is not that confident in his prospects of success. However, by not making it a confidence vote, it takes some heat out of the issue by making clear that the government will not fall if he loses. In doing so, Sunak’s team hope to avoid the scenes which followed the fracking vote in October 2022 when MPs were not sure if it was a confidence vote or note. That led to the flurry of letters which ended Liz Truss’s premiership.

The SNP’s strange relationship with ‘full transparency’

The SNP makes quite the fuss of its dedication to openness and transparency from political leaders. Voters deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about those in power. And woe betide anyone who dares not to adhere to this principle.

Take former prime minister, Boris Johnson, for example. During his time in office, the Scottish nationalists rarely stopped demanding he publish all manner of information.

It was essential, claimed the SNP, that details of Johnson’s responses to a police questionnaire about lockdown-breaking parties be made public because voters had a right to ‘full transparency’. It was also necessary, insisted the Nats, for Johnson to publish bank statements and correspondence relating to the refurbishment of the flat in 10 Downing Street. Again, this was required in the name of ‘full transparency’.

Johnson was also urged by the SNP to publish the findings of a parliamentary standards watchdog’s investigation into a holiday he and his wife Carrie enjoyed in 2019. The public had a right to know who paid and how much it cost, said the Nats.

But the SNP’s commitment to ‘full transparency’ and the public’s right to know is not, it turns out, absolute. When the politician from whom information is being requested is a Scottish nationalist, cover-up and obfuscation appears to be the default response.

In a move that would have sent the SNP into apoplexy had it been tried by any other party, the Scottish government went to court on Wednesday to try to prevent publication of details of an inquiry into whether former first minister Nicola Sturgeon broke Holyrood’s ministerial code. The inquiry relates to Sturgeon’s handling of allegations of improper behaviour levelled against her predecessor Alex Salmond by a number of women. Those allegations led to a criminal trial at the end of which Salmond was cleared of a number of sexual assault charges.

Ministers had insisted they did not hold the information relating to the inquiry after receiving a freedom of information (FOI) request. The Court of Session in Edinburgh was having none of it. Judges preferred the Information Commissioner’s view that the position posited by ministers was ‘wholly unrealistic’.

The Scottish government must now reconsider its response to the FOI request. In 2021, Irish lawyer James Hamilton – the independent advisor on the ministerial code – was asked to consider whether Sturgeon misled MSPs about when she met Salmond’s chief of staff in the aftermath of allegations against him. Hamilton cleared Sturgeon of breaching the ministerial code, but expressed frustration that his report had been heavily redacted.

Following Hamilton’s comments, a member of the public submitted a freedom of information request, asking the Scottish government to publish all evidence gathered by the lawyer. The rejection of that request triggered an appeal to the Information Commissioner, who found ministers were in the wrong and told them to think again.

But rather than complying, the Scottish government appealed the commissioner’s ruling at Scotland’s highest court.The decision of the court came just days after Salmond announced he was launching legal action against the Scottish government over its handling of the allegations against him. Salmond accuses civil servants of misfeasance – the abuse of lawful authority – in their actions.

The former first minister’s legal action is likely to prove painful for Sturgeon and her successor as first minister, Humza Yousaf, as details of the breakdown of long-standing allegiances are made public. The desperate attempt to avoid publishing details of the standards probe into Sturgeon means the Scottish government begins its defence of Alex Salmond’s claim under a cloud of suspicion. After all, were any other party to fight so hard to reject a freedom of information request, the SNP would – quite rightly – suggest it had something to hide.

Watch: BBC presenter puts middle finger up at viewers

Is the licence fee worth it? Mr Steerpike thinks it might be if Maryam Moshiri presents the news more often. The BBC news anchor was caught out this morning holding her middle finger up at the camera at the start of the hourly bulletin. Moshiri has since claimed that it was a ‘private joke with the team’:

I was pretending to count down as the director was counting me down from 10-0.. including the fingers to show the number. So from 10 fingers held up to one.

Oh dear. She may have more than a few disgruntled viewers after today’s programme, but there were some supportive comments at least. Specsavers told her: ‘We’re with you, Maryam. If you are struggling to see the countdown, let us know.’ Mr S can only picture how she might have reacted to that…

Watch it here:

Jenrick’s departure prompts mini-reshuffle

The post of Immigration Minister in 2023 has the potential to be as much of a poisoned chalice as the role of Brexit Secretary in 2018. Robert Jenrick’s departure last night created a difficult problem for No. 10. Anyone succeeding him would need to be unshakeable on immigration: a ‘sound as a pound’ right-winger, in the words of one Brexiteer. This morning we have our answer: Tom Pursglove, perhaps the most right-wing member left in Sunak’s government takes up the newly-created post of Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery.

In a classic bit of Whitehall jiggery-pokery, Jenrick’s role has been split in two. Pursglove takes the legal brief while Michael Tomlinson becomes the Minister for Illegal Migration. The latter move creates a vacancy in the Attorney-General’s Office, filled by Robert Courts after just 43 days as chair of the Defence Select Committee. All three men are Brexiteers: Courts quit as a PPS under Theresa May over her Chequers plan while Tomlinson is a former deputy chairman of the European Research Group.

Pursglove is meanwhile returning to the Home Office for his second stint at 2 Marsham Street. He previously spent a year there under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, serving successively in the Illegal Migration, Crime and Policing and Immigration briefs. This time though he is likely to find the role even more challenging than ever before.

The Rwanda Bill is going to be hugely contentious

On Wednesday, the government finally published its promised ‘emergency legislation’, after the Supreme Court ruled in November that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful. The new legislation follows the agreement of a new treaty with Rwanda on Tuesday which aimed to ‘strengthen the UK-Rwanda Migration Partnership’ and deal with the serious problems identified by the Supreme Court.

Rishi Sunak has made the small boat crossings into a totemic issue but it has now rather spun out of control. Some might argue that the main ‘emergency’ the legislation is really designed to address is a crisis in the Conservative party over the issue of migration. The new legislation may not have been strong enough for former immigration minister Robert Jenrick. But his resignation yesterday should not disguise the fact that this Bill will prove to be hugely contentious and legally problematic.

Rather than leaving the courts to determine whether the new Rwanda treaty resolves the concerns the Supreme Court had about Rwanda being a safe country, the new Bill introduces what are frequently referred to by lawyers as ‘ouster clauses’. These seek to preclude the court considering that question at all.

Clause 2 of the Bill states simply that ‘every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country.’ As Professor Steven Peers noted yesterday, this introduces an ‘apparently irrefutable presumption’ that Rwanda is ‘safe’ and would stop the domestic courts from hearing a challenge on this point.

The Bill does not stop there. It also seeks to disapply some parts of the Human Rights Act. The ouster would apply ‘notwithstanding’ any interpretation of international law (including the European Convention on Human Rights) by a court or tribunal. But this is only in respect of questions relating to the safety of Rwanda, or whether the person would receive fair and proper consideration of their claim in Rwanda.

Clause 4 provides a safeguard of sorts, allowing removal decisions to be challenged on the basis of ‘compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances.’ But that clause also makes clear that such a challenge cannot be made on the grounds that Rwanda is ‘not a safe country in general’ or that the person might be returned to a country where they would face mistreatment contrary to international law obligations (including the Refugee Convention).

Finally, the Bill also makes clear that a domestic court or tribunal should not have regard to any ‘interim measure’ made by the European Court of Human Rights, stating that it is ‘for a Minister of the Crown (and only a Minister of the Crown) to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.’

There is a certain irony that one of the reasons Rishi Sunak gave for the government failing to go even further in seeking to disapply our international obligations is that the Rwandan government said ‘they would not accept the UK basing this scheme on legislation that could be considered in breach of our international law obligations.’

While these measures fall short of calls to disapply the entirety of the ECHR, or leave the Convention system and the Refugee Convention, they are nonetheless hugely controversial. As Joshua Rozenberg has noted, the Home Secretary, James Cleverly, has not been able to declare (as is normally the case with new legislation) that the Bill is compatible with Convention rights.

I think it unlikely that the ouster clauses will survive contact with the House of Lords. The majority of Peers might, quite reasonably, conclude that the government should allow our courts to rule whether or not Rwanda is a safe country after the new treaty. After all, James Cleverly stated only two days ago that ‘the Supreme Court recognised that changes may be delivered which would address their conclusions – this treaty responds directly to that.’ The move to introduce legislation of this sort suggests that he is far from confident that the new treaty is really sufficient.

In the very unlikely event that the Bill passes through Parliament unscathed, it will leave the courts in something of a quandary. The precedent this legislation would set is appalling. At worst, it will encourage other countries to believe that they can simply ignore their international obligations.

Judges can read the opinion polls like the rest of us and will know it is unlikely the current government will be in power much longer and that the opposition does not support this legislation. Nevertheless, it would not be wise for the judiciary to challenge the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. If a case comes before them, their role should be limited to issuing what is known as a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ under the Human Rights Act, setting out that the Bill is contrary to Convention rights. The alternative is a constitutional crisis. 

Professor Mark Elliot, a distinguished Cambridge academic who used to advise the House of Lords Constitution Committee, has argued that the Bill is ‘parochial’ as it wrongly proceeds on the basis that the UK Parliament, because it is sovereign, can free itself from its international legal obligations.

As he notes, this is simply not true. Short of exiting the relevant treaties these obligations continue to exist in international law. As I suggested yesterday, the ultimate effect of the government’s approach could well be more cases at the European Court of Human Rights – potentially resulting in  compensation claims from anyone who is wrongly removed. This would be a significant own goal.

The small boats crisis now appears to have completely destabilised the government. Despite the fact that, as Robert Jenrick acknowledged in his resignation letter, small boat arrivals have decreased by more than a third this year (partly down to a returns deal concluded with Albania), Sunak has to go further to win over the right of the party. Yet that is practically impossible in the time he has left in power. He will probably struggle with this Bill – and certainly could not get more radical legislation through parliament.

The unfortunate fact is that, in fixating on this unhappy policy, Rishi Sunak may define his legacy as a Prime Minister who damaged the rule of law, perhaps profoundly, while failing to even achieve his aim.

KFC is right to take on the public health zealots

There was some good news for the people of Sunderland last month when local councillors managed to stop a small business from opening. They had received an application to open a Mexican takeaway restaurant on premises formerly occupied by a dog grooming salon on Tunstall Village Road. Spotting the words ‘Mexican cuisine’ in the temporary change of use application, the council concluded that the company would ‘not support or improve the health and wellbeing of local communities’ and turned it down. 

Those who live in and around Tunstall Village Road may have been saved from having burritos within walking distance, but the residents of less fortunate communities remain at risk. The Times has just ‘revealed’ that Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has been ‘thwarting efforts to stop fast-food outlets near schools’. According to Stephen Turnbull, Wakefield council’s director of public health, this has made his team ‘depressed’. 

Mr Turnbull is one of England’s 130 public health directors. The job of these health directors, handsomely remunerated with salaries well over £100,000, is to make a nuisance of themselves at council meetings, waffling about ‘health inequalities’ and objecting whenever anyone tries to open an off licence or kebab shop. During the pandemic they were about as much use as a chocolate teapot because they don’t know much about infectious disease. They don’t know about non-infectious diseases for that matter, except that they are caused by capitalism.  

The complaint of Mr Turnbull and his depressed team is that whenever they, or another council, try to stop KFC from opening a shop, KFC points out that a ban would be unlawful and not grounded in evidence. External planning inspectors are then brought in to adjudicate and often they agree with the company. In effect, their beef is with the rule of law. They want to make arbitrary and capricious decisions that restrict freedom of choice and potentially cost jobs and they appear to be annoyed that the system won’t always let them. 

KFC is certainly correct when it says that such bans are unscientific. ‘Public health’ academics have tried desperately hard to find evidence that living near a fast food outlet makes people more likely to be obese, but have come up empty-handed. Dozens of studies have been conducted and no such association appears to exist. Zoning restrictions are popular with local busybodies not because they are evidence-based but because they are among the few policies that can be implemented at the local level. 

Wakefield council is one of many councils that bans new fast food outlets opening within 400 metres of schools in an attempt to tackle the imaginary epidemic of childhood obesity. The problem is that if you live in a town or city you are never far from a school. Schools tend to be located where people live. Food shops are located in the same places for the same reason. A ban on fast food outlets within 400 metres of a school in London would ban them pretty much everywhere except in the River Thames – where there isn’t much footfall.  

It is a terrible policy and we should raise a glass to KFC for fighting them on our behalf. Mr Turnbull, meanwhile, gives us an insight into the mind of the modern puritan when he says: ‘We can’t control everyone’s lives and we don’t want to control those people’s lives, but people can’t make healthy choices when there’s a takeaway straight outside the school.’ This is obviously untrue. The more options that are available, the more choice we have. His real concern is that if we have the choice of eating a chicken bucket, some of us will do so. That is so intolerable to him that the force of law must be used to ensure that only the ‘healthy choices’ remain. 

Braverman’s Today interview points to trouble ahead for Sunak

Where does the Tory party sit after Robert Jenrick’s resignation over the Prime Minister’s Rwanda policy? Jenrick’s decision to quit yesterday meant Rishi Sunak’s attempts to sell his Rwanda plan fell into disarray within an hour of the policy being revealed. No further resignations have followed yet, but the bigger problem for Sunak is what does the right of the party do now: will they refuse to support his Rwanda Bill? And if Sunak fails to change course, will this group of MPs decide they have no confidence in the Prime Minister?

Suella Braverman gave a hint of the next steps this group are planning when she appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning. Downing Street declined to put forward a minister for the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme so the former home secretary took the 8.10 a.m. slot. Braverman began the interview by denying her party has a ‘death wish’ following heated talk of no-confidence letters and a potential leadership challenge. Instead, she said that her interventions were about policy rather than her own career prospects.

Braverman said her party is in a ‘very perilous’ position unless it can stop the boats. She argued that the ‘sorry truth’ is that Sunak’s Rwanda Bill will not do this. When Nick Robinson put to her that Sunak had said the Rwandan government would not accept her preferred plan as it would break international law, Braverman said she did not accept this. When pressed on whether this meant Braverman was accusing Sunak of lying about the Rwandan government’s position, the former home secretary would only say there was ‘intellectual incoherence’ in the position as the current Bill already disapplies some elements of the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. Therefore if illegality is the issue, Sunak’s approach isn’t perfect either.

However, the problem with Braverman’s argument is that the Rwandan government appears to back the Sunak proposal and thinks her preferred plan – which would include ‘notwithstanding clauses’ – is a step too far. Braverman seemed to be arguing the Bill won’t work even with Rwanda’s support so there is no point proceeding.

But it does beg the question of how this group’s own alternative plan would work. They either need to claim that Sunak is misleading them over the Rwandan government position or find an alternative country for the scheme. Notably, Lord Sumption suggested on Wednesday night that Sunak’s legislation will work – but it does risk breaching international law. Given Sumption has argued in support of leaving the ECHR, his judgment is likely to be taken seriously by the Tory right.

As for Braverman’s plan if Sunak does not change course, she insisted that she hopes Sunak will lead the party into the next election – despite accusing him of being ‘weak’ and ‘lacking in leadership qualities’ in her letter when she was sacked. If Sunak does not change course, Braverman left enough space in her answers to declare later down the line that she does not back Sunak staying on as prime minister.

But the more immediate issue is what this group will do when the Bill comes to a vote as early as next week. Labour has said they will oppose the Bill. If these Tory MPs team up with Labour to block it, Sunak will be out of options and his authority will be shot.

‘This is generous food’: The Salt Pig Too, reviewed

Swanage is a town torn from a picture book on the Isle of Purbeck: loveliness and vulgarity both. It is famous for fossils, Purbeck marble, a dangerous-looking small theme park, and Punch and Judy. My husband is very attached to Swanage, because it exists in a state of 1952 – in homage to this, it has a branch line with a station from The Railway Children. In the summer, on the beach, you see fat sunburnt people with handkerchiefs on their heads. I didn’t think they existed anymore: I thought they were all dead.

Some parts of Dorset have gentrified, though this doesn’t really describe what has happened to Sand-banks, the Bishop’s Avenue of the coast. That is closer to calamity, or invasion by space aliens who love concrete and glass. I can’t bear to look at Sandbanks, so I can’t say if it has good restaurants.

Lulworth Cove is as eerie as ever: you will get pub food here, near necrotic fairy cottages (all holiday lettings now, of course). Lyme cannot surpass its close-up in Persuasion, and then The French Lieutenant’s Woman: that is, I’d rather visit those Lymes than my own. But since I make an annual pilgrimage to Swanage, I want to know if fine food is possible here, and it is, due to James Warren, the owner of the Salt Pig.

Restaurateurs are optimists. It’s rare they hate people and, when they do, they get a sitcom: Fawlty Towers. The Salt Pig is a series of five restaurants (with deli and butchery) in the Purbeck Hills: at Wareham, Studland, Tyneham, Carey’s Secret Garden near Worgret – Dorset place names are special – and Swanage. Warren keeps rare Mangalitsa x Berkshire pigs and, because he is tender to them, they travel no more than eight miles to be eaten. Or you can order a box of them.

The Salt Pig in Swanage (Salt Pig Too) is on the main drag, surrounded by the shops of 1952, and warm and vivid: orange paint; wood floors and walls, like a ship; wild art, because it is also an art gallery dedicated to food, or pre-food. There are paintings of cows; of 2kg of Roscoff shallots for £12, which I doubt had a close-up until now; of flowers, piglets, and pigs; of a rabbit that looks disturbed even for a rabbit; a still life of salad. It’s an attempt to fix a farm inside a frame, though it can’t be done, if done well. They tumble out and all around.

At Sunday lunchtime the menu is a glut. Names of cuts are scratched onto a blackboard: Asian pork belly; rib-eye steak; peri peri chicken legs; lamb chops; a singular trout. They come with side dishes – corn on the cob, new potatoes with herbs, a dressed salad – for £16.95. Or you choose from a hot buffet at the entrance, which is another glut: Med-iterranean vegetables and coastal cheddar cheese; a steak and bacon sausage roll; coastal cheddar mac and cheese; lasagna; lamb and mint pie.

This is generous food. The rib-eye is as good as can be found, and guiltlessly bloody, with charred and buttery sweetcorn. The salads – bean, beetroot, potato, tomato, olive and cabbage – could be continental European salads, and I know no higher praise, particularly near pigs. The chicken is as lively as it can be, being dead.

All this amounts to The Salt Pig being a small bespoke Harvester that cares about food, or the house of a farmer’s wife who woke up startled and, in some magical trance, cooked all the animals on the farm, and I can think of nothing more delightful.

Jenrick’s resignation is a turning point for the Tory party

When he found out that a career-minded MP called Rishi Sunak had come out in favour of leaving the EU, David Cameron turned to George Osborne and declared: ‘We’ve lost the future of the party.’

Almost eight years later, Sunak should be turning to his own wing man – Oliver Dowden perhaps or even Cameron himself – and saying the same thing about the resignation of Robert Jenrick as immigration minister.

Because Jenrick quitting over the Rwanda Bill not being strong enough is an equally telling moment. The 41-year-old Jenrick comes from the same well-mannered, centre-right Tory tradition as Sunak. He is in politics for the long haul and undoubtedly sees a return to full Cabinet rank as part of his personal career plan.

He was sent by Sunak to the Home Office to man mark that wild card Suella Braverman. But he came to see that she was right on the fundamentals of migration policy of both the legal and illegal varieties.

And now he has quit Sunak’s administration, resigning both on a point of principle and as a result of a calculated analysis about the future direction and likely reservoirs of support of the Conservative party.

As a good performer on the Today programme and all-round smooth operator, Jenrick could easily have prospered in any ‘liberal Conservative’ government over the next 20 years. Clearly, he has gone because he does not think there is going to be such a government.

Instead, his political antennae have told him, correctly in my view, that the Conservative Party is going to lose the next election and then undergo a major reorientation that will see its patrician liberal wing of upper-class internationalists getting marginalised and then dropping out.

In their place will emerge an earthier, more provincial pro-nation state party that is genuinely socially conservative, particularly around the totemic issue of border control.

Jenrick has, in effect, made the opposite choice to the one that Sunak made a few weeks ago when he sacked Braverman and brought Cameron back into cabinet along with various bright young things who travel light when it comes to ideological baggage.

As immigration minister he looked into the future of migration trends and realised that the international arrangements currently in place are completely unsustainable and that the British public will turn towards a Nigel Farage political vehicle to remedy things if the Tories do not. 

As MP for Newark in Nottinghamshire – a prosperous rural constituency with a market town at its heart – he has no doubt worked out that the Tories can win again if they rebuild the victorious 2019 electoral coalition of socially and culturally conservative voters across traditional shire seats and Red Wall ones alike.

Blue Wall, Home Counties Tory liberalism of a kind that prioritises foreign aid over domestic levelling up or international law over basic border control is destined to become so much political roadkill. The actual Liberal Democrats or Keir Starmer’s new Blairism will hoover up voters who believe in that stuff.

The short-term impact of Jenrick’s departure will be to blow further holes in Sunak’s credibility on stopping the boats and immigration control in general. The odds must now be on a no confidence vote in the Prime Minister taking place before the Christmas recess.

But it is the long-term impact that is more fascinating still. Like other bright Tories who have yet to hit their career zeniths – Neil O’Brien and Nick Timothy come to mind – Jenrick has detected both the electoral and intellectual power of scepticism about mass, uncontrolled migration.

The National or ‘New’ Conservative movement, which prioritises the ideas of citizen preference in public services and social housing, strong law and order, pro-family policy, resisting Woke onslaughts from the identitarian left, and the enhancement of social solidarity is the coming force.

It will either take a controlling interest in the Tory party or create a party of its own – perhaps in conjunction with senior voices in Reform or even the SDP – after a calamitous Conservative defeat next year. Either way, a big shake-out is coming and the smart people are turning right just as Sunak has headed back towards the psychological comfort of the established centre ground. The herd is on the move again, but it is not going where Sunak wishes to lead it.

Why Robert Jenrick was wrong to resign

Robert Jenrick resigned as immigration minister this evening over the government’s plan to amend the Rwanda scheme. Here is the Prime Minister’s response to Jenrick’s resignation letter:

Thank you for your letter and your service in Government. Your hard work has helped us cut boat crossings by more than a third. You have strived to cut the asylum backlog and return hotels to their communities.

Your resignation is disappointing given we both agreed on the ends, getting flights off to Rwanda so that we can stop the boats. I fear that your departure is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It is our experience that gives us confidence that this will work. Our returns deal with Albania, that you were instrumental in securing, has cut Albanian arrivals by ninety per cent. These Albanian arrivals have far more recourse to the courts than people will under this new legislation. But we have still succeeded in returning 5,000 illegal migrants this year and cutting the numbers dramatically because it has shown that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay.

This bill is the toughest piece of illegal migration legislation ever put forward by a UK Government. It makes clear that Parliament deems Rwanda safe and no court can second guess that, it disapplies the relevant parts of the human rights act and makes clear that it is for Ministers to decide whether or not to comply with any temporary injunctions issued by the European Court of Human Rights. If we were to oust the courts entirely, we would collapse the entire scheme. The Rwandan Government have been clear that they would not accept the UK basing this scheme on legislation that could be considered in breach of our international law obligations. There would be no point in passing a law that would leave us with nowhere to send people to.

I know that you have more to contribute and that you will continue to represent your constituents in Newark and Bingham with dedication and determination.

Your sincerely, Rishi Sunak

What Jenrick’s resignation means for Sunak’s premiership

Rishi Sunak used his appearance before the 1922 committee this evening to tell MPs – once again – that the choice facing them was ‘unite or die’. He argued that the only choice facing the Tory party was to get behind his Rwanda ‘Plan B’ or to lose to Labour. Alas that message appears to have held little to no sway with his former ally Robert Jenrick, who has this evening resigned from government. After rumours swirled this evening, Jenrick has confirmed he has stepped down from his post stating: ‘I cannot continue in my position when I have such strong disagreements with the direction of the Government’s policy on immigration.’

Jenrick has already been pretty vocal about his reservations over Sunak’s legal migration plans. This week, Sunak took the bulk of Jenrick’s suggestions on board in this area with his new five-point plan. However, Sunak’s Rwanda plan proved a bridge too far. Jenrick shared the view of his former boss Suella Braverman that Sunak needed to go further and ‘disapply’ the European convention on human rights. However, Sunak’s reason to MPs for not going that ‘one inch’ further is that the Rwandan government could have pulled the scheme entirely. Comments from the government tonight highlight their unease at the criticism they have received so far – when they want to be a part of the international community.

So, what does Jenrick’s resignation mean for Sunak politically? Jenrick was once one of Sunak’s closest allies – penning a decisive piece for Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign alongside Sunak and Oliver Dowden. The trio were at one point seen as the three musketeers on a path to greatness. Some say Jenrick was unhappy that the vacant role of Home Secretary went to James Cleverly rather than himself. He was previously seen as Sunak’s eyes and ears in the Home Office. However, it would be wrong to say this is all about positioning – as a minister up against the challenges on a day to day basis of migration, Jenrick has developed strong views. He is also close to Braverman, the pair are friends dating back to their university days.

Will further resignations now follow? The view in government tonight is that this is unlikely – or at least they hope so. Instead, the bigger problem is on the right of the party. These MPs felt after Braverman’s exit they did not have a voice in government – and then decided Jenrick might be that. Jenrick’s decision to quit now will send a signal that the ‘plan B’ does not cut muster – even if ERG veteran Bill Cash praised it at the 22’ meeting this evening. It means Sunak faces a revolt on the right. The worst this group could do is fire in no-confidence letters – but even in that worst case scenario for Sunak he would more than likely win the vote. However, the sense of Tory chaos and infighting (along with a failure to get the plan through the Commons) would only further hurt the Tories’ already dire electoral prospects.

Why I resigned as immigration minister

This evening, Robert Jenrick resigned as immigration minister after disagreeing with the government’s plans to amend the Rwanda scheme. Here is his resignation letter in full:

Dear Prime Minister,

It is with great sadness that I write to tender my resignation as Minister for Immigration. I cannot continue in my position when I have such strong disagreements with the direction of the government’s policy on immigration.

As you know, I have been pushing for the strongest possible piece of emergency legislation to ensure that under the Rwanda policy we remove as many small boat arrivals, as swiftly as possible, to generate the greatest deterrent effect. This stems from my firmly held position that the small boats crisis is a national emergency that is doing untold damage to our country, and the only way we will be able to stop the boats completely is by urgently introducing a major new deterrent.

I have therefore consistently advocated for a clear piece of legislation that severely limits the opportunities for domestic and foreign courts to block or undermine the effectiveness of the policy. One of the great advantages of our unwritten constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law, and that is a power we must take full advantage of. The government has a responsibility to place our vital national interests above highly contested interpretations of international law.

In the discussions on the proposed emergency legislation you have moved towards my position, for which I am grateful. 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. A Bill of the kind you are proposing is a triumph of hope over experience. The stakes for the country are too high for us not to pursue the stronger protections required to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme and negating its intended deterrent.

Reflecting on my time in the Home Office, I am proud of the improvements we have delivered together working alongside dedicated and capable civil servants. I am grateful to you for agreeing to much of my five-point plan to reduce net migration which, once implemented, will deliver the single largest reduction in legal migration ever. However, I refuse to be yet another politician who makes promise on immigration to the British public but does not keep them.

This package must be implemented immediately via an emergency rules change and accompanied by significant additional reforms at the start of next year to ensure we meet the 2019 manifesto commitment that every single Conservative MP was elected upon. The consequences for housing, public services, economic productivity, welfare reform, community cohesion and, more fundamentally, for trust in democratic politics are all too serious for this totemic issue to be anything other than a primary focus for the government.

Together we have also made progress tackling illegal migration. Small boats arrivals are down by more than a third compared to last year, against a forecast of a forty per cent increase and an almost one hundred per cent rise in Italy in the same period. The deal we negotiated with Albania has led to a more than ninety per cent reduction in Albanians arriving illegally on small boats and has demonstrated that a fully functioning scheme with Rwanda will act as a powerful deterrent. For the first time we have developed a comprehensive upstream strategy to disrupt the organised immigration crime gangs in important countries including Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria and Turkey.

This has made the United Kingdom a partner of choice to those who share a determination to tackle illegal migration and has led to record numbers of small boat equipment seizures, preventing thousands more people making the illegal, unnecessary, and dangerous crossing. At home we have relentlessly focussed on removing the pull factors the United Kingdom.

We have increased raids on illegal working by seventy per cent and returns of immigration offenders by over fifty per cent, transformed the asylum case-working system with a ten-fold increase in weekly decisions to eliminate the legacy backlog, and began closing hundreds of the farcical asylum hotels. Behind the scenes we have also instilled greater rigour in scrutinising visa applications which will tackle the equally concerning rise in non-small boat asylum claims. 

However, we said that we must stop the boats altogether. This is what the public rightly demands and expects of us. We must truly mean that we will do ‘whatever it takes’ to deliver this commitment when we say so. This emergency legislation is the last opportunity to prove this, but in its current drafting it does not go far enough. 

You and I have been friends for a long time. In cabinet I have seen up close your hard work, dedication and the deep sense of public service that drives you every day. Against strong headwinds you have stabilised the country, showed leadership on the world stage and done much to improve the lives of millions of citizens across the United Kingdom, for which you deserve much greater recognition.

This is not a decision I have arrived at lightly, but one born of principle and reached after careful consideration and many months of trying to convince you of the merits of my position. You will retain my full support on the backbenches even as I campaign on illegal and legal migration policy and the intersecting challenges of generating meaningful economic growth, solving the housing crisis and improving integration. The fortunes of the Conservative party at the next general election are at stake. 

It has been an honour to serve in government for five Conservative Prime Ministers. I will continue to represent the interests of my constituents in Newark to whom I owe you so much.

Yours ever,

Robert Jenrick

Watch: Home Office minister reacts to Jenrick’s exit

It was Herbert Morrison who remarked that the corridors of the Home Office are paved with dynamite. Well tonight, they’re blowing up. Just three weeks after Suella Braverman was unceremoniously fired from 2 Marsham Street, her onetime junior minister has now followed her out of the door.

After two hours of speculation, it has now been confirmed that Robert Jenrick has quit the immigration brief, having made clear his objections to Rishi Sunak’s newly unveiled Rwanda legislation.One person who found out the news the hard way was, er, Jenrick’s colleague, Laura Farris. She was about to go on air with Andrew Marr on LBC before she was told the news. Asked by Marr if he had stepped down, Farris replied ‘I understand that he has’ before admitting that she did not know why her fellow Tory had resigned. Awkward.

Will the last minister to quit the Home Office please turn out the lights..?

Robert Jenrick resigns as immigration minister

In the past few minutes, James Cleverly has confirmed that Robert Jenrick has resigned as immigration minister. He was asked repeatedly about the position of his minister of state in the Home Office during his statement on the emergency Rwanda legislation, and he has now said it ‘has been confirmed’ that Jenrick has left his role, which suggests the Secretary of State didn’t know the position when he entered the chamber.

Cleverly added: ‘Of course I speak with the ministers in the department regularly but ultimately the question of this session should be about the Bill but about the individuals in the House.’ This was swiftly followed by Mark Francois, who told the Chamber that it was ‘deeply worrying’ that Jenrick had gone.

The progression of questions shows Cleverly’s own surprise. From the start of his statement, MPs were shouting ‘where’s the minister?’ across the chamber. Normally the Commons complains when a junior minister comes instead of the Secretary of State, but this evening, the focus was on the fact the Home Secretary was giving a statement without his second-in-command sitting on the frontbench. Tory MPs were buzzing about with the rumour that Jenrick has quit as Immigration Minister, and Yvette Cooper asked directly whether he had on the back of those claims. Cleverly did not answer, but he did tell Home Affairs Committee chair Diana Johnson that he expected Jenrick would come before her committee next week as planned. Later, Cleverly was asked by Chris Bryant whether Jenrick had resigned and why. The Home Secretary replied: ‘The hon. Gentleman as always has an amusing turn of phrase… but his question is not one for me. If he wants to know what any particular member of this house is thinking, he should ask that member of the house.’

The session has been dominated by Jenrick, not the substance of the Bill, but for Tory MPs the resignation of the minister offers an assessment of what that legislation means: it does not go far enough for the traditional and right wings of the party. It is also a huge blow to Rishi Sunak: Jenrick is one of his closest friends in politics. Other MPs have described this as a ‘confidence issue’ in the Prime Minister. Tonight is going to be a long and dramatic one and the week may end very differently for Rishi Sunak than how it started.

Inside Sunak’s meeting with MPs on his Rwanda ‘Plan B’

Rishi Sunak made an impromptu appearance at the 1922 committee tonight as he sought to sell his ‘Plan B’ on Rwanda to restive Tory MPs. This evening the government published the Bill – which asserts that ministers have the power to ignore judgments from Strasbourg but stops short at ‘disapplying’ the ECHR. This means it doesn’t go as far as what former home secretary Suella Braverman called for. Speaking to MPs, Sunak said it was the furthest the government could go, as had they gone ‘one inch further’ and ousted the courts entirely, the Rwandan government would not have backed it and there would be no Rwanda scheme to action.

The Prime Minister argued to MPs that the Bill – which disapplies sections of the Human Rights Act – offers the Tories a chance to unite and take the fight to Labour. According to one attendee, Sunak repeatedly used the phrase ‘unite or die’ – a phrase he used when he first became prime minister. He said now is the time to unite, since if the party can push this bill through parliament and get flights going, Labour won’t have an adequate response. Sunak was heavily critical of Keir Starmer in his address – once again bringing up Starmer’s previous support for Corbyn.

As for the reception, Sunak had a full audience – around 150 MPs turned up from various parts of the party. There was a lot of table banging and one attendee says the ratio of supportive to hostile questions was 60:40. Many of the so-called supportive questions were statements on the importance of unity. However, there were also some indicators that the right of the party could get on board. Braverman was notably not in attendance but ERG-er Bill Cash suggested his initial impression of the plan was that it is ‘bold and robust’.

However, others were more sceptical – Mark Francois asked if Robert Jenrick has resigned yet. The Home Office minister has of late become a torch bearer for the Tory right. Sunak swerved the question, but there is yet to be an indicator that he has decided to go. The other question Sunak seemed less keen on was whether individual asylum seekers could still take the government to court. MPs in the room say Sunak swerved this. In the coming hours and days once MPs have time to go over the plans, it will become clearer whether Sunak can unite his party – or whether that is just not possible. It’s not just the ERG star chamber examining the bill, the One Nation Tories also have their own team of lawyers looking over it. Satisfying both wings will be a very uphill task.

Keir Starmer’s popularity is declining in Scotland

Once upon a time, Sir Keir Starmer was Scottish Labour’s greatest asset. In the dark days following the party’s 2019 general election drubbing, the party in Scotland remained an unlikely redoubt of Corbynism, languishing in the polls under the uninspiring leadership of trade unionist Richard Leonard. In such a context, Starmer’s election as Labour leader in March 2020 was a boon to the Scottish party, which many considered was in terminal decline. 

As well as manoeuvring the ineffectual Leonard out of office and replacing him with the modernising Anas Sarwar, Starmer himself also proved an immediate hit with Scottish voters. In October 2020, for instance, Ipsos recorded an approval rating of 16 per cent for Starmer, with almost half of Scots who expressed an opinion saying they were satisfied with his leadership. Among Scottish voters, only the seemingly untouchable Nicola Sturgeon – at the peak of her pandemic pinnacle – was more popular. 

Fast-forward three years, however, and it seems Starmer’s honeymoon with Scottish voters may be coming to an abrupt end. While Scottish Labour’s fortunes have significantly improved under his and Sarwar’s direction, there is growing evidence that Starmer himself is no longer an asset to the Scottish party – and may soon become a liability. 

The UK Labour leader’s recent comments on Margaret Thatcher are a case in point. Few things can unite Scottish Labour’s left and right factions, but they were unanimous in thinking Starmer’s intervention would damage the party in Scotland. Former Scottish Labour MSP and hardcore Corbynista Neil Findlay dubbed Starmer’s intervention an ‘insult’, while John McTernan, the former Scottish Labour strategist and arch-Blairite, branded the comments a ‘really bad’ misjudgement. Even Sarwar himself – understandably reluctant to add fuel to the fire by directly criticising the UK Labour leader – gave a frustrated interview where he condemned Thatcher and pointedly refused to defend Starmer’s comments. 

Certainly, this disagreement is not an aberration but one of a series of recent splits between the Scottish and UK parties that reflect a growing frustration with Starmer’s determination to appeal to former Conservative voters in England. The parties have most recently clashed over calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and the two-child benefit cap, while other differences – such as EU relations – continue to bubble beneath the surface. 

Most worryingly for Labour, there is growing evidence that such interventions are damaging Starmer’s standing among Scottish voters, albeit not in the way the party’s opponents would hope. A recent poll by Redfield and Wilton, published on 29 November, showed Starmer’s approval rating in Scotland had collapsed by 10 points over the previous month. That echoed similar findings by Ipsos on November 26, which showed for the first time that a majority of people in Scotland (52 per cent) disapproved of Starmer’s leadership.

The positive for Scottish Labour, and the issue for its opponents, is that the decline in Starmer’s popularity is not yet translating into a fall in support for his party in Scotland – in fact, quite the opposite. For instance, the same poll that recorded Starmer’s approval rating falling by 10 points also put Scottish Labour ahead of the SNP in voting intention for the first time, while they also won the recent Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election from the SNP by a huge margin. 

This could be explained by the fact that, as Sarwar has grown in stature and status, so has Starmer’s importance declined in the mind of Scottish voters. More probably, the rank incompetence of the current SNP administration is forcing voters to back Scottish Labour, regardless of their growing reticence about Starmer. 

Nevertheless, it is clear that Starmer is increasingly no longer the electoral asset to Scottish Labour he once was and that – as we get closer to a general election – the divisions between the UK and Scottish parties are likely to only become more apparent.  

Boris argues that Covid mistakes were inevitable. Is he right?

Boris Johnson had clearly come to the Covid Inquiry intending to be magnanimous about everyone, even advisers like Dominic Cummings who had ended up causing him so much grief – and who had not been at all complimentary about him in their evidence to the inquiry. He largely stuck to that persona in the first of his two lengthy evidence sessions today, with another to come tomorrow. He repeatedly praised Matt Hancock as doing a good job in difficult circumstances and who ‘was a good public communicator’. He even tried to politely explain away the more vicious behaviour of aides within government as variously being just the sort of thing bright people do in the heat of a crisis – though he also said he had rung Helen MacNamara to apologise for the language used about her by Cummings in one of his WhatsApp groups (of which Johnson was a member). 

As pre-trailed, Johnson tried to play down the significance of a lot of the WhatsApps that the Inquiry has spent so much time examining. It was notable that Hugo Keith KC made a comment early on that he wasn’t interested in the salacious aspects of the WhatsApp conversations, as though he may have noticed frustration outside the inquiry room with the amount of focus devoted to who swore at who. Johnson described the messages as ‘the kind of stuff that would never have previously come out from any administration because it’s now on instant social messages of a kind that previous governments didn’t have: this is instant chit chat between people who would normally have said this to each other’s faces’. He even went off into a character study of the kind of person who ends up in government, saying: ‘You’ve got a lot of very talented, sometimes super-confident, sometimes egotistical people who are crushed with anxiety about what is happening to their country, who are wracked secretly with self-doubt and self-criticism and externalise that by criticising others and it’s human nature’. 

But his evidence also made plain that the way Johnson thought government should be run contributed to this atmosphere of hostility. He told the inquiry that he spoke ‘so bluntly and freely in meetings’ because he ‘wanted to give everybody cover to do the same’ and discourage agreement or consensus which would be damaging to the country. We have already known for some time that this was Johnson’s preferred modus operandi: to play advisers off against one another to force them to sharpen their arguments so that he could make what he regarded as the best decision. ‘I knew that some people were difficult. I didn’t know how difficult they were, clearly. But I thought it was better on the whole for the country to have a disputatious culture in No. 10, rather than one that was quietly acquiescent to whatever I or the scientists said.’

The Inquiry chair Heather Hallett asked him whether there were any changes to the structure that he thought might improve decision-making, and he replied that there should be more clarity about the difference between decision-making meetings and those that were just for discussion, because he hadn’t known when he was going in to them.

He disputed suggestions he took his eye off the ball in February 2020 as cases began to rise – this was the one moment of real tension between the former prime minister and Keith, with Johnson claiming the counsel to the inquiry had suggested he had been putting his feet up at Chevening, before apologising ‘unreservedly’ for confusing the lawyer with testimony given by Cummings. He then claimed that the whole establishment ‘should collectively have twigged much sooner’ about how dangerous Covid was going to be. Instead, the assumptions were too heavily based on the experience of dealing with Sars and Swine flu.

What was Johnson trying to get out of today? The conclusion that many of the mistakes made by the government were an inevitability of human nature, and that the culture he had created in No. 10 was for the good of the country, rather than the toxic and destructive one that others claimed hampered decision-making. This module of the inquiry is about core decision-making and how the next government can avoid the mistakes of the last, but Johnson seemed to be suggesting that other than giving meetings cleared descriptions, much of what happened was what would always happen under such pressure.