Monday, November 20, 2023

UK
Sunak sends officials to Rwanda to support deportations, as party revolt builds

ByWill Hazell and Dominic Penna
November 19, 2023 —

London: British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will station Home Office officials in Rwanda as he tries to see off an escalating Conservative Party rebellion over his small boats policy.

The prime minister is expected to unveil a new treaty with Rwanda this week in response to a court ruling that the scheme to deport illegal migrants to the country is unlawful.

The immigration issue has led to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak losing the confidence of his party’s right.

The decision to deploy British officials to support the African nation’s asylum system will be seen as vindication for Suella Braverman, the recently deposed home secretary, who pressed for the move while in government.

It comes as Conservative MPs on the party’s right warned their leader that he is facing electoral “catastrophe” – including the Tories being reduced to a “rump” of 60 seats – if the prime minister fails to tackle illegal migration.

One backbencher said they believed “dozens” of letters of no confidence in Sunak had already been submitted to the 1922 Committee of Tory MPs.

A senior government source said preparations were under way to “step up Home Office people who will be doing training and assisting with case working in Rwanda, so that their system is as robust as possible”.

The source said that the Supreme Court ruling would also be addressed by a legally binding treaty commitment from Rwanda that it will not deport any migrants under the scheme to third countries, which was one of the chief concerns raised by the judges.

They said the judges had not been able to take into account further progress in Rwanda’s asylum system that had been achieved since the legal action started.

A second government source pointed out that some Home Office officials were already on the ground in Rwanda working on the new treaty.

Home Secretary James Cleverly said ministers were prepared for the Supreme Court ruling.

“We have been working on a new treaty with Rwanda, which will be ratified without delay,” he said. “It will guarantee in law that those who are relocated from the UK to Rwanda will be protected against removal from Rwanda.”



Migrants are brought ashore after being picked up in the English Channel by a Border Force vessel last week.CREDIT:GETTY

The Home Secretary said that illegal migration was “immoral” as well as “unfair”, and claimed the Rwanda scheme was not a waste of time or money because it is already having a deterrent effect on would-be migrants.

However, Sunak is facing mounting criticism from Tory MPs that his policy does not go far enough.

Critics want Sunak to toughen his bill through the insertion of “notwithstanding” clauses that would disapply the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements – an approach advocated by Braverman.

Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick has met with concerned MPs and is understood to be pushing for a more expansive approach to the bill.

The veteran MP Sir Bill Cash said: “If you don’t deal with the problems of the judgment comprehensively and use clear and unambiguous language in the emergency legislation, then we are going to be drawn into another problem with the courts.”

If the government does not voluntarily strengthen the legislation it is believed that upwards of 40 MPs could rebel.

A Tory MP said: “If they bring forward legislation which doesn’t pass muster, like-minded people will try to amend it to make it stronger… I don’t think they comprehend the gravity of the disillusionment.”

The prime minister’s response to the Supreme Court defeat has increased the rancour in the parliamentary party, with some MPs suggesting that Sunak could even face a leadership challenge.

A former cabinet minister said: “The response some people are giving is that we are facing a catastrophe and how much worse can it be?




“People are weighing up whether changing our leader could make things any worse than it currently is.”

An MP on the party’s right said: “Anybody who has a brain knows that he cannot remain in place.”



They said Sunak was “Theresa May in trousers” and that he would take the party to a “rump” of “60 seats, 70 if we’re lucky”.

Another MP said they “wouldn’t be surprised if there were another challenge”, while a third said: “I think it’s worth the chance.”

The Telegraph, London


‘It’s what dictators do’: Tory MP blasts plans to force-through Rwanda policy

Damien Green has lashed out at proposals to push Rwanda deportations over the line, comparing senior Tories to Xi and Putin...

by Tom Head
2023-11-18




Amongst the many, many critics of the government’s failed plans to send asylum seekers over to Rwanda, some of the most vocal critics are embedded within the Conservative Party itself. This week, Damian Green – a top Tory MP – hit-out at Suella Braverman.

Rwanda plan foiled, but could be ‘forced-through’ via law change

The recently-departed Home Secretary has done everything she can to sew hate and division amongst the public. Just a few days after leaving office, Suella surfaced in a major newspaper once more, setting out ‘five tests’ to stop the boats in The Telegraph.

However, one of these so-called tests called for the over-riding of existing laws, and exiting agreements that are fundamental to upholding human rights in the UK. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has also indicated that this is a route he will look towards taking, through emergency legislation.

Posting on Twitter/X this week, Mr. Green said that Braverman had made ‘the most unconservative statement’ he has ever heard from a Tory, comparing her to the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Well, if the shoe fits…


Suella Braverman compared to ‘dictator’ over her latest rhetoric

Other Tory MPs have flocked to support Suella Braverman’s latest inflammatory statements, with some calling for the UK to leave the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC) altogether. Damien Green, however, is standing firm on his position.

Speaking on Radio 4, the politician warned about the dangers of such proposals to send immigrants over to Rwanda. Green believes that Braverman is out to ‘sweep away ALL judicial review protection’, and accused her of intentionally trying to exist above the law:

“It’s not just our own laws passed by parliament and international treaties that we’ve signed that Suella Braverman wants to sweep away. She specifically says, lets sweep away all judicial review protection, and all common law protections.”

“That’s why, this is the most unconservative proposal I’ve ever heard. Conservatives believe in a democratic country run by the rule of law. Dictators, Xi and Putin, would prefer to have the state completely untrammelled by it.”

“And so as a democratic I oppose it. If we Conservatives don’t believe that the state should be controlled by the law, that the government has to obey the law as much as you and I have to obey the law, then that seems to be unconservative” | Damien Green


Does Suella Braverman Speak for Britain?

17th November 2023

“Like it or not, Suella speaks for the silent majority.” So said Annabel Denham, Director of Communications for the Institute of Economic Affairs, in the Telegraph last week. Of course, not everyone agrees with this appraisal of Suella Braverman, whose outspokenness resulted in her sacking from cabinet this week. Writing in the Guardian only a few days later, Owen Jones described her views as “Britain’s most extreme political sentiments”. So, which is it: does Braverman speak for Britain’s silent majority, or only its most extreme fringe? As opinion pollsters, we do not much approve of rhetorical appeals to the so-called “silent majority”. When we want to know what the majority thinks, we ask. Over the course of Braverman’s controversial stint at the Home Office, we gauged the public’s reaction to five of her most provocative policies and pronouncements. Here are the results.

“I would love to have a front page of the Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda. That’s my dream, it’s my obsession.” – 4th October 2022

The British public seems to share Braverman’s approval of the plan to send people who seek asylum in the UK to Rwanda, although they do not share her fervour. Almost half (46%) of respondents to a Deltapoll survey commissioned by the Mail on Sunday said they support this policy, compared to just a third (33%) who oppose it. Conservative voters from the 2019 general election are the only political group among which a plurality supports the policy, but the margin is substantial: more than six in ten (62%) are in favour with only one fifth (20%) against.

Braverman’s dream was interrupted this week by a Supreme Court ruling that the Rwanda plan threatens asylum seekers’ human rights. Her preferred course of action is for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. On this issue, however, the public is not behind her. Almost twice as many respondents to the same survey want the UK to stay in the convention (49%) rather than leave it (26%). In light of the Supreme Court’s judgement, voters may be forced to choose between pushing ahead with the plan and remaining in the convention.

“I’m afraid we do see many instances where people purport to be gay when they’re not actually gay, but in order to get special treatment. It’s not the way our asylum system should work.” – 27th September 2023

Many Britons think this statement, which incited anger from many LGBT activists and migrants’ groups alike, is probably true. 41% of respondents to a Deltapoll survey for the Mail on Sunday said they thought it was either probably or definitely true that many asylum seekers “game the system” by pretending to be gay, whereas 28% thought it was false. Nevertheless, respondents were almost evenly split on whether it was appropriate for politicians to make a statement like this one, its truth notwithstanding. 38% believed that politicians should refrain from making such comments because they can encourage hate and violence, while only slightly more (40%) said it is important for politicians to raise questions like this about the asylum system. Only Conservative voters were more likely to take the latter view. On this issue at least, some Britons agree with Braverman’s opinion but would prefer that she kept it to herself.

“Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate. It has failed.” – 26th October 2023

The public is not convinced by Braverman’s evaluation of multiculturalism. Almost half (48%) of respondents believe that multiculturalism in the UK has been a partial or complete success, compared to just over a third (36%) who think it has been a failure. Likewise, more people think that the advantages of multiculturalism outweigh the disadvantages than think the opposite – 32% versus 26%. This headline figure disguises a stark divide along political lines, however. Labour (43%) and Liberal Democrat (45%) voters are more than twice as likely as Conservative voters (19%) to say that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of multiculturalism.

Braverman’s disavowal of multiculturalism reflects her unfaltering opposition to what she has called a “hurricane” of immigration into the UK. The public’s feelings on immigration are more complicated. Half (50%) would like to see immigration decreased, including a plurality of voters from all major parties. But when respondents are presented with a list of seven groups of immigrants – including people escaping persecution, foreign students, and those seeking a better life – there is no group from which a majority would like to see lower immigration. The only instance in which more respondents favour decreasing immigration rather than increasing it or keeping it the same is when they are asked about immigrants with low levels of education seeking low-paid jobs. Regarding immigration, along with multiculturalism, Britain’s opinion is more nuanced than Braverman’s.

“We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice.” – 4th November 2023

Braverman’s characterisation of homelessness as a “lifestyle choice” seems not to resonate with the public. Following her comments, we asked a representative sample of British adults who they think is primarily responsible for securing accommodation for people sleeping rough. Only 7% said that rough sleepers themselves should bear primary responsibility. Slightly more (11%) think the housing charities which Braverman blames for clogging up streets with donated tents should be responsible. A large majority, however, thinks it is a matter for government: a third assign responsibility to central government (33%), and slightly more say local authorities are responsible (36%). Not even Conservative voters back Braverman on this issue, with fewer than one in ten (9%) holding rough sleepers themselves responsible.

“I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches.” – 14th November 2023

The “hate marches” which Braverman was desperate for the Prime Minister to ban are pro-Palestine demonstrations, the largest of which took place in central London on November 11th, two days before he sacked her. Over that weekend, we polled a representative sample of British adults to measure support for Braverman’s position. The public was divided on whether or not the demonstration should be allowed to go ahead, with 43% saying it should and 41% saying it should not. Once again, respondents’ politics were a strong predictor of their preferences: a majority (54%) of Conservative voters wanted the protest banned, whereas a majority of Labour (52%) and Liberal Democrat (56%) voters thought it should be allowed to take place.

However, although a large proportion agreed with Braverman that the demonstration should be banned, their motivations seem to be different. To assess respondents’ reasons for opposing the protest, we split our sample in two. Half were asked a series of questions about pro-Palestine protests on Remembrance weekend and half were asked an analogous set of questions about hypothetical protests by Just Stop Oil across the same weekend. The proportion who believed that a demonstration by Just Stop Oil in central London on November 11th should be banned (63%) was higher than the proportion who wanted the pro-Palestine protest to be banned. Unlike Braverman, the public does not seem to regard pro-Palestine demonstrations as particularly hateful compared to other protests – rather, they disapprove of any political demonstrations which distract from Remembrance weekend commemorations.

So, is Suella Braverman the voice of the people, or an extremist? On the basis of these results, the truth – perhaps, unsurprisingly – is somewhere in the middle. It is clear that many of her most controversial remarks do not reflect the opinions of a majority of British voters – but often they do reflect the opinions of a majority of Conservative voters. What this means for British politics is that if Braverman does decide to challenge Rishi Sunak’s leadership of the Tory Party, it could be bad news for him. But if she succeeds in ousting him, it may be good news for the Labour Party.




The Tory Right’s rebellion: What will it mean for Sunak?
Yesterday


The ‘New Conservatives’ are the latest hard right rebel group to enter Rishi Sunak’s crowded factional horizon. They join a long line of party caucuses jostling for political space.




Long festering tensions within Tory party finally erupted this week. Following the sacking of Suella Braverman, hard-right Tory MPs hastily regrouped. Rebellion over the loss of their ‘darling of the Right’ was inevitable among the populist wing of the party. But the more ambiguous question remains: How far will the ‘insurgents’ go?

Angered, not only at the defenestration of the controversial home secretary but at the extraordinary return of the prominent anti-Brexiteer David Cameron, the ‘New Conservatives’ met to vent their fury on their fellow Tories. The group comprises around 25 Tory MPs and is co-chaired by Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger. Drawn largely from those elected in 2019, migration is, predictably, their biggest concern. On launching in the summer, they called on the PM to cut net migration from 606,000 in 2022 to below 226,000 by the next election, in order to ‘save face.’

In a statement this week, the group vowed to instigate a fundraising campaign to bolster financial support for the re-election of right-wing Tories. Clearly they believed that the appointment of the Ester McVey as ‘Common sense minister’ to tackle ‘woke’ issues and represent the Tory Right at the Cabinet table, was unlikely to persuade ‘red wall’ voters to vote Conservative next time.

Cates and Kruger expressed deep disappointment that Downing Street had decided to give up on the voters Boris Johnson won over in the 2019 general election.

They said: “Until yesterday, we held onto the hope that the government still believed in the realignment – that they would work to rebalance our economy, reorient our foreign policy, radically reduce migration, and restore common sense in our schools and universities. That hope – the project of the realignment – has now dwindled.”

Kruger, who was once David Cameron’s speechwriter, has become a prominent voice among right-wing backbenchers. While his co-chair Miriam Cates, the fertility-trailblazing, culture warrior, is considered a rising star of the Right, and has successfully amassed a tight-knit group of supporters.

The ‘New Conservatives’ are the latest hard right rebel group to enter Rishi Sunak’s crowded factional horizon. They join a long line of party caucuses jostling for political space, including the well-established Common Sense Group, the Northern Research Group, staunch Brexiteers, the European Research Group (ERG), Net Zero Scrutiny Group, the Blue Collar Conservatives, Conservative Democratic Organisation, and the National Conservatives.

Whilst operating under different names, these rebel groups share commonalities, both in terms of political aims and personnel. John Hayes, for example, is the founder of the Common Sense Group, and also President of the New Conservatives. In response to Braverman’s sacking, Hayes, who is a good friend of the former Home Secretary and was reportedly a political mentor to her (says it all really) said: “she is a remarkable voice for common sense in government so she will be a big loss.” Tom Hunt, Vice Chairman of the Common Sense group and MP for Ipswich, was the named author of the New Conservatives’ twelve-point plan for migration.

The pugnacious former Labour aide turned Tory deputy chairman, Lee Anderson, sits in a number of breakaway groups. As well as being a member of the Common Sense Group and of the New Conservatives, Anderson is chair of the Blue Collar Conservatives caucus, the pressure group who identify as working-class Tories. Anderson took over from Ester McVey as chair in October 2022. Other crossover MPs include Nick Fletcher, Danny Kruger, Jonathan Gullis, Brendan Clarke-Smith, Gareth Bacon, Marco Longhi and Alexander Stafford.

Brexit backlash

The return of David Cameron, who led the Remain campaign in the 2016 referendum, to the heart of government predictably sparked recoil among Tory Brexiteers. Brexit-backer, former Tory donor, and president of the Boris Johnson-supporting Conservative Democratic Organisation, Peter Cruddas said the appointment was a disaster: “The coup is complete, Remain has won and democracy has lost,” he said.

One Tory MP on the ERG said they were “too depressed to think about it,” and former Brexit minister Lord David Frost said the reshuffle meant Sunak was taking the country “back to the past.”

Ardent Eurosceptic Jacob Rees-Mogg joined the backlash. Cameron “got the Brexit issue wrong,” said the former cabinet minister, and his return could “potentially push” some Tory voters towards Reform, formerly the Brexit Party.

On the sacking of Braverman, Rees-Mogg told GB News: “I think it’s a mistake. Suella understands what the country thinks about migration, the concerns the country has, is serious about it, was determined to get it down.

”



Braverman’s letter

In a parting shot, Braverman wrote a blistering three-page letter to Sunak. In it she said the PM had “manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one” of the policies that she claimed they had agreed on when she joined his cabinet and helped him to become prime minister. “Someone needs to be honest,” Braverman said, “your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed, and we are running out of time.”

The letter was hyped among the right-wing press, which, as we know, has never been exactly enamoured of Sunak, favouring his predecessor, Liz Truss. As the Mail’s front page famously headlined during the Tory leadership battle in 2022, ‘Truss: Back me or it’ll be Rishi.’

Reacting to the letter, the Telegraph didn’t hold back in showing support for the beleaguered ex minister. ‘Braverman’s letter was written in fire – none of us can doubt what a snake Sunak is,’ was the headline of an extraordinary op-ed by Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson.



“In sacking a woman who dared to stand up to shrill Leftists and dangerous Islamists, the PM has forever destroyed his reputation,” she continued, arguing the letter must count as one of the “most devastating epistolary verdicts ever pronounced on a Prime Minister by a sacked member of his Cabinet.”

Incredible really, that a national newspaper that is generally considered to be one of the “big three” quality newspapers in Britain, and backs the Conservatives, would allow an op-ed piece describing a Tory PM as a ‘snake.’

Predictably, other right-wing media sources were quick to jump into the Braverman sacking/Cameron appointment furore.

‘Rish Sunak ‘should prepare for WAR’ following Braverman sacking, says Neil Parish,’ headlined the right-wing news channel, in reference to the former Tory MP’s comments in a GB News’ discussion with Eamonn Holmes and Isabel Webster. Parish said he believes Sunak had better prepare for war because Suella is “the standard bearer of the right of the party.” This is the man who, incidentally, resigned as an MP in 2022 after admiting to watching pornography in the House of Commons.



Adding to Sunak’s torment, were reports that a number of MPs are set to submit letters of no confidence in Sunak. Tory MP Dame Andrea Jenkyns, who serves as deputy chairwoman of the ERG, was the first to do so. She published a searing letter criticising Rishi Sunak, accusing him of “purging the centre-right from his cabinet.”

Rwanda plan ruled unlawful

The week went from bad to worse for the Prime Minister, with the announcement that the government’s controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda had been confirmed as illegal by the Supreme Court, ending over 18 months of legal battles. Following the ruling, the Tory Right immediately went on the attack, inevitably using the announcement as bait to whip up a moral panic and campaign to leave the ECHR. Tory MPs reportedly met at the 5 Hertford Street private members club in Mayfair, where they apparently agreed to send no confidence letters in Sunak and try to coordinate more from colleagues in a plot to remove him.

Lee Anderson demanded the government “ignore the law” and send asylum seekers to Rwanda anyway. “People are fed up in this country,” he huffed. “They’re fed up with being taken for a ride and paying their taxes to people who have no right to be here and are criminals. The government needs to show our leadership and send them back the same day.”

With the pressure piling up, the government quickly rallied around their divisive policy. New home secretary, James Cleverly, said that he planned to change the agreement with Rwanda into a treaty. This, he said, would have extra clauses to stop asylum seekers from being returned home – and therefore get around the courts.

Sacked Suella weighed in, saying the government should “introduce emergency legislation” to block the European Convention on Human Rights.

Keen to prove himself as neither weak nor indecisive and thereby confound Braverman, Sunak announced emergency legislation will get the Rwanda plan off the ground. Speaking at PMQs, he said he would ‘finalise’ a new treaty with Rwanda after the Supreme Court ruling and said, “if necessary, I’m prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks.”

The announcement was welcomed among some right-wing Tories, who described it as bolder than expected and predicting it would buy him time. Tory MP Jonathan Gullis told Times Radio that legislation is “entirely the right thing to do,” though he also warned “the devil will be in the detail.”

On the one hand, the sacking of the once deemed ‘unsackable’ Braverman shows Sunak’s eventual willingness to assert his authority and stand up to the hard right. But now, in the wake of the Rwanda ruling, he’s faced with the additional problem of showing he can deliver on a pledge that matters most to the rebellious Right of the party – stopping the arrival of asylum seekers on small boats across the Channel.

Only time will tell if Sunak’s future will utlimately be decided by the Supreme Court’s verdict on the Rwanda scheme.

While revolt is clearly gaining momentum among right-wing Tory ranks, whether there will be the numbers to realistically oust him remains to be seen. As Tory MP Stephen Hammond told the Independent: “All too often the right has shown itself to be well organised and noisy so that the impact is somewhat larger than the reality of their numbers.”

Apart from the predictable noise from the Brexiteer, anti-migration tribe, we have yet to see a giant rebellion. And apart from the furious no-confidence letter from Jenkyns, where are the other no confidence letters in Sunak that are reportedly been agreed in a ‘plot to remove the PM?’

The question therefore remains: Will tacking back to the centre diminish the Right, rather than embolden it, and prove that the populist factions are not as powerful as assumed?

Then there is Keir Starmer’s own internal rebellion to consider. The Labour leader has also had a difficult week. Eight frontbenchers quit Labour on November 15 over the party’s position on a ceasefire in Gaza. More than a quarter of Labour MPs – 56 – voted in favour of a ceasefire. Among the most high-profile names choosing to defy the Labour leadership was Jess Phillips, in what was a major blow to Keir Starmer.

While the opposition’s battles will offer some respite for Sunak, who will be more than happy to see Starmer squirm, the latest poll brings more bad news for Sunak. A poll for the Mirror, following Monday’s reshuffle, found support for the Tories has fallen by 4 points in just a fortnight to 19 percent. Labour was up 2 points to 46 percent, while backing for Reform UK also rose 2 points to 10 percent, giving Labour a 27-point lead.

But news of their party’s nosediving support could well vitalise the Right further. The biggest risk for Sunak is that neither wing of his divided party will be convinced about his reshuffle. As one blue-collar Conservative said, his views on the restructure were “unprintable.”

And with the right-wing press not exactly on his side, it’s going to be a testing next few months for the PM, that is for sure. And, as the Conservative party continues to engage in bitter internal warring, the country continues to face crises on multiple fronts.

As for whose light is dying, it is difficult to see a long term future for either Sunak or his government. As to the Conservative Party itself: it has always possessed a remarkable ability to prioritise its grip on power, but with an aging support base and deep ideological splits, it is certainly a long way from the sunlight.

Right-Wing Media Watch – Douglas Murray astounds with outrageous anti-Muslim comments

Douglas Murray, the associate editor of the Spectator, is well-known for his hostility towards immigration and for making assertions widely described as Islamophobic.

“Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board,” Islam is an “opportunist infection,” Muslims are a “demographic time bomb” and mosques should be “pulled down,” are among the far-right polemicist’s most deplorable comments.

So strong are Murray’s remarks that one of his former colleagues described him as a “thoroughly nasty piece of work full of venom and hatred for Muslims”, as someone who has a “perverse and deranged obsession with all things Islam related.”

Murray’s book, entitled: ‘The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam,’ which, as the title suggests, argues that Europe is dying, being murdered in fact, by hordes of immigrants, was deified among far-right circles in the US and Europe. Alt-right Hungary PM Viktor Orbán famously posted a photo of himself on his official Facebook page holding up the appalling book.

Given his history of railing against what he views as the threat that Muslims and Islam pose to the west, it comes as little surprise that the British journalist is using the current Israel-Palestine crisis to attempt to advance his case.



Last week, he took aim at Scotland’s First Minister, Humza Yousaf. In an interview for the US news podcast, the Rubin Report, Murray describes Yousaf as the “first minister of Gaza,” who has “infiltrated our system.” He also attacked Yousaf’s wife, Nadia El-Nakla, who is Palestinian and has spoken publicly about her fears about her family being trapped in Gaza, and how three of her young cousins, including a two-year-old, have shrapnel injuries after an Israeli drone missile hit near them. Murray describes El-Nakla as a “particularly nasty piece of work,” who he claims has been on the record before “smearing the Jewish state in all sorts of ways.”

“But people like Humza Yousaf, I say it carefully, have infiltrated our system. He does not seem to be much bothered by the situation of the Scottish people, or the people of Glasgow who have one of the lowest life expectancies not just in Britain but anywhere in Europe,” Murray continued.

Criticism of the comments was widespread. On X, the interview was recognised for what it was. Vile.

“Disgusting prejudice (again) from Douglas Murray,” said Miqdaad Versi of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Keen to vocalise his hate-filled thoughts on the future of Gaza, Murray wrote: “Maybe they [Israel] will finally put an end to this insoluble nightmare, raze Hamas to the ground, or clear all the Palestinians from the benighted strip…. It could be a good time to do it. Very few countries in the Middle East still pretend to care about the Palestinians. Few ever did.”

The former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and the political commentator Douglas Murray are seemingly two of a kind. In September, Braverman told parliament that Murray holds “mainstream, insightful and perfectly decent political views.”



Commenting on Braverman’s remarks, Zara Mohammed, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “Let there be no doubt: Murray’s views are anything but mainstream; they are on the fringe and deeply Islamophobic. That the Home Secretary would defend Murray’s views as “mainstream”, this time at the dispatch box no less, is as outrageous as it is dangerous.”

Most worrying, apart from being endorsed by a frontline minister (now sacked thankfully), is the fact that Murray, despite his relentless Islamophobic narrative, is given high-profile platforms to facilitate his far-right views. He is the associate editor of the Spectator, which, having been first published in 1828, is the oldest surviving weekly magazine in the world. With access to platforms like this, Murray is able to gain significant influence.

Subsequently, he has a large following among the far-right, not just in Britain and Europe, but, particularly, the United States. As such, his public bile cannot be dismissed as the typical populist rants you find in the likes of the Mail and the Sun, but dangerous ideology from a seemingly pathological mind that holds substantial authority.

Woke-bashing of the week – Right-wingers’ vent their National Trust takeover failure fury at charity’s ‘woke calendar’

In the run-up to the National Trust’s AGM, the right-wing press couldn’t get enough of the anti-woke pressure group, Restore Trust, which had put forward five candidates to be elected to the charity’s trustee body. The wannabee infiltrators even had the backing of Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg. But despite the Right’s best efforts, Restore proved unsuccessful, with none of the candidates making it onto the board.

Undeterred by the disastrous attempt to put the likes of Farage’s mate Lady Violet Manners, the eldest daughter of UKIP supporter the Duke of Rutland, on the trustee board so they could change the direction of the charity and get rid of its ‘woke agenda,’ the right-wing press went on the rampage about the Trust’s new calendar.

Rather than reporting factually and honesty about the election results, which saw a record turnout of voters, the Restore-endorsing press brazenly claimed Trust members believe the charity has gone ‘too woke.’ Don’t they realise that members agree with the charity’s inclusive ethos, as proven by the election results which voted in favour on four resolutions and elected five members of the National Trust Council and had nothing to do with Restore Trust.

“Members claim National Trust has gone ‘too woke’ after launching charity calendar that excludes Christmas and Easter – but include other religions’ festivals,’ sensationalised the Daily Mail.



The report does make reference to the AGM, but only to mention that the calendar was objected to, amid ‘wider concerns about the charity increasingly focusing on gay history and focusing on the slavery links of its historic properties.’ It cites a Trust member who apparently raised concerns at the AGM about the ‘inclusivity calendar’ to an apparent ‘round of applause.’ One of the applauding members, the Mail continues, observed that the calendar was an ‘indication the Trust had gone ‘too woke.’

Rather than just accepting defeat, the Restore-revering Daily Telegraph went for the same angle, focusing on Christmas and Easter being excluded from the NT’s calendar.

“While Diwali, Eid and Ramadan feature in the heritage group’s “inclusivity and wellbeing” calendar, distributed to volunteers, Christmas and Easter go unmentioned,” it bemoaned.

At least the Telegraph mentions the unsuccessful standing of Lord Sumption, one of the Restore Trust-backed candidates who sought election to the charity’s council. But only to quote him moaning about the so-called rigging of the election to get favoured candidate voted in.

“Its practical consequence is plain. It is to convert a system of election into a system of co-option by the trustees.

“That is a strange thing to do. It’s strange for a body which is designed… to hold the trustees to account to be in practice selected by the trustees themselves,” said Sumption.

Where have we heard similar accusations of a ‘rigged’ electoral system by someone who didn’t get his own way so decided to make baseless claims that the election was stolen from him? Oh yes, it was from Donald Trump.

Will Restore Trust be back for ‘round-four’ next year? Sharing a similar thick-skin and brazenness as Trump, it’s hard to believe they won’t be.



Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of billionaires or big business. Our campaigning, hard-hitting journalism depends on the kind and generous support of people like you.

Your support can fund more reporting, spread the left's ideas to an ever bigger audience and hold the right to account. We can't do this without you.Donate today

Related Posts:
at

No comments:

Post a Comment