MPs have backed Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda plan as a threatened Tory rebellion fizzled out.
The House of Commons voted 320 to 276 to support the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which the prime minister says will see deportation flights to the east African country finally get off the ground.
The result will come as a huge relief to the PM, who last night suffered his biggest rebellion since entering Downing Street.
Advertisement
Around 60 MPs defied the Tory whip to back amendments aimed at toughening up the legislation to allow ministers to ignore European court rulings and make it more difficult for asylum seekers to appeal against deportation.
However, just 11 of them voted against the entire bill this evening, handing the government a comfortable majority of 44.
The bill will now go to the House of Lords, where it may be amended by opponents of the Rwanda policy, before it returns to the Commons.
That could potentially set up a fresh battle after the rebel Tories said they would then table a fresh set of amendments to toughen it up again.
Advertisement
Sunak hopes that once it is on the statute books, the new law will allow flights to Rwanda to take off in the spring and form a key part of his pledge to “stop the boats” carrying asylum seekers across the Channel.
However, any deportations are certain to be appealed against, teeing up yet more legal wrangling which would delay the flights once again.
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: Tonight is no victory for Rishi Sunak, no matter how he might try to twist it.
“Days of Conservative chaos and infighting has left the prime minister’s authority shot. He has proved again and again that he cannot lead his own party, let alone the country.”
The Conservative Party has faced ridicule after likening Keir Starmer to Bob Odenkirk’s character in the hit US TV show Better Call Saul.
Highlighting the Labour leader’s time as a criminal defence barrister is gearing up to be one of the Tory election attack lines in the run-up to this year’s vote.
Advertisement
At prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, Rishi Sunak raised Starmer’s decision to advise the soon-to-be-banned Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir during his legal career.
Labour has said Starmer had been asked to give advice to Hizb ut-Tahri in a legal dispute between the group and the German government.
He did not formally represent them, moving on to become director of public prosecutions shortly after, they said.
But the Conservative party later doubled down on the messaging, putting out a message on social media that brought Saul Goodman – the notorious fictional criminal lawyer played by Odenkirk – into play.
Advertisement
It read: “Are you a terrorist in need of legal advice? Better call Keir.”
The post from the Tories on X, formerly Twitter, also said: “When Rishi Sunak sees a group chanting jihad on our streets, he bans them. Keir Starmer invoices them.”
But the attempt to undermine Starmer was soon disparaged – with many pointing out that lawyers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that somehow the Tories have even managed to boost Starmer’s image.
And a community note attached to the post added that Starmer “went on to prosecute terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir as director of public prosecutions”, and continued: “There’s is no evidence he invoiced them. Barristers may not withhold services based on a client’s conduct.”
Lawyers are not their clients.
Your failure to understand such a basic fundament of the rule of law makes it clear that you are not a serious political party, and should be nowhere near the levers of government. pic.twitter.com/XoJHvxu8S6
Looking forward to this being the Tory’s attack line for a full 3 days until it doesn’t shift the dial one iota and they change to something completely different and pretend they never mentioned it https://t.co/loWRPtn0JF
— Godspeed You Black Tamperer (ft Maya) (@twlldun) January 17, 2024
once again a Tory attack line is hamstrung by accurate community notes
question is whether these efforts can thrive on other social media platforms which may not have such correctives https://t.co/2pngFgbz8r
I guess the basic competency level in his ‘inner circle’, drawn from right-wing hate sheets, PR propagandists & secretly-funded think tanks, is now so low that anything goes. Not so much an echo chamber as a talent vacuum where nobody has the wit to call out any obvious idiocy. https://t.co/lgBbcl4wSb
This is desperate stuff. Utterly demeaning of the Tories. I have grave doubts about Labour’s approach to extremist Islam but this is cheap and nasty and doesn’t even attack the real issue with Lab – the views of too many of its MPs and members https://t.co/ZTss2xokEj
Mary Trump noted that Monday wasn’t all good news for her uncle Donald Trump.
In her Substack newsletter, she pointed out that one of the former president’s attorneys, Joe Tacopina, had filed notices that day seeking the withdrawal of his law firm from representing Donald Trump. Tacopina withdrew from two cases in New York: a criminal trial over alleged falsification of business records, and an appeal of the verdict in a civil lawsuit brought by writer E Jean Carroll. Donald Trump has denied wrongdoing in both cases.
Tacopina told ABC News that he had withdrawn “on all matters” but did not comment on his reasons.
“On what everyone knew was supposed to be a day of victory for Donald in Iowa, this loss will still be burning in his mind,” Mary Trump wrote in the newsletter, The Good in Us.
Advertisement
Donald Trump swept the Iowa caucuses Monday with a commanding victory, winning 98 of 99 counties and cementing his front-runner status in the race for the GOP’s presidential nomination.
“It’s not unusual for Donald to go through lawyers at an alarming rate, but Tacopina’s high profile status shows just how dysfunctional Donald’s ‘defense’ really is,” wrote Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, author and outspoken critic of her uncle.
Tacopina’s withdrawal was announced ahead of Tuesday morning’s jury selection in a second defamation trial tied to Carroll’s allegations that Donald Trump raped her in the 1990s. A jury found him liable for defaming and sexually abusing Carroll last year, though it didn’t find that Trump had raped her.
The former president recently told The New York Times that he wished to testify in the second trial and that Tacopina, who represented him in the first, had advised him not to last time.
Advertisement
Mary Trump suggested that her uncle’s decision to speak in court last week at the end of a separate civil fraud trial, in which Trump has also denied wrongdoing, might’ve played a role in Tacopina’s departure.
“After Donald’s disastrous closing argument in his New York fraud trial, it’s no wonder that Tacopina wanted to distance himself from Donald’s penchant for self-destruction behavior,” she wrote.
“Losing just one key lawyer could have a devastating impact on a case, but not only is Tacopina dumping Donald as a client — his entire firm is leaving,” she added, calling such a move a “major set back for any defense”.
In his business records case, Donald Trump faces 34 felony charges from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in connection to a hush money payment made to porn actor Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
He traveled to New York after the caucuses to attend the Carroll trial on Tuesday.
In a statement to Reuters about Tacopina’s departure, a spokesperson for the former president said that he “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled”.
Donald Trump’s sweeping victory in the Iowa caucus underlined his grip on the race to be the Republican presidential nomination in this year’s general election. But does his dominance in the first contest mean that he’s certain to be the Grand Old Party’s pick to take on Joe Biden in November?
What happened?
On a perilously-cold day in America’s Midwest, Trump secured a roughly 30-point win over his rivals – smashing the record for a contested Iowa Republican caucus with a margin of victory exceeding Bob Dole’s nearly 13-percentage-point victory in 1988. Florida governor Ron DeSantis finished a distant second, just ahead of former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.
Advertisement
According to the entrance polls conducted by major media organisations, he won every demographic group imaginable: the college-educated and those without a degree; men and women; urban, suburban and rural voters; and evangelical Christians. The only groups he didn’t win were moderates, who went with Haley, and voters ages 17 to 29, who backed DeSantis.
But it’s only the start of a months-long campaign across all 50 US states.
At stake was Iowa’s 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this summer, with Trump’s victory meaning he secured 20 delegates. It’s minuscule in the grand scheme of outright victory – 1,215 delegates are needed to win a simple majority and the Republican standard bearer. Primary and caucus votes continue until June, meaning there’s still a long way to go. But the win hands Trump momentum going into the next battle.q
US presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump won the Republican party’s Iowa caucus, which marked the beginning of the 2024 presidential contest.
Anadolu via Getty Images
What next?
New Hampshire will hold the first-in-the-nation primary on January 23, with the Republican field likely to have thinned out by then. Conservative entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy suspended his campaign after a disappointing fourth place finish in Iowa and endorsed Trump.
Advertisement
Is the nomination inevitable?
There are a number of moving parts that will help determine how much to read into the Iowa result.
Trump’s main rival
The magnitude of Trump’s victory poses significant questions for both DeSantis and Haley: each took just enough of the vote to insist they were his main rival in New Hampshire, ensuring the field will remain divided against him. The picture will remain unclear until the race is whittled down to the last two.
Trump’s election track record
Questions still remain about whether Trump has enough broad appeal to beat Biden. He lost to Biden in 2020 after fuelling near-constant chaos while in the White House, culminating with his supporters carrying out a deadly attack on the US Capitol. The disappointing midterm election results in 2022 saw the majority of the candidates he endorsed defeated, and he is still broadly unpopular with the national electorate.
Court challenges
Trump is facing four separate criminal indictments The US Supreme Court is weighing whether states have the ability to block Trump from the ballot for his role in sparking the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. And he’s facing criminal trials in Washington and Atlanta for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In total, he faces 91 felony charges across four criminal cases.
But Trump’s legal challenges appear to have done little damage to his reputation. Heading to court voluntarily has been a strategy designed to portray him as a victim of a politicised legal system, boosting his “anti-hero” status.
The next set of voting
New Hampshire, the next state to go to the polls, will be a tougher test. Some polling there shows Haley is within striking distance, and it is filled with the moderate, college-educated voters who are Trump’s weak point.
The move came just minutes before the pair joined around 60 Conservative MPs in backing amendments aimed at toughening up the flagship legislation.
Advertisement
An amendment tabled by veteran Conservative backbencher Bill Cash, which would have allowed the government to defy international law, was defeated by 529 votes to 68.
A second amendment in the name of former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, which would have made it harder for those facing deportation to appeal, was also defeated by 525 votes to 58.
If only half the Tory rebels vote with the opposition parties against the full bill when it comes back to the Commons tomorrow, it will be killed and Sunak’s premiership will be in tatters.
Anderson, the controversial MP for Ashfield, was appointed deputy chairman in February last year.
Fellow Red Wall MP Clarke-Smith only took up the post two months ago.
In a joint resignation letter to the PM, they said: “We commend your work on illegal immigration so far and your commitment to implementing the will of the British people.
Advertisement
“The last thing either of us wants to do is to distract from this.”
However, they suggested that despite their support for the rebel amendments aimed a strengthening the bill, they will still vote for the legislation in its entirety when it comes back to the Commons tomorrow.
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: “Sunak’s Rwanda scheme just won’t work – and even the deputy chairmen of his own party know it.
“Rishi Sunak has yet again been embarrassed by his own MPs.
“If the prime minister can’t even settle squabbles in his own party, how can he be expected to run the country?”
The YouGov survey, commissioned by Tory donors calling themselves the Conservative British Alliance said Keir Starmer would enter No.10 with a 120-seat majority.
At a special meeting of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers this evening, Levido accused those behind the poll of “throwing in the towel”.
He said: “Let me be clear. Divided parties fail. It’s time to get serious – I am fighting to win this election, and I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t believe it was possible. We all need to be be fighting to win this election.
“People do not want Starmer. They are looking for reasons to vote for us. We must not give them any more reasons not to.”
Advertisement
His comments came as the prime minister faces a growing Tory rebellion over his flagship Rwanda bill.
Two deputy party chairmen, Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith, risked the sack by announcing they will support rebel amendments aimed at making the legislation tougher.
Up to 70 Tory MPs are set to back the proposed changes, which would allow ministers to ignore rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.
Earlier, former cabinet minister Simon Clarke said the bill was currently “riddled with holes” and he would vote against it unless it is changed.
The bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday for MPs to debate and vote on it.
Clarke, who served under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, said: “I have been clear with the whips that if the bill goes forward unamended, I will be unable to offer it my support.
Advertisement
Sunak today insisted he was willing to talk to the rebels, but stopped short of saying he would accept any of their amendments.
He told GB News: “I’ve always said that I’m happy to have a dialogue with anyone who thinks they might have an idea that will improve the effectiveness of the bill whilst making sure that it’s still legally compliant and maintains Rwanda’s participation in the scheme.
Keir Starmer has watered down his previous pledge to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia if he becomes prime minister.
The Labour leader would only commit to a “review” of the policy if he becomes prime minister.
Starmer also appeared to row back on his previous commitment to bring in a new law forcing the government to seek parliamentary approval for any military action.
Advertisement
When he was running to succeed Jeremy Corbyn in 2020, Starmer said the UK “should stop the sales of arms to Saudi Arabia”.
But on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg this morning, he said: “We will do a review to look at the sales, look at the countries and the relationships that we have. Obviously, that follows a review.”
Kuenssberg told him: “But you said in February 2020 ‘we should stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia’. Is that still your position?”
Starmer replied: “We will review the situation and the review will give us the answer to those questions.”
Advertisement
Kuenssberg said: “So you may not any more promise to stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, which is what you used to say in 2020.”
Starmer said: “We will review the situation and the review will make clear what the position is.”
During his leadership campaign, Starmer pledged to “end illegal wars” by introducing a Prevention of Military Intervention Act.
That would ensure that any military action had to be legal and backed by a Commons vote.
However, Starmer backed last week’s air strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen despite there being no vote in parliament beforehand.
Asked about the apparent change of heart, the Labour leader insisted there was “no inconsistency” in his position.
Advertisement
He said: “There is a huge distinction between an operation the like of which we’ve seen in the last few days and a sustained campaign – military action usually involving troops on the ground.
“National security must come first. There will always be urgent situations where parliament can’t be consulted beforehand. But the principle that if there’s to be a sustained campaign, if we’re going to deploy our troops on the ground, that parliament should be informed, there should be a debate, the case should be made and there should be a vote, I do stand by that in principle, absolutely.”
However, Starmer refused to commit to introducing a new law, saying it could be “done by some other means”.
Israel has been bombing Gaza for the past three months in retaliation for the terrorist attack on the country by Hamas on October 7.
Advertisement
Tens of thousands of civilians have died as a result of the bombardment, which has led to a humanitarian crisis.
But appearing on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips today, Lord Cameron rejected South Africa’s accusations.
The foreign secretary said: “I think the South African action is wrong, I think it’s unhelpful, I think it shouldn’t be happening.
“I’m not a lawyer, but they are talking here about genocide. To prove that, you’ve got to prove that there was intent.
Advertisement
“I take the view that Israel is acting in self defence after the appalling act on October 7. But even if you take a different view to my view, to look at Israel – a democracy, a country with the rule of law, a country with armed forces that are committed to obeying the rule of law – to say that they have the intent to commit genocide, I think that is nonsense, I think that’s wrong.”
Phillips told him: “You can’t know that, you can only judge on the basis of what they’ve done.”
But Lord Cameron insisted that “to say there’s the intent to commit genocide, I do believe that’s wrong”.
South Africa has called for the emergency suspension of Israel’s aerial and ground offensive, claiming it was looking to induce “the destruction of the population” of Gaza.
But Israel has rejected these claims, accusing South Africa of playing “advocate of the devil” for Hamas. It says it is not targeting any civilians, but the militants.
The former MP will lead a mental health strategic review ahead of the general election later this year.
Advertisement
Berger left Labour over its “culture of bullying, bigotry and harassment” in 2019 and ended up fighting the election that year for the Liberal Demcrats.
She rejoined last year after Starmer personally apologised for the “intimidation, thuggery and racism” she endured when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
Speaking at the Jewish Labour Movement conference today, Starmer said she will work with shadow health secretary Wes Streeting and shadow mental health minister Abena Oppong-Asare to deliver a long-term cross-government strategy for mental health.
He said: “I am proud to welcome Luciana back. The Labour Party has changed beyond recognition since she was forced out, and we will be a richer party for having her working with us again.
Advertisement
“It will be the mission of my Labour government to make sure fewer lives are lost to suicide, with timely support available to all who need it.
“Luciana is a fierce advocate for mental health and her work will contribute to achieving that mission in government.”
Berger, who was Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree between 2010 and 2019, said: “With Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour has turned a significant corner. I am delighted to be back working with my party and helping Labour deliver the change our country really needs.”
was one of seven Labour MPs who quit the party in 2019 to form Change UK in protest at Corbyn’s leadership.
She said at the time: “I cannot remain in a party which I have come to the sickening conclusion is institutionally anti-Semitic.”
Advertisement
She eventually switched to the Lib Dems and stood for the party in Finchley and Golders Green at the 2019 election, but was defeated by the Conservatives’ Mike Freer.
The Conservative government has been criticised over the UK’s “nose-diving” record after a “dismal year for human rights”.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has just torn into the UK over the government’s policy decisions from the last year, demolishing its action (or inaction) on migration, LGBTQ+ rights and its foreign policy – to name just a few.
Advertisement
In its 740-page World Report 2024, released on Friday, the specialists left no stone unturned – and concluded that the UK government “eroded domestic human rights protections and reneged on important international obligations.”
The report pointed to the government’s 2023 legislation criminalising protesters, the Public Order bill, and its attempts to introduce anti-boycott laws.
Then the scathing report moved onto the new legislation meant to ban those who arrive “irregularly” to the UK – the Illegal Migration Act.
It said this was a “flagrant breach of the UK’s international obligations, including under the UN Refugee Convention”.
“The UK had another dismal year for human rights in 2023.”
– Yasmine Ahmed, UK Director at Human Rights Watch
It also lashed out at the Tories for failing to “take meaningful steps to tackle institutional racism and address past wrongs” within the UK, including those still waiting for compensation from the Windrush scandal.
HRW noted the government had “failed to set social security payments at a level that ensures recipients can enjoy their rights and live with dignity” even amid an ongoing cost of living crisis. It noted how food bank usage, and homelessness, have increased, too.
Advertisement
It then moved onto women’s rights, noticing how the gender pay gap was still a problem, that there have been recent campaign efforts for the government to overhaul outdated abortion laws in England and Wales.
The specialists recognised that there’s been a surge in anti-LGBT violence in the UK too, and called out the “government’s undermining of protections for the rights of trans women and over-representation of LGBT people among the unhoused population.”
PM Rishi Sunak was slammed over the decision to backtrack on key climate policies too, and called to do more to “tackle racial disparities of climate change effects in the UK”.
Britain was praised for its actions highlighting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – but HRW was swift to then criticise it for appearing to be “turning a blind eye to ongoing abuses” in Rwanda amid the plan to deport asylum seekers who arrive “illegally”.
The report added: “UK anti-immigrant policies at home have contributed to the government’s failure to resettle vulnerableAfghans.”
Advertisement
Finally, it touched on the UK’s abstention from a UN Security Council resolution in October calling for full humanitarian aid to Gaza, and the release of Hamas hostages amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.
And so, the specialists concluded: “The UK’s nose-diving domestic human rights record undermined its efforts to promote the rule of law and human rights globally.”
