Tory benches almost deserted as Philp cops a lesson on small boats
You'd have thought the Conservative backbenchers would have wanted to be out in force to hear Yvette Cooper's statement on the new arrangements for dealing with small boats. After all, this is the stuff that Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp live and breathe. The reason they get up in the morning. To wage a two-person war on those making the Channel crossing. So surely Tory MPs would be desperate to have their say. A show of strength. But weirdly there were only five and most of them were to scuttle off long before the end.
When Keir Starmer had announced his new 'one in, one out' returns deal with Macron last Thursday, he had sounded slightly too keen. As if he was somehow trying to overcompensate for the fact that he hadn't landed quite the deal he had hoped. Desperate to talk up that 50 returns a week was a sizeable deterrent to those thinking of making the crossing. Not that he was willing to discuss any numbers. Though 50 was the magic number. The difference between success and failure.
Four days on and the home secretary had no such qualms as she made a statement to the Commons on the new initiative. Everything has been too weak for far too long, she said. It all started in 2018 and had got steadily worse. But everything was going to stop right now. New cooperation. Stronger borders. Great new deal with France. It might not be the best deal going, but it was the first of its kind. Better than the Tories had managed to negotiate after they had spent every year since Brexit slagging off the French.
One Tory who had turned up was Philp, the shadow home secretary. Though by the end he was probably wishing he hadn't. Because, as the saying goes, he had his arse handed to him on a plate. The Philpster's tragedy is that he sees himself as one of life's success stories. While everyone else sees him as rather a sad loser. Someone who will say almost anything to advance his career, failing to perceive the embarrassment he is causing himself. A more able, psychologically healthy person knows when to cut their losses. Understands there are some battles not worth fighting. Chris just crashes and burns.
'The home secretary sounds rather pleased with herself,' the Philpster observed. Pots and kettles. Chris never doesn't sound pleased with himself. Even when he's drowning not waving. But in this he was right. A stopped clock and all that. Yvette did sound pleased with herself. But then who wouldn't, knowing that Philp was your opposite number. He is licensed to fail.
Chris carried on mansplaining. The new returns scheme was just a gimmick. What was really needed was a mass deportation scheme. Just like the massively brilliant Rwanda scheme that was on the verge of emptying every hotel for asylum seekers in the country when Rishi Sunak called the last election.
Truly, the Philpster is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The effortless rise of the dimerati. It's not at all certain if Chris has yet grasped the link between cause and effect. He concluded by saying that everyone arriving by irregular routes was a potential rapist, before sitting down triumphantly. Forgive him, Lord, for he knows not what he does.
This was the moment for which Cooper had been waiting. The bit which makes her job worthwhile. Yes, she has to suck up endless bad news stories about more and more small-boat crossings but on the plus side she gets to take out her feelings on the Philpster. She tried to give Chris a quick reality check. Who had been the immigration minister when the number of irregular migrants had gone up tenfold. Chris put up his hand. He had.
Who had been the immigration minister who had promised the home affairs select committee that he was very optimistic about getting a returns deal with France in 2020? Again the Philpster's arm shot up. Who was the immigration minister who had achieved and changed nothing. Up went the arm again. Did he now think it might have been a good idea to have tried treating the French with respect? Now his arm stayed down. You can take a horse to water …
The Philpster's humiliation wasn't quite over yet. Next he had to take some incoming from John Glen, one of the very few of his own MPs who had bothered to attend. While wondering if 50 returns per week would do the trick, Glen admitted his own party had completely failed on immigration while in power and that it had deserved to lose the last election because of it. Talk of kicking a man when he's down.
Still, to give Chris some credit, at least he bothered to show his face. For an earlier statement by Ed Miliband on the state of climate change and nature, his opposite number, Claire Coutinho, didn't bother. Perhaps she is punchdrunk from a year of always being on the wrong end of Ed's sarcasm.
She is the original quarterwit. Someone who can only dream of being a halfwit. Or perhaps, she can no longer bring herself to defend her party's increasingly climate sceptic conspiracy theories. Either way, it's time to put her out of her misery.
So it was left to shadow junior minister Andrew Bowie to reply to Miliband's impassioned statement on the need to act urgently to protect the planet. Bowie's answer was to channel his inner Kemi. And Nigel Farage for that matter. Why should we do anything, he said. It probably wasn't going to make any difference so just let the planet burn and flood. There was no point worrying about what might happen in 2050. Just drill, baby, drill.
Come the end of the statement there was just one Tory backbencher left in the chamber. This is the party that complains about everyone working from home. Do as I say, not as I do.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘It wasn't an error': Ofqual boss defends regulator after withdrawn data row
England's chief regulator of exams has put up a staunch defence of Ofqual after it was forced to withdraw a decade of statistics detailing the number of students granted extra time and other assistance for A-levels and GCSEs. In his first interview with a national media organisation since his permanent appointment as head of Ofqual, and just weeks after the data was dramatically pulled, Sir Ian Bauckham said there had been no error in the figures, blaming instead the way they had been interpreted. He also denied that the data 'misunderstanding', which comes five years after Ofqual's disastrous attempt during Covid to award GCSE and A-level grades by algorithm, had further undermined confidence in the organisation, saying: 'We've got a qualification system in this country to be proud of.' In an interview with the Guardian, the chief regulator also addressed the debate surrounding the government's curriculum and assessment review, warning against any wholesale move from exams to coursework because of concerns about students' growing use of AI. He also urged caution over the introduction of digital exams, saying that any assessment innovation must be secure and deliverable, and should not disadvantage poorer students who may not have had the same access to digital devices and software as their wealthier peers. Ofqual, which was set up in 2010 to regulate qualifications in England, shocked the education sector when it announced on 17 July that it was withdrawing official statistics for special access arrangements for exams going back to 2014, because they 'significantly overstated' the number of students. Access arrangements are adjustments to exams for students with special needs, disabilities or injuries, with 25% extra time being the most common. In 2012-13, 107,000 students in England were granted extra time, but in 2024 Ofqual said it was nearly 420,000 students, an increase of nearly 300%. The data appeared to show that 30% of students had been granted 25% extra time last year, with particularly high rates in private schools where nearly 42% of students received adjustments. Ofqual now thinks the actual rate is far lower. Bauckham said the confusion had arisen because, rather than showing access arrangements solely for students entered for GCSEs and A-levels in one particular year, the data includes a much broader list of access arrangements. Each access arrangement lasts two years. There can be duplicate applications for the same student, and the list may include pupils with special arrangements in place who did not sit exams that year at all. 'It wasn't an error, because the published data only ever claimed to be the long list of approved access arrangements,' Bauckham said. 'It never claimed to be that data mapped against actual exam entries, but it was interpreted as that. 'I've been clear that moving forward … we need to publish actual granted access arrangements that relate to actual entries in the year in question.' He said the final figure is likely to be much more in line with the proportion of pupils in England with special education needs and disabilities (Send), which according to the most recent official statistics stands at 19.5%, including those with education, health and care plans 'Just because this figure is significantly lower, doesn't mean that there may not have been a rising trend,' Bauckham added. 'I would be very surprised indeed if the final data, when we're able to pinpoint it, doesn't indicate a rising trend. So I don't think it takes away the problem, but it alters the scale of what we're thinking about.' On what appeared to be a growing gap between the use of access arrangements between private and state schools, he said: 'Of course in independent schools there is a slightly higher proportion of Send than there is in state-funded schools. 'I don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesise that there will still be a difference between state-funded schools and independent schools, not least because of that higher Send figure, but I'm absolutely clear that we must have data that informs the public debate on this issue.' Bauckham, who after a year as interim chief regulator was permanently appointed in February, said Ofqual had moved on a long way from the chaos of Covid when exams were cancelled and grades calculated using an algorithm had to be scrapped. 'Five years later, we've moved back to examinations which are widely trusted as the fairest way to accredit and assess what students know, understand and can do,' he added. On the government's curriculum and assessment review, due to report later this year, the Ofqual chief acknowledged concerns about the volume of exams pupils currently face, but he warned against reducing assessment to a single paper per subject. Students 'really value the opportunity to have at least two bites at the cherry, by which I mean two opportunities in two separate exam papers in the same subject',' he said. He is in favour of AI being used to support teaching and students' learning. 'But I would be very concerned about moving wholesale to a system where exams were replaced by extended writing coursework, because that would, in current circumstances, be open to malpractice.' 'I'm not worried about the future of qualifications,' Bauckham said. 'I think qualifications are going to be needed more than ever in the future, but I think in education, we've got to be clear that students still need rigorous intellectual training. They still need mastery of key knowledge. 'We still need to set our sights high for them and we mustn't succumb to the confused thinking that says, because AI will enable future workplaces, we don't need students to know, understand and be able to do skills and demonstrate knowledge at a high level, because I think the opposite is true.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
History will judge monsters who enabled a genocide
Keir Starmer's announcement that Britain will recognise the State of Palestine in September if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire and a two-state solution sums up his political project. Starmer himself is an empty vessel, a mere frontman for Labour's most reactionary and self-serving political faction: his own advisers briefed that he thinks he's driving a train, but they had placed him in front of London's driverless District Light Railway. This faction is defined by its cynicism, lacking not just a vision for our disunited kingdom, but a moral core. They saw that growing numbers of MPs were demanding Palestinian recognition, including some of the drones they parachuted into the parliamentary party, whose blind loyalty has been frayed by the realisation they're heading towards electoral apocalypse. READ MORE: Gaza detainees 'tortured and raped' by Israeli forces, United Nations hears The SNP were preparing to force a parliamentary vote on statehood, which would leave Labour exposed. And indeed other European states, like Spain, have already taken this step, with the likes of France making clear they will too. But all Starmer's aides care about is political game playing, rather than what happens to be the right thing to do. And here's the thing – they're not even good at it. They scrapped the universal Winter Fuel Payment because they thought it would win respect as a 'tough decision'. Alas, they project their lack of a heart on to the electorate, who shocked Labour goons by being averse to freezing their grans. They decided to wage war on disabled people with cuts which would drive hundreds of thousands into hardship, and were again shocked at being stopped in their tracks by the consequent revulsion, including from the malfunctioning androids who benefited from their rigged parliamentary selections. In this case, their ruse is as cackhanded as it is morally bankrupt. Any move which recognises the humanity of Palestinians is going to provoke the pro-Israel lobby, who long sank into a sewer of genocidal depravity, and so it proved. What about everyone else – that is, popular opinion, given the polling shows overwhelming public support for recognition of a Palestinian state, an arms embargo on Israel, as well as the arrest of its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Starmer's team are essentially arguing that if Israel tones down its genocide, then it will withdraw support for Palestinian statehood. The inalienable right of a people to be free is reduced to a crude bargaining chip, a chess piece on a board to be discarded for a greater strategic cause. So who is this supposed to please, exactly? Here's the gruesome truth. Obviously, Britain should have supported Palestinian national self-determination many moons ago. But there won't be any Palestine left to recognise at this rate. Here is the most symbolic gesture on offer, and even that is reduced to a cynical ploy. There is growing pressure on the Government, because they are facilitating what the former UN aid chief, Martin Griffiths, calls the 'worst crime of the 21st century'. Here is an attempt to deflect from action they could be taking, like ending all arms sales to Israel, including crucial components for F-35 jets that are exterminating Palestinians, or imposing sweeping sanctions on Israel. Indeed, earlier this year, Britain joined other Western states in imposing sanctions on two particularly extreme Israeli ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. They are both genocidal maniacs who belong in jail, sure, but it is easy to make them the bogeymen in order to absolve the wider guilt of the Israeli state. Notably, the sanctions were justified on the grounds of their incendiary comments, rather than their actions, because the latter implicates the British government. Nothing our government has done remotely meets the scale of the crime. A consensus of genocide scholars – including Israeli scholars – long ago concluded this is genocide. B'Tselem was one of two Israeli human rights organisations to reach the same conclusion this week, alongside Israeli author David Grossman, who won Israel's top literary prize in 2018. Gaza has been plunged into deliberate famine by an Israeli state which repeatedly broadcast to the world that it was intentionally starving the strip. More hungry Palestinians have been massacred at aid points alone since late May than the total number of Israeli civilians and soldiers killed on October 7. And even the BBC is now having to report that Palestinian children are being systematically shot in the head or chest – evidence which points in only one direction: that the Israeli army is deliberately shooting kids. The depravity is so extreme, documented and confessed to, that it is difficult to know either where to begin or end. The British government had a choice when confronted with an incontrovertible criminal reality: to make itself complicit in this historic abomination, or to abide by the most rudimentary building blocks of international law. It chose the former, and now it seeks to wash away its guilt by publicly agonising over Israel's crimes while making tokenistic gestures about a Palestinian nation it has literally helped to massacre. You would have to be either terminally gullible, or a dupe, to be beguiled by this. Throughout history, monsters didn't realise that that is what they are, but they were still monsters. The same applies to Westminster's rulers – and that will be the definitive conclusion of history and, we can hope, the courts, too.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Inside Jeremy Corbyn's new party and the battle for leadership
Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn may be the figureheads of a new left-wing party, but already there is a battle over leadership. The confusion behind the initial launch speaks to a wider debate happening behind closed doors as to who should steer the party - now and in the future. Already, in the true spirit of Mr Corbyn's politics, there is talk of an open leadership contest and grassroots participation. Some supporters of the new party - which is being temporarily called "Your Party" while a formal name is decided by members - believe that allowing a leadership contest to take place honours Mr Corbyn's commitment to open democracy. 5:51 They point out that under Mr Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, members famously backed plans to make it easier for local constituency parties to deselect sitting MPs - a concept he strongly believed in. His allies now say the former Labour leader, who is 76, is open to there being a leadership contest for the new party, possibly at its inaugural conference in the autumn, where names lesser known than himself can throw their hat into the ring. "Jeremy would rather die than not have an open leadership contest," one source familiar with the internal politics told Sky News. However, there have been suggestions that Ms Sultana appears to be less keen on the idea of a leadership contest, and that she is more committed to the co-leadership model than her political partner. Those who have been opposed to the co-leadership model believe it could give Ms Sultana an unfair advantage and exclude other potential candidates from standing in the future. 2:18 One source told Sky News they believed Mr Corbyn should lead the party for two years, to get it established, before others are allowed to stand as leader. They said Ms Sultana, who became an independent MP after she was suspended from Labour for opposing the two-child benefit cap, was "highly ambitious but completely untested as leader" and "had a lot of growing into the role to do". "It's not about her - it's about taking a democratic approach, which is what we're supposed to be doing," they said. "There are so many people who have done amazing things locally and they need to have a chance to emerge as leaders. "We are not only fishing from a pool of two people. "It needs to be an open contest. Nobody needs to be crowned." 1:22 While Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana undoubtedly have the biggest profiles out of would-be leaders, advocates for a grassroots approach to the leadership point to the success some independent candidates have enjoyed at a local level - for example, 24-year-old British Palestinian Leah Mohammed, who came within 528 votes of unseating Health Secretary Wes Streeting in Ilford North. Fiona Lali of the Revolutionary Communist Party, who stood in last year's general election for the Stratford and Bow constituency, has also been mentioned in some circles as someone with potential leadership credentials. However, sources close to Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana downplayed suggestions of any divide over the leadership model, pointing out that their joint statement acknowledged that members would "decide the party's direction" at the inaugural conference in the autumn, including the model of leadership and the policies that are needed to transform society. A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn told Sky News: "Jeremy will be working with Zarah, his independent colleagues, and people from trade unions and social movements up and down the country to make an autumn conference a reality. "This will be the moment where people come together to launch a new democratic party that belongs to the members."
