Some of Britain's judges make even David Lammy look sensible on immigration
One can rarely hope for more in politics. But what Voltaire neglected to mention is the darker irony; that someone may yet come along who is so jaw-droppingly awful that your enemies begin to look sane by comparison.
Nobody believes Labour is effective – or even especially dedicated – to solving Britain's ever-increasing immigration problems. According to YouGov, just 11 per cent of people believe Keir Starmer's party would be best at handling asylum and immigration – an all-time low. Reform, who have only recently been added to the survey, currently stand at 36 per cent.
But as untrusted as they are, Labour may yet prove to be a restraining force on the worst excesses of Britain's immigration system. Foreign Secretary David Lammy – who once told The Guardian that it was 'morally wrong to take the view that anyone making their way across the Channel is illegal' – is currently playing the part of immigration hardliner after deciding to block a family from Gaza from settling in the UK under the Ukrainian refugee scheme.
Earlier this year, in news broken by The Telegraph, Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor permitted a Palestinian family of six to settle in the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme. In January last year, the family submitted their application using the Ukraine scheme's form, arguing that it best reflected their circumstances and that their case was so 'compelling and compassionate' it warranted approval outside the scheme's formal rules.
A lower-tier immigration tribunal initially rejected their claim, stating that it fell outside the scope of the Ukraine programme and that decisions about which countries qualify for resettlement schemes rest with Parliament. However, upper tribunal judge Hugo Norton-Taylor overturned that ruling, allowing the appeal and granting the family entry to the UK based on their Article 8 right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since then, Lammy's Foreign Office has denied the family the consular support they need to leave Gaza and travel to a neighbouring country, where they could apply for UK visas at an application centre.
In a ruling on Monday, High Court Judge Mr. Justice Chamberlain sided with the family. He stated that the Foreign Office's June decision to withhold consular assistance was 'flawed' and 'irrational' and must be reconsidered, as the family had 'very little food and no effective sanitation' and remained 'at constant risk of injury or death'.
The rulings of judges such as Chamberlain and Norton-Taylor show how detached from the British public Britain's 'lanyard class' has become – the self-congratulatory bureaucrats and elites who inhabit a liberal bubble insulated from the practical consequences of their decisions. Labour, however, are not so lucky.
In such circumstances it's hard not to see the parallels with Voltaire's ridiculousness; the judiciary's positions have become so absurd that they have forced Labour to become the hardliners.
As dangerous and heart-rending as the situation in Gaza is, the answer is not – as it has never been, to any humanitarian crisis – to allow huge flows of refugees into Britain.
Yet the decisions of these judges seem to be setting a precedent for Palestinian refugees to enter the UK – despite there being clear and repeated indications from Government and politicians that this is not their intention.
As I wrote recently, our immigration rules are collapsing under a combination of legal activism
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
A red card for the Chancellor? Ex-footballer Gary Neville blasts Rachel Reeves' tax hike on businesses
Gary Neville has condemned Labour's tax hikes for deterring firms from employing people. The ex-England and Manchester United footballer hit out at Chancellor Rachel Reeves for increasing employers' National Insurance contributions. Neville, who is now a business owner and TV pundit, claimed the tax hike announced by Ms Reeves at last year's Budget 'probably could have been held back'. The criticism will sting both Ms Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, following Neville's staunch support for Labour at the general election. The former defender told Sky News: 'I honestly don't believe that, to be fair, companies and small businesses should be deterred from employing people. 'So, I think the National Insurance rise was one that I feel probably could have been held back, particularly in terms of the way in which the economy was.' Neville also warned about the impact of a double whammy for under-pressure businesses at the start of April. This is when both the National Insurance rise and Labour's increase in the minimum wage came into effect, both of which hiked costs for firms. Neville said: 'I don't think we can ever criticise the Government for increasing the minimum wage. 'I honestly believe that people, to be fair, should be paid more so I don't think that's something that you can be critical of. 'I do think that the National Insurance rise, though, was a challenge.' A recent report found nearly 50,000 UK companies are on the brink of collapse as rising wage costs, due to Budget measures, put small firms under 'immense strain'. The latest Begbies Traynor red flag alert found that firms in critical financial distress rose by more than a fifth (21.4 per cent) year-on-year to 49,309 in the second quarter. Consumer-facing industries saw some of the most 'extreme' rises in critical financial distress, with a 41.7 per cent surge among bars and restaurants, a 39 per cent leap for travel and tourism and 17.8 per cent jump for general retailers. Begbies warned that many independent pubs will not have the scale to withstand the pressures for another year without action. Ric Traynor, executive chairman of Begbies Traynor, said: 'The sharp rise in critical distress underscores just how tough the economic environment is for UK businesses and it's abundantly clear that tens of thousands of firms are struggling to stay afloat. 'Small and medium sized businesses across the UK are being put under immense strain by the recent increases to employer's NI as well as the increase to the national minimum wage. 'With limited financial headroom to absorb rising costs, many businesses are now reaching a tipping point.'
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Medical regulator urged to rule that NHS strikes are 'incompatible' with doctors' duty to protect patients
The medical regulator is being urged to rule that NHS strikes are 'incompatible' with doctors' duty to protect patients. The General Medical Council (GMC) is facing calls to review its guidelines for practitioners following the latest walkout by resident doctors. Amid an ongoing row over pay, resident doctors - formerly known as junior doctors - have just staged a five-day strike to bring huge disruption to the NHS in England. The British Medical Association (BMA), the union behind the walkout, has refused to rule out further strikes if the Government doesn't meet their demands. The GMC is now under pressure to take 'immediate' steps to prevent a further walkout. In a letter to the regulator, Tory shadow health secretary Stuart Andrew has told the GMC to review its 'Good Medical Practice', which doctors are expected to abide by. This sets out the principles, values and standards expected of all doctors, and includes 'making the care of patients the first concern'. The Conservatives want the GMC to look again at the guidelines with 'a view to make striking incompatible with Good Medical Practice'. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has already pledged to ban doctors' strikes if the Conservatives return to power. She vowed to introduce legislation to block medics from taking widespread industrial action, placing the same restrictions on them that apply to police officers and soldiers. The Tory plans would see minimum service level requirements - which were brought in for some sectors by the previous government and scrapped by Labour - introduced across the health service. But, in his letter to GMC chief executive Charlie Massey, Mr Andrew said that 'action is needed now' to protect NHS patients while legislative measures are formulated. He wrote: 'Our proposals require new primary legislation, particularly relating to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. 'If the Government will not make these changes, patients will be condemned to four more years of disruptive strikes. Conservatives believe that action is needed now. 'Given the reckless approach the BMA has taken, warning that the recent strikes may even cause harm to patients, we believe that in response the GMC must review Good Medical Practice with a view to make striking incompatible with Good Medical Practice. 'This would have the immediate effect of preventing further strikes while legislative measures were formulated and ensure patients and their safety remain at the core of Good Medical Practice. 'We hope that the GMC can stand with us in protecting the health of patients upholding the fundamental duty of care of the NHS.' A GMC spokesperson said: 'Doctors are legally entitled to take part in lawful industrial action, including strike action. 'During strike action, doctors' employers will have a vital role in planning and preparing for how patients will be cared for. 'They play an important part in maintaining the continuity of patient care to the highest possible standard. 'We expect any doctors choosing to take part in strike action to continue to follow the principles of our guidance, Good Medical Practice. 'It highlights the importance of doctors working collaboratively with the healthcare team to keep patients safe, staying within the limits of their competence.' But, in a letter to GMC chief executive Charlie Massey, shadow health secretary Stuart Andrew said 'action is needed now' to protect NHS patients while legislative measures are formulated Both the Labour Government and BMA have said they are prepared to continue negotiations with a view to avert further strike action. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said talks could lead to improvements in the working lives of resident doctors but he has repeatedly said there is no more money for pay. But BMA leaders have insisted that there must be some pay discussions during talks. The BMA has also launched a 'linked dispute' with the Government over a lack of places for doctors in training, which could lead to common ground during future talks. The BMA has branded the Tory pledge to ban doctors' strikes if they return to power as 'a desperate intervention from a party that spent nearly 15 years failing the NHS'. Dr Tom Dolphin, BMA chair of council, said: 'Threatening to ban strike action is not the right response for a modern democracy. 'Doctors aren't militants - they're professionals sounding the alarm about a health service in crisis. Silencing them won't fix the NHS. Listening to them might. 'Patients are having operations or appointments postponed every single day in the NHS due to understaffing and lack of beds, and undervaluing staff contributes to that. 'Doctors have a human right to strike just like everyone else. If something is wrong, you don't ban the canary in a coalmine from singing. 'Striking is always the last resort and should never be used lightly, but fundamentally the right to strike should always be there.' He added: 'The BMA and NHS England have in place an agreed national 'derogations' process whereby hospitals can request to have specific striking doctors return to work in the event of an unforeseen emergency or mass casualty event. 'That process is there day and night throughout industrial action, and we remain ready to respond to any emergency requests. 'However, we need to be clear that the purpose of this agreement is not to facilitate the continued delivery of non-urgent care.'
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Keir Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine shore up his waning popularity?
Keir Starmer's decision that the UK will recognise Palestinian statehood is a bold move. The prime minister must often feel he can't win; some of the 130 Labour backbenchers clamouring for recognition are unhappy he has set conditions for Israel's actions, which implies he might not go ahead with the move. Sarah Champion, chair of the international development select committee, is 'troubled' by the conditions. Predictably, the Conservatives and Reform UK are sniping from the sidelines. They complain Starmer is playing "gesture politics", saying his initiative is all about party management as he again caves in to his own MPs. But it is the opposition parties who are playing silly political games. Starmer has a proven track record of opposing gesture politics, preferring a lawyerly, sometimes painstaking approach of looking at a problem from all sides before declaring a plan to resolve it. In the national interest, rival parties and restive Labour MPs should now get behind Starmer's serious attempt to bring peace to the Middle East by reviving a two-state solution on life support. It might not work. Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas want different one-state solutions – without the existence of Palestine and Israel, respectively. But Starmer's plan is worth a try. It might spur Donald Trump into putting more pressure on Israel, as Starmer did successfully on Gaza when they met in Scotland on Monday. It is hard to imagine the US president, who boasted at Turnberry he had already stopped "six wars" and wants to win the Nobel peace prize, getting behind a Starmer or European blueprint agreed by the UK, France and Germany. The latter does not recognise Palestine yet, but other nations, including Canada and Australia, may change their policy to back the French president Emmanuel Macron's move at the UN General Assembly in September. Critics complain that Starmer did not impose any specific conditions on Hamas, only Israel. But his allies insist all the remaining Israeli hostages must be released, and that Hamas could not be involved in any talks on a two-state solution. However, the absence of a plan to transition away from Hamas rule in Gaza will have to be addressed. The PM always said he would play the Palestinian card at a time of maximum benefit; it was a question of "when, not if." The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza made it a case of"if not now, when?" Starmer allies tell me he has been working on his plan for months. Arguably, he could have moved earlier. A third of the cabinet were pressing him to, including David Lammy, the foreign secretary. Senior UK diplomats are privately frustrated by Starmer's approach: 'He is too cautious,' one told me. Sometimes, Starmer's closest allies have viewed the Middle East as part of his battle against the "pro-Palestinian left" symbolised by Jeremy Corbyn. That might have been the right approach in the aftermath of the horrific 7 October attacks, but not now; Israel's unspeakable actions in Gaza have changed everything. The PM was also becoming out of step with public opinion. According to YouGov, 45 per cent of people say the government should recognise Palestine as an independent state, while only 14 per cent disagree, with 41 per cent undecided. The figures mask big differences: about two-thirds of Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat supporters back recognition, but only 32 per cent of Tory and 15 per cent of Reform voters do. The strongest support for a Palestinian state is among 18- to 24-year-olds, at 61 per cent. The issue poses a real threat to Labour's prospects at the next general election. As well as adding to the four seats won by 'Gaza independents' last year, candidates running for Corbyn's new socialist party on a pro-Palestinian ticket could split the left-of-centre vote and allow Reform or the Tories to win marginal seats from Labour. In theory, Starmer's move should limit the electoral damage to his party, but some Labour MPs worry privately that it might have already been done. The Corbyn party will not give the PM an ounce of credit; it suits them to portray him – wrongly – as an Israeli stooge who is complicit in the suffering in Gaza. The lesson for Starmer: he cannot continually be behind the curve of the mainstream of his party. He was in that position on the winter fuel allowance, disability benefit cuts and Palestine, and so had to change his policy on all three. It made him look weak; such perceptions are very difficult to shift once they take hold in the public's mind. The vacuum where there should be a narrative about where Starmer wants to take the country has been filled by the image of a PM who looks like he is being pushed around by his party. Any leader needs to take their party with them. True, they and their troops won't always agree. But a leader cannot perpetually define themselves against their own party, and Starmer is in danger of running out of road with his MPs. He will need to work with them if he is to mount a political recovery.
