SUELLA Braverman is not a serious politician. We can all agree on that, can’t we?
Her statement on the Illegal Migration Bill in the Commons on Tuesday was pure pantomime. An act of headline-chasing rather than policy promotion.
“Mr Speaker,” she told the Commons, “I won’t address the bill’s full legal complexities today. Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been – and continue to be – involved in its development.”
Which kind of suggests it’s not ready, no? Meanwhile, in a letter to Conservatives, the Home Secretary admitted that there is more than a 50 per cent chance her new plan to stop small boats will be incompatible with the Human Rights Act, which suggests in turn that there is a more than 50% chance it will be bogged down in legal challenges.
But Braverman won’t let the unworkability of her scheme get in the way of making a noise. She’s very good at that. In the Daily Mail she argued that billions of illegal immigrants could soon be clambering on to small boats to come to the UK, which is, let’s face it, pure nonsense. Dog meet whistle.
It’s not hard to cynically suggest that this is not about sorting out the immigration issue, but a chance to talk tough on a contentious topic and perhaps divert attention from the Government’s record on the economy and on the health service in England (NB, Boris Johnson promised to build 40 new hospitals by 2023. So far the Government has managed to get as far as planning permission for 10).
Teddy Jamieson: Surveying the view from another crossroads
Oh, and then there’s Brexit. Wasn’t it meant to be done by now? We’re currently waiting for the response of the ERG and the DUP on Rishi Sunak’s latest attempt.
In the circumstances you can see why the Government is going so hard on immigration. Because it allows it to talk tough and blame lefty lawyers.
And it works. The fall-out from Braverman’s statement yesterday seemed to be as much about Gary Lineker’s horrified response than the adequacy – or lack of it – of the Government’s policy.
Setting aside the ethics of migration policy for a moment, when it comes down to it where is the evidence that the Government can even deliver on its promises? Between January 2021 and June 2022 it managed to return 21 asylum seekers to “safe third countries”. That’s 21. Not 2,100 or 21,000. No, 21. Out of 18,000.
In the year to December 2022 the asylum backlog rose to a record 160,919. And remember 200 children seeking asylum who were put in hotels by the Home Office have gone missing since 2021.
The simple fact is that this is a Government that hasn’t set up the required return agreements with other countries to make its plans work. There is Rwanda, of course, but that is currently still going through the courts and last year the Rwandan government said it could only take 200 migrants anyway.
None of which is to say that there isn’t an issue needing addressed. Migrants are coming here risking their lives, corralled by criminal gangs. There is a cost to all this, in lives and to the British taxpayer (£120 million for the Rwanda scheme for a start).
But this is a Government that would rather blame others than actually address what is happening. And when it passed a similar Act last year it just made things worse.
Teddy Jamieson: Medals for MPs? Who on earth thought that one up?
So, you have to conclude this is another example of shouty rather than serious politics. We shouldn’t be surprised. In the past four years the Tory Government has lurched from Johnson’s lies to Liz Truss’s economy-wrecking ineptitude. The jury is still out on whether Rishi Sunak can steady the ship.
What his Cabinet is good at so far, though, is generating headlines. Braverman and deputy chairman Lee Anderson can both be relied on for that.
But headlines are easy. Government is harder. It requires intelligence, imagination and an ability to react changing circumstances. There are no signs that those in Westminster can do any of these.
In short, this is not a serious Government. That is the terrible reality. And we are probably stuck with it for another year at least.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel