Politics explained

Priti Patel is the sort of determined no-nonsense figure who tends to ruffle feathers, to say the least. As with recent accusations of bullying and perceptions of her behaviour, for which she apologised (sort of), her statements on immigration are usually controversial if not divisive, and if not deliberately provocative. Sometimes, she says, her own outlook and the attacks she attracts are influenced by her own background as the daughter of an Asian family expelled like so many by President Amin of Uganda in 1972. She gives no quarter. She takes great comfort from the 2016 Brexit referendum and the 2019 general election as her mandate to implement what she takes to be the people’s attitude towards migration. That doesn’t mean that everything that emanates from her Home Office is automatically wrong-headed or impractical. Brexit, the loss of security for Hong Kong citizens, and the flow of migrants making their way across the English Channel in flimsy dinghies mean that immigration policy has to change. The New Plan for Immigration she has unveiled seems enough to keep even her substantial tram of civil servants occupied for some years. She has radical proposals, but almost concealed beneath the hardline rhetoric about life sentences for people smugglers, Patel has summarily scrapped the cornerstone of Conservative immigration policy for the past decade – the target, perhaps casually arrived at, to limit migration to the UK to the “tens of thousands”. She has buried it. More

The government this week unveiled major reforms to the way Britain’s railways will be run. There’s no doubt that these are significant changes and represent the biggest change to the industry’s structure since privatisation in the 1990s.Some commentators have suggested that the railways are effectively being renationalised, but this isn’t really correct. To understand why, let’s unpack the reforms.Before the pandemic, railways were operated by private franchise holders. Private companies bid for and won contracts to operate a certain franchise for a number of years, in a competition run by the Department for Transport (DfT). More

Although somewhat more optimistic at Prime Minister’s Questions about the government’s Covid roadmap, in recent days Boris Johnson has been a striking a cautious tone about the next significant date, 21 June. This is the moment when, according to the official roadmap guidance, “the government hopes to be in a position to remove all legal limits on social contact”. Specifically: “We hope to reopen remaining premises, including nightclubs, and ease the restrictions on large events and performances that apply in Step 3. This will be subject to the results of a scientific Events Research Programme to test the outcome of certain pilot events through the spring and summer, where we will trial the use of testing and other techniques to cut the risk of infection. The same Events Research Programme will guide decisions on whether all limits can be removed on weddings and other life events.”Much obviously depends on how effective the vaccine programme will be against the spreading Indian variant of the coronavirus, which is becoming more prevalent. Last Friday the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, gave this assessment of the danger: “There is now confidence … that this variant is more transmissible than B.1.1.7 (Kent variant), now the question in practical terms over the next two to three weeks is is this somewhat more transmissible than B.1.1.7 or is this a lot more transmissible and that will have implications for the long-term prospects of this epidemic in the UK and indeed the pandemic internationally?”Now, the prime minister says that there is “increasing confidence” about the vaccines’ ability to fight the virus, and to prevent severe illness in individuals. The evidence will need to be sifted carefully in the coming days. It will come from the piloted mass outside events; from an analysis of the general relaxation measures already taken; about the effects of more international travel; about trends in infection, hospitalisation and deaths; the geographical spread from the hot spots; the efficacy of the vaccines for Indians and the wider community; and a more precise idea about the specific characteristics of the Indian virus. More

The cabinet row about the putative UK-Australia free trade deal goes far behind its relatively modest macro-economic impact and right to the heart of the whole notion of what “Global Britain” is supposed to be about. On the one hand, representing the hard-pressed British consumer, we find Liz Truss, Secretary of State for international trade, who negotiated the draft deal. She wants tariff-free access to the UK for Australian goods, notably wheat, lamb and other foodstuffs, just as the EU enjoys, but cabinet colleagues are concerned about what such a deal would mean for British farmers – a double whammy, given some are already losing ground in EU markets.For Ms Truss, it is more than matter of pride and the cost of groceries. It is the first post-Brexit deal that is much more than a roll-over of a pre-existent EU deal, and with a historic partner with close ties to Britain. As Daniel, now Lord, Hannan, a prominent Eurosceptic commented,“if we can’t do a proper trade deal even with our kinsmen Down Under, we might as well throw in the towel”. He accuses “National Farmers’ Union officials, the Defra blob and a handful of Tory backwoodsmen” of trying to preserve the current subsidised regime of protection, inherited from the EU, with taxes on commodities from Australia and other revived trading partners. In his words: “If these deals with Australia and New Zealand don’t get done because of domestic opposition, that pretty much says the UK is not doing anything with global Britain. Because if we can’t do these, well, in truth, everything gets more difficult from here.” More

If nothing else David, now Lord, Frost seems a prime example of nominative determinism. In recent weeks, relations between the UK and the EU have indeed grown decidedly nippy, and the temperature continues to drop. Frosty the No Man, as some call him, has taken to the pages of the Eurosceptic press to complain about EU intransigence over trade via Northern Ireland, the short-lived threat to stop vaccines entering the province, and fishing. And, of course, there was that Lilliputian re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar just off Jersey. He hasn’t quite got around to asking President Macron “who do you think you are, Napoleon?”, but it cannot be far off. Appearing before the warm hearth of a Lords Select Committee, Lord Frost offered a seemingly attractive answer to the problem of the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is to just pretend it doesn’t exist. The Protocol was negotiated by Lord Frost, agreed by Boris Johnson, backed by parliament and then, to all intents and purposes, endorsed by the British people at the general election of 2019. The text, part of the Withdrawal Agreement and the overall Brexit deal, was in the public domain and provoked some discussion. Though few will have read it through (possibly including Mr Johnson), its implications were debated and well remarked upon. The Democratic Unionists, who regard it as a betrayal, voted against it and complained loudly. It was clear, as it was ever since Michel Barnier suggested it years ago, that it would mean an economic border down the Irish Sea and within the United Kingdom, and thus adding some checks to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In October and again at the turn of next year, further grace periods on GB-NI trade will expire, and the frictions at the border at the port of Larne – bureaucratic and political – will intensify. More

To the already long list of harmful impacts of Brexit on the UK, it appears that we may have to add the arrival of the Indian coronavirus variant in the UK.Although the link may initially seem far-fetched, there’s a roundabout way in which withdrawal from the European Union may be said to have helped usher the B1.617.2 variant into Britain.The roots of the issue lie in trade, and in Boris Johnson’s desperate need to find a substitute for the lost EU exports sacrificed on the altar of Brexit. More

The admittedly narrow victory for Edwin Poots in the Democratic Unionist Party – by 19 votes to 17 – nonetheless marks a departure from the style and direction of his predecessor, Arlene Foster, forced out of office to make way for him. The defeated candidate, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, was seen, fairly or not, as a “continuity Arlene” figure, more of a pragmatist and less of a traditionalist than Poots – though the differences between the two men, and indeed across Ulster unionism more generally, are easily and often exaggerated. Poots is a true Paisleyite, and always has been, like his father before him. He comes from a political place unlike anything else in the British Isles. At any rate, Poots now calls himself the “authentic voice of unionism”, thinly disguised code for a tilt towards some of the more muscular tendencies within the unionist movement. His victory has huge implications for Brexit too, most likely leading to some sort of renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement, and thus the wider Brexit deal. In not taking on the position of first minister – but remaining as agriculture minister – Poots seems to want to concentrate on the political and campaigning aspect of leadership, rather than the administrative and bureaucratic. After all, the elections for the Northern Irish assembly next May will be crucial, and time is short. Poots may even try somehow to bring together the various separate and sometimes bickering brands of unionism into some sort of coalition or electoral alliance; he spoke of “reaching out to other leaders in unionism”. Oddly, he might occupy the kind of role that Gerry Adams and John Hume on the Republican and nationalist side for a while – party leader semi-detached from the government of the province. More

How much trouble will Lord Christopher Geidt make for the prime minister? Of course, the fairer way to put the question is to ask how much trouble the prime minister is prepared to make for himself. The evidence on that, looking at the record thus far, is abundant. A watchdog on standards, the role Lord Geidt is now taking on, can only do so much to restrain a wayward premier. Boris Johnson can only really be sacked by his party (or the electorate), and not by any appointed official. However, a compliant sort of establishment old buffer as adviser on ministerial standards, an obedient poodle, is obviously better than some sort of snarling rottweiler. In his evidence to the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Lord Geidt sought to assure him that, smooth and discreet as he may be, he is not afraid to sink his teeth into the prime minister’s bottom.On the immediate priorities, these are to publish the register of minister’s external interests, and of course the investigation into who paid for the refurbishment of the prime minister’s flat. And, whoever the finding channels, whether it was consistent with the ministerial code and the seven principles of public life set out by the first standards supreme, Lord Nolan more than a quarter of a century ago – qualities not always immediately associated with the name Johnson: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; leadership. More