UK Politics

Boris Johnson’s plans to hand out large numbers of peerages before stepping down as prime minister has been denounced by a former Speaker of the House of Lords as “part of a trend to trash constitutional norms”.Baroness Hayman said there was anger across the Upper House at the prospect of dozens of the PM’s friends and allies being made Lords.And another ex-Lord Speaker Lord Fowler – formerly a Conservative cabinet minister – said the appointment of Tory donors was bringing the system into “some kind of contempt” and undermining public support for the unelected chamber.Reports suggest that the outgoing prime minister is planning to create dozens of new Lords in a political honours list in the coming weeks, followed by a resignation honours list when he finally steps down in September.His plans have prompted the current Lord Speaker to write to the contenders to succeed Johnson to appeal for “restraint” in the creation of new peers in a House which has more than 800 members at a time when the stated ambition is to reduce it to 600.RecommendedLord McFall urged Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow the example of Theresa May, who appointed just 43 peers in her three years in office, rather than Johnson, who has already ennobled 86.Among those said feature in Mr Johnson’s latest plans for peerages are billionaire Tory donor Michael Hintze, former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and Churchill’s grandson Sir Nicholas Soames.Former Lord Speaker Baroness Hayman told BBC Radio 4’s World This Weekend: “The proposal is part of a trend to trash constitutional norms.“So in that sense, I think it’s a very bad idea. It has all sorts of grave consequences. And I’ve actually been surprised at how much anger there is across the House, basically to put a large number of predominantly Tory peers into the House now.“Usually, there is enough respect and understanding of the importance of balance and restraint.”Lady Hayman said that Mr Johnson had “never been a great fan of the House of Lords”.“The House of Lords has provided difficulties for the government,” she said. “No government likes that.“Most prime ministers understand because it’s actually good for democracy for that to happen. I’m not sure Boris Johnson understand that having a challenging House of Lords actually improve” government policy and improves legislation.”Lord Fowler told Times Radio that Mr Johnson’s plans were “potentially disastrous”.“I think we’ve got to this stage, when we are having to ask whether the appointment system in the House of Lords is fit for purpose,” he said. “And frankly … at the moment, the answer that question seems to be ‘No’.“It just brings the whole system into some kind of contempt. Peers are being appointed because they’ve made contributions – financial contributions – to the party, and all kinds of other reasons.“It’s really no way to run the House of Lords. And most of all, it brings the House of Lords into some contempt.“I think, at the moment, the chances are that it hasn’t got the respect of the public and we should be as a country rather concerned about that.”Conservative peer and constitutional historian Lord Norton of Louth has tabled a private members bill which would give more power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, requiring prime ministers to seek its advice before nominating new peers.The continued growth of the upper chamber was “overburdening” the Lords and introducing “problems of quality control”, he said.“If my bill had been enacted and was now in force, then (Johnson) wouldn’t be able to rush forward with a list because the commission would be in a position to put nominations on hold,” he told World This Weekend.“Under the constitutional position at the moment, there is no formal constraint on the prime minister,Recommended“The emphasis really should be on quality not on quantity, because what really matters is the quality of debate in the Lords rather than how we vote.” More

The attorney general has been publicly contradicted by her own department over whether the government’s Rwanda deportations policy is illegal.Suella Braverman last week claimed the UK needed to leave the European Convention on Human Rights to go ahead with the removals, arguing that they would be found unlawful under the treaty. But Ms Braverman’s department has now again claimed that the policy is legal after all, as it prepares to defend it in court.Labour said that Ms Braverman had “debased her office in the pursuit of her political ambitions”, resulting in an “absolute shambles”. The attorney general made the comments just hours before being knocked out of the Tory leadership contest, coming bottom in a ballot of MPs despite her attempt to drum up support by attacking human rights.RecommendedShe had called on the UK to ditch Article 3 rights, under which people are protected from torture and inhuman treatment.Her comments were branded “an outrageous assault on this most basic of rules against human cruelty” by campaigners.Ms Braverman’s intervention during her leadership campaign raised eyebrows because, as attorney general, she is responsible for laying out the government’s legal position and was claiming that its policy was against the law.Asked by Labour to put the department’s position in writing before parliament, Ms Braverman’s deputy, solicitor general Edward Timpson, wrote in reply: “It is the government’s position that the migration and economic development partnership is fully compatible with all of our domestic and international legal obligations, including ECHR rights.”The government will defend the plan at a High Court hearing on 5 September, the same day the new Tory leader will be announced.Documents lodged with the court this week show that the Home Office pushed the policy through despite repeated concerns from a slew of top UK government officials.The policy, the brainchild of Priti Patel, will see asylum seekers who arrive on British shores in small boats removed to Rwanda to claim asylum there, with no recourse to return.Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow attorney general, told The Independent: “A matter of days ago, we saw the attorney general saying it was necessary to quit the European Convention on Human Rights in order to implement the government’s Rwanda policy. “Now we have her office saying the exact opposite in the context of the ongoing litigation. “This is not just more evidence of how Suella Braverman has debased her office in the pursuit of her political ambitions, but how a government obsessed with its own power struggles has become totally detached from the task of running the country. They are an absolute shambles.”RecommendedThe first flight under the policy was due to take off on 14 June, but was cancelled after a last-minute intervention from the European Court of Human Rights. Polling by YouGov conducted in April found that 42 per cent of the public are against the plan, while 35 per cent support it. It has also been condemned by the UN high commissioner for refugees, who said it would amount to the UK breaching its international obligations. More

Three senior members of Margaret Thatcher’s government have said that the former prime minister would not have approved of Liz Truss’s plans to slash taxes if she reaches 10 Downing Street.The comments came as both Ms Truss and her rival Rishi Sunak evoked Lady Thatcher’s memory in their bids for the support of the 160,000 Conservative members who will choose the new party leader and PM.Sunak on Saturday used a visit to the former premier’s hometown of Grantham to denounce Ms Truss’s plans for £30bn of immediate tax cuts funded by borrowing as “immoral”, and to insist that Thatcher would delay any such move until inflation was under control.But Ms Truss said that the most important thing to her about the “fantastic” Thatcher was her willingness to “challenge the groupthink” on the economy.“There were 364 economists that objected to Mrs Thatcher’s plan, and what we are doing at the moment, the economic policy at the moment is not delivering the economic growth we need,” she told the Mail on Sunday.RecommendedHowever, three members of Lady Thatcher’s last cabinet have now spoken out to say that the “Iron Lady” – who was PM from 1979-90 and remains a totem to today’s Conservative members – would have taken a dim view of Truss’s plans.Norman Lamont, who was chief secretary to the Treasury under Thatcher and went on to serve as chancellor, told The Observer: “Mrs Thatcher strongly believed that cutting the deficit came before cutting taxes. She also believed that deficits were simply deferred taxation.”Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Scotland secretary in Thatcher’s cabinet and later foreign secretary, said he was as “certain as I can be that she would be very unimpressed by funding tax cuts through increased borrowing, even if it wasn’t at a time of high inflation – but certainly when it is”.He added: “She believed that tax cuts should be funded either by economic growth that was already producing more revenue, or by cuts in public spending. That’s what Thatcherism means. I think every single Tory, as well as lots of other people, believe in the desirability of tax cuts. But no Conservative would ever see it as an ideological imperative.”And Chris Patten, who was environment secretary under Thatcher before being appointed party chair by her successor John Major, told the paper: “Margaret Thatcher was a fiscal Conservative who did not cut tax until we had reduced inflation. She was honest and did not believe in nonsense.”Ms Truss has said that, if elected Tory leader on 5 September, she will reverse Mr Sunak’s 1.25 per cent hike in National Insurance contributions, scrap a planned rise from 19 to 25 per cent in corporation tax and suspend green levies on energy bills.Mr Sunak yesterday warned that immediate tax cuts risked stoking inflation and forcing up mortgage interest rates at a time when the UK’s debt stands at a historic high.”Not only do I think it’s the wrong thing for the economy, I also believe that it’s immoral because there is nothing noble or good about racking up bills on the country’s credit card that we pass on to our children and grandchildren,” he said.RecommendedA spokesperson for Truss said: “Liz’s plans for tax cuts will reward people for their hard work and effort, allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money. You cannot tax your way to growth.” More

US president Joe Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry has warned Tory leadership contender Liz Truss not to “jigger” with the UK’s plans to achieve net zero carbon emissions by slashing green levies, which help to pay for the transition to clean energy.Ms Truss has said that she backs the target of net zero by 2050, but wants to suspend levies, which add 8 per cent to energy bills, in order to do it “in a way that doesn’t harm people and businesses”.But Mr Kerry said that any savings from tax giveaways would be massively outweighed by the cost of extreme weather if global warming was not reined in.While he insisted that he did not want to interfere in the choice of the UK’s next prime minister, he said he would “pointedly and adamantly” advise against any move to water down commitments to carbon reductions confirmed at last year’s COP26 summit in Glasgow.Responding to Ms Truss’s plans, he told BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend: “I obviously don’t want to get involved in the leadership decision with respect to these next weeks and what will happen in the UK.Recommended“But I will say very pointedly and adamantly: we’re behind. We do not have the luxury of jiggering with the 2050 right now, because we are currently headed to a warming of the planet somewhere between 2.5C and 3.5C.“The world is already warmed by 1.1C, close to 1.2C. The cushion we have between 1.5 and that is obviously tiny.“And we see what’s happening with the damage to the planet at 1.1C. Imagine when you get to 1.5C.“Every tenth of a degree that we warm is going to cost us trillions more dollars. So whatever tax-waylaying or giveaway there is now at the expense of climate is going to be absolutely superceded by the cost of damage.”Ms Truss raised environmentalist concerns when she said in a televised leadership debate: “I back the net zero target. We need to deliver it in a way, though, that doesn’t harm people and businesses. “That’s why I would have a moratorium on the green levy and take it out of general taxation so that we can relieve the pressure and find better ways to deliver net zero.” More

Only about 1 per cent of the Conservative Party’s MPs came from a working-class background, a new study claims.This would equate to just three MPs out of the party’s current cohort of 356, according to the research by think tank IPPR.Working-class MPs make up 13 per cent of the Labour Party. This is the equivalent of 14 out of 200 MPs when going by the definition of “working-class” used by the researchers. IPPR said this figure shows that the proportion of working-class Labour MPs has more than halved since the mid-1980s.After the 1987 election, 28 per cent of Labour MPs had worked in blue-collar jobs, such as coal mining and steel working, right before going into local or national politics. RecommendedOne of these MPs from an industrial background was Dennis Skinner. He worked as a coal miner for 20 years before entering politics as a councillor. He then represented Bolsover for 49 years until he was unseated in 2019.In contrast, the number of Tory MPs from similar working-class occupations has remained below 5 per cent for at least 50 years, the think tank said. More

Rishi Sunak’s campaign for the Conservative leadership has sparked fury among people who blame the former chancellor for excluding them from financial support during the Covid-19 pandemic.Among the 3.8m people believed to have missed out on furlough payments and business grants are many company directors and entrepreneurs who might be expected to be Conservative party members with a vote on the choice of the new prime minister.And some have warned that the Tories’ prospects at the next general election could be hit if they are led by a man who they feel let down millions of individuals and businesses unable to access the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and Self-Employment Income Support Scheme.The current directors of ExcludedUK declined to make any comment on the Tory leadership election, as the campaign group does not get involved in party political debates.But social media channels are humming with messages from angry self-employed and freelance workers, posting with hashtags like #notreadyforrishi and #neverrishi.RecommendedOne sent a message to Tory MPs considering backing Mr Sunak in the race to succeed Boris Johnson: “Rishi Sunak refused to represent or support over 3m of us when it really mattered. He will enjoy similar support come election time.”Another wrote: “We just have to hope that the party membership decide against him, although the alternative of Liz Truss is pretty appalling, too.”Small businessman Aron Padley, a founder of ExcludedUK and of a Facebook page to support those affected, told The Independent: “It would be impossible to get behind a prime minister who wilfully left us behind during the pandemic.“And, remember, that’s 3.8 million individuals who potentially would not cast a vote for the former chancellor.”Jennifer Griffiths, a former director of ExcludedUK and an administrator on the Facebook group, confirmed that many members had expressed anger over Mr Sunak’s bid for the premiership, during which he has repeatedly made a virtue of his handling of Covid support.“Many members are still struggling financially on a day-to-day basis,” she said.“Business closures are still being announced in the Facebook group even up to this day. Bounceback loans need to be paid back. And mental health support is still a service called upon by vulnerable members.”Ms Griffiths added: “Organisations and groups such as ExcludedUK have sought tirelessly to raise awareness of the injustice faced by those excluded from meaningful support and how it has affected individuals and businesses.“Raising awareness of the different types of employment in the UK and ensuring they are recognised, coupled with systemic change and far greater rights for those in precarious modes of employment, should anything like the pandemic happen again are crucial.”Despite the government spending of around £70bn on the furlough scheme and more than £27bn on support for the self-employed through SEISS, many individuals and businesses fell through the gaps during the lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, receiving limited or no financial help as their sources of income vanished.These included people who make less than half of their income from self-employment, short-term contractors with a history of moving from job to job, directors who pay themselves through dividends rather than salary, people with trading profits above a threshold level and some workers made redundant during the pandemic.In a message to members, the directors of ExcludedUK said: “ExcludedUK is registered as a CIC, which means we are a Community Interest Company. Recommended“As a CIC we are bound by strict guidelines which are dictated by the CIC regulator. One of the guidelines states that a CIC can not function for political purposes. In particular we can not influence any type of political election. “As individuals we understand that there are strong views on why members do not want Rishi to be PM. However, as an organisation, we can not comment on events. We also can not as an organisation organise a march or any sort of campaign against any individual.” More

Rishi Sunak has sparked outrage as he set out a hardline plan to deal with immigration if he becomes prime minister. The package features a cap on annual refugee numbers and the withholding of aid from some of the world’s poorest countries if they refuse to take back failed asylum seekers.The former chancellor, who is trailing Liz Truss in polls of Conservative Party members in the current leadership election, said he would ramp up the controversial plan to operate deportation flights to Rwanda and that he would seek to establish similar schemes with other countries.And he said he would bar anyone arriving by small boat across the Channel from remaining in the UK – despite the fact that the majority of unauthorised arrivals are currently awarded asylum status.Meanwhile, Ms Truss has also doubled down on support for the controversial plan, calling it the “right” policy and indicating she could extend the scheme further.“I’m determined to see it through to full implementation, as well as exploring other countries that we can work on similar partnerships with. It’s the right thing to do,” she told the Mail on Sunday.Recommended“I’m also determined to make sure that we have the right level of forces at our border. I’m going to increase the border force to make sure that we have the proper protection in place directly at the border.”Mr Sunak’s plans were branded “cruel” by aid charity Oxfam, whose head of government relations Sam Nadel said: “If anything, this shows that the heat of campaigning leads to bad policy. If the former chancellor wins this race, he will be more than a party leader, he will be prime minister and a world leader.”To meet a world in desperate crisis – facing climate change, famine and conflict – with cruel policies such as these would not live up to the role. We need more aid and safe and legal routes to the UK.”Mr Sunak, who admits he is the underdog in the race to succeed Boris Johnson, declared on Saturday that illegal immigration was one of five national emergencies that would require him to put the UK on a “crisis footing” as soon as he took office.His “10-point plan to stop illegal immigration” is significantly more hardline than the measures contained in the Nationality and Borders Act that was put into law by Priti Patel earlier this year.It will put him on course for a clash with the European Court of Human Rights by narrowing the definition of who qualifies for asylum in the UK, as well as giving authorities additional powers to tag, detain and monitor incomers.And it will put him on a collision course with aid charities by explicitly linking humanitarian support with cooperation on immigration – something Christian Aid has described as “beyond the pale”.States that fail to take back nationals who have committed offences or been denied the right to stay in the UK – as Eritrea, Iraq and Sudan are currently understood to do – would be denied access to British aid and subjected to retaliatory trade and visa measures.Mr Sunak – whose own grandparents arrived in the UK from India as legal migrants – would introduce a cap, set annually by parliament, on the number of refugees to be accepted by “safe and legal routes”, while ensuring that others are removed from the country.Effectively barring the way to remaining in Britain for those entering the country by unauthorised routes, his plan states: “The only route to asylum in the UK will be a safe and legal route.”A military-led Small Boats Taskforce, backed by investment in surveillance technology, would be given the resources and authority needed to “end small boat beach landings” and oversee the detention and removal of those crossing the Channel in dinghies.Adapted cruise ships would be used as floating detention camps for migrants deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally, in a bid to rein in the £5m-a-day cost of housing them in hotels.Mr Sunak would seek an urgent meeting with French president Emmanuel Macron in an effort to “hold the French to account”, with clear targets on stopping boats and “no options off the table”.He promised to do “whatever it takes” to implement and scale up the agreement with Rwanda, under which the African country is paid to accept asylum seekers without their claims ever having been considered in the UK. And he said he would pursue similar arrangements with other states.Meanwhile, penalties on businesses using illegal migrant labour would be toughened, and Mr Sunak would set a target of resolving 80 per cent of asylum claims within six months in order to reduce the current backlog of more than 100,000 applications awaiting an initial decision.Mr Sunak, who supported Brexit, said his “reasonable, fair and proportionate” package would enable him to fulfil the Leave campaign’s promise to “take back control of our borders”.“Right now the system is chaotic, with law-abiding citizens seeing boats full of illegal immigrants coming from the safe country of France, with our sailors and coastguards seemingly powerless to stop them,” he said. “It must stop, and if I am prime minister I will stop it.”But Refugee Council CEO Enver Solomon urged both candidates in the Tory leadership race to “take a new direction” and to ditch the Rwanda scheme in favour of safe routes and humanitarian visas.“Whoever becomes our next prime minister must replace our broken asylum system with a system that is fair, humane and orderly,” said Mr Solomon. “This is an opportunity to commit to increasing safe routes, such as family reunion and humanitarian visas, so that those at risk of violence and persecution do not have to make dangerous journeys to find safety here. We urge our next prime minister to take a new direction and abandon the cruel Rwanda scheme.” Pete Moorey, head of campaigns and UK advocacy at Christian Aid, condemned the proposed linkage of migration and aid.“At a time when conflict and the climate crisis are pushing more people into poverty in East Africa and many other parts of the world, any proposal that further shrinks our financial support is beyond the pale,” he said. “The UK has a historic and moral responsibility to ending extreme poverty. We should be leading the world in tackling the interlocking global crises of hunger, climate, and conflict. That is what leadership looks like.”Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Rishi Sunak as chancellor of the Exchequer, and Liz Truss as foreign secretary, signed off the Rwanda deal – writing off £120m of taxpayers’ money on an unworkable scheme that the government has admitted is unenforceable with a very high risk of fraud.“They have been responsible for wasting taxpayers’ money, and have served in the cabinet that has totally failed to stop the criminal gangs or sort out the asylum system.“The Conservatives have been in power for 12 years. It beggars belief that they claim to be the ones to sort things out when they have both failed for so long.”RecommendedLiberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said that Mr Sunak should never be forgiven for signing off “ridiculous amounts” of taxpayers’ money on the Rwanda scheme, which has so far resulted in no deportations and which the Kigali government now says has the capacity for only 200 people.“These are people who should have been treated with the decency and respect they deserve, but Rishi Sunak wasted the public’s money to send them far away,” said Mr Carmichael. “He does not represent Britain’s long and proud history of helping those fleeing war and persecution.” More