Category: BBC News – Politics

Published28 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesBy Sam Francis & Helen CattBBC PoliticsThe Green Party has cut official ties with one of its largest members’ groups amid a dispute over the party’s stance on sex and gender.Senior members of Green Party Women (GPW) claim the group was “disaffiliated” because of their promotion of “gender-critical views”.A Green Party spokesperson said it suspended GPW for procedural reasons.There are divisions within the Green Party about its approach to trans rights.The party’s official position is that it supports transgender people and backs making it easier to change legal sex via self-determination.But there are long-running tensions with members who hold gender-critical beliefs, which includes that a person’s sex cannot be changed.Green Party taken to court over gender-critical rowGreens may increase membership fee amid legal woesThe BBC has seen documents that show the Green Party disaffiliated the GPW for failing to run its planned Autumn 2021 committee election until January 2022. This breached party by-laws and invalidated the group’s leadership. The GPW disputes the election was held too late. The group’s former committee called the reasoning for its disaffiliation “spurious”, claiming the party has found a technical reason for a “politically motivated” attack, in a document seen by the BBC.Zoe Hatch, the GPW’s most recently elected co-chair who is currently suspended from the party, described the decision as a “convenient way for the ruling bodies to shut down the women’s group”.Emma Bateman, a former co-chair of GPW who was briefly expelled from the party, said the disaffiliation was to “demonstrate that women stepping out of line will be punished”.”Members need to grasp what is happening and challenge the way that the ruling party bodies are treating gender-critical women.”The Greens are gaining a reputation for misogyny and for a party that claims to support women’s rights, that is a disaster.”Being unaffiliated to the party means the group can no longer access party resources or bring motions at the Green Party’s annual conferences. It has also lost its place on the Green Party’s leading Political Committee and the Equality and Diversity Committee.The contested election came to light after a complaint was made against the leadership of the GPW for bullying, the BBC understands.Chesca Walton, a former co-chair of the GPW, had called for the Green Party to disaffiliate the GPW, because she said it was no longer “a safe and welcoming space for all Green Party members, especially those who are trans or non-binary”.During her time as co-chair Ms Walton said she had been bullied by members of the group. In a statement she said: “I have never in my life witnessed such vile and inappropriate behaviour as I have witnessed from within Green Party Women. “Such behaviour includes dehumanisation, harassment, intimidation and gaslighting. It is important to stress that this is a tiny minority of members, but it does have a disproportionate impact on the party as a whole.”Speaking to the BBC Ms Walton said: “I’m really glad that this ruling has drawn a line under this issue and gives us all the opportunity to move on.”The Green Party said GPW will be able to re-join the party as soon as they “meet the constitutional requirements”, though did not provide a timescale of how quickly this could happen. Green Party policy The Green Party’s rights and responsibilities page states “trans men are men, trans women are women, and that non-binary identities exist and are valid”.The party also supports making it easier for trans people to change their legal status without the need for a Gender Reassignment Certificate (GRC). But there remains some tension within the membership.Some in the Green Party say policies on the rights of transgender people to access women-only spaces remain ambiguous – a key battleground in the debate around trans rights – pointing out the party supports single-sex wards in hospitals in its policy documents. The GPW was suspended as senior members were working towards establishing a Green women’s declaration – which focuses on biological sex as a basis for women’s rights.Last year, a motion by the GPW to amend the Green Party’s constitution to include protections for sex-based rights was rejected. Detractors said the way it was worded excluded trans people from protections.A member of the Green Party LGBTIQA+ group has written a motion to be debated at the group’s AGM that would have classed the gender critical movement as inherently hateful but it has since been withdrawn.More on this storyGreen Party taken to court over gender-critical rowPublished23 AugustGreens may increase membership fee amid legal woesPublished30 September

Published1 hour agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesThe growing gap between the UK’s “haves and have-nots” is in danger of becoming a “chasm”, a report has warned.Research by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) think tank argues the most disadvantaged are no better off than they were 15 years ago. It mentioned stagnant wages, family breakdown, poor housing, crime, mental health and other issues, saying the gap widened during the pandemic. Ministers highlighted the support to help with the rising cost of living.The report by the CSJ’s Social Justice Commission, Two Nations: The State of Poverty in the UK, says the country is “deeply divided”, with the “systemic problems facing those at the bottom of society in danger of becoming entrenched”. “For too many Britain is broken and the gap between the haves and have-nots is in danger of becoming a chasm,” the report adds. It argues the situation worsened as a result of lockdowns during the Covid pandemic, pointing to increased mental health problems among young people, a jump in school absences and a rise in the number of people on working-age benefits. Child inequalities widen as a result of pandemicWho are the millions of Britons not working?Andy Cook, chief executive of the CSJ, said: “Lockdown policy poured petrol on the fire that had already been there in the most disadvantaged people’s lives, and so far no one has offered a plan to match the scale of the issues.”What this report shows is that we need far more than discussions on finance redistribution, but a strategy to go after the root causes of poverty – education, work, debt, addiction and family.”The commission behind the report is chaired by former Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens, and includes other figures such as former Bank of England governor Lord King, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and Conservative MP Miriam Cates.The research included a poll of more than 6,000 people, half of which were on the lowest incomes, conducted by J.L. Partners.The commission, which will report its policy recommendations next spring, also travelled across the UK to more than 20 towns and cities and heard from some 350 charities, social enterprises and policy experts. ‘Work not worth it’The poll found six-in-10 of the general public say that their area has a good quality of life, compared to less than two-in-five of the most deprived. The report argues that for many of the poorest people, “work is not worth it” as the financial rewards can be marginal. “In the most left behind communities, work is typically poor quality, insecure, and offers little progression,” it says. “Increasingly, people are turning to welfare, rather than wages, in order to unlock additional income.”The report says real average weekly pay growth in the UK has remained stagnant since the 2008 financial crisis, leaving people worse off. It also highlights evidence of worse mental health in deprived groups.The commission’s analysis found 40% of the most deprived report having a mental health condition, compared to just 13% of the general population. The report argues the poorest are hit harder by family breakdown, with a teenager growing up in the poorest 20% of households two-thirds more likely to experience family breakdown than a teenager in the top 20%. Lord King said: “Money is not the only solution to the problem of deprivation. One glimmer of light is the institution of the family – rather than government – as a place of nurture, support, and fulfilment. “No family is perfect, and families come in all different shapes and sizes. But if we are able to do more to support the family, then we can prevent the creation of an ‘unhappy generation’.”A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “There are 1.7 million fewer people, including 400,000 children, in absolute poverty when compared to 2010. But we understand some families are still struggling. “This is why we have worked hard to halve inflation and are providing on average £3,700 per household to help with the cost of living, including increasing benefits by over 10% this year.”The spokesperson added: “Our Back to Work Plan will help up to 1.1 million disabled people, people with long-term health conditions or the long-term unemployed to look for and stay in work.”More on this storyChild inequalities widen as a result of pandemicPublished7 December 2021Record numbers not working due to ill healthPublished16 MayWho are the millions of Britons not working?Published15 March

Published5 hours agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, EPAI know it’s nearly Christmas, and maybe the last thing you want to think about is politics. But you might have to. The governing party has to.Because the Downing Street operation is in real trouble. And, while it seemed a bit wild when we talked about it last week, it is not crazy to think that the Conservatives really are in such a bad place that some of them are wondering if a change of leader might be needed. Take a breath – it is not the consensus that rolling a dice to produce a sixth prime minister since the EU referendum would be a good idea. But it is no longer a completely fringe view, for several really important reasons.Get behind my Rwanda plan, Sunak tells ToriesTory MPs under pressure to back Sunak Rwanda planCan the new Rwanda bill work and what could stop it?Rishi Sunak is under genuine pressure. He has to front up to the Covid inquiry on Monday, and on Tuesday there is the first vote on a plan he put his name to that has gone badly wrong.Problem one: the Tories just can’t agree on how to keep one of the PM’s big promises, to ‘stop the boats’. That phrase has become part of the political lexicon, but Rishi Sunak’s slogan has become a millstone around his administration’s neck. The plan was based on an aspiration to put off migrants from around the world from coming to the UK by saying they would be sent to an African country instead if they made it here. The problem overcame early political controversies, and Parliament approved it some time ago. But then it hit practical and legal challenges. In the last few days, Mr Sunak’s new attempts to make his long-term wish come true have been battered by some of his own party.He’s stopped short of the more radical action some of his MPs believe is needed to get planes in the air without further time-consuming legal tangles, but his new laws have gone further than other colleagues are comfortable with. Like Theresa May’s Brexit compromises, it doesn’t quite satisfy everyone on the right of his party, and it makes people at the softer end of his tribe feel itchy. The result? He’s stuck in the uncomfortable middle on an issue that he chose to make his own. This weekend MPs of all stripes in his party are mulling over whether to back the plan or not. (Although be cautious about the headlines predicting certain disaster, as many backbenchers are likely to let the proposals pass at its first stage debate, known as second reading, but then try to tweak them, pull them apart, or even kick them out after Christmas.)Problem two: it’s not just the opponents you could predict who are in a stew. The prime minister’s friend, and the minister who was in charge of dealing with the problem, has walked away. Robert Jenrick, who’ll be with us in the studio on Sunday, says the plan simply won’t work and he is raising big doubts about the government’s whole approach to managing migration from abroad. Problem three: Number 10 is not just trying to tack between two sides, but a restive brew of different tribes who all follow different lines.It is impossible to imagine pleasing them all, and hard to see a situation where they all are content to go along with Number 10. One MP poking fun at the different groups describes them as follows: “The ‘One Nation’ would be the school swats. The goody two shoes. The European Research Group (ERG) are the Colonel Blimps or those old blokes who sit in the corner of the pub and the New Conservatives are those really annoying out of control kids in parks. The Truss lots are the Dementors!”Catty jokes aside, how could one leader ever keep them all in check, even on issues that were not controversial? Of course, political parties are always coalitions. It’s ridiculous to imagine they are all always in total harmony. But one former minister suggested in the Tory party in 2023: “There is no cohesion as a parliamentary team on any level – they don’t like one another, and they don’t get on.”On this week’s show is Robert Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister this weekWe’ll also hear from Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove and shadow work and pensions secretary Liz KendallAnd Laura has interviewed Ukraine’s First Lady Olena Zelenska in KyivWatch live from 09:00 GMT on BBC One and BBC iPlayer or watch and follow updates here on the BBC News websiteEmail the show anytime: [email protected] four: an unhappy, messy Conservative Party faces a different opposition. It was one thing for the Tories to be permanently scrapping when Theresa May was in charge, or when Boris Johnson took over. The green benches opposite them then were full of unhappy factions under Jeremy Corbyn. Labour is different now, and the Tories know it. Leaked recordings reach my ears of the trade minister and former Conservative chair, Greg Hands, telling student activists in Oxford at the end of October as much. He said that voters have been put off by the turmoil in Number 10. “They have been turned off by us, particularly by the events of last year where we had three prime ministers.” And he said that although Keir Starmer might not have created rapturous excitement among the voters, the idea that Labour is a threat for voters, has gone. In the recordings he says: “Corbyn was a great deterrent for a lot of more liberal-minded Conservatives from voting anything other than Conservative because they were afraid they would get Corbyn as their prime minister.” When talking about trying to hold on to voters he’s heard to say that Starmer “isn’t Corbyn, he doesn’t alienate, frighten people like Corbyn does so that I think is a taller task for us at the moment is keeping those people on side”. Mr Hands did say there were Conservative voters who could yet return to the party.This video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.In response to that recording, he says: “As I said in Oxford, Sir Keir Starmer hasn’t convinced the British people – and the Conservative Party can still win the next general election. “Like Neil Kinnock in the 1980s, Sir Keir Starmer is not as left wing as his predecessor, but he is still too left wing for the British people, and when the spotlight is on him, he will be found out. He changes his mind on every single major issue to please his audience, whether it be the monarchy, the EU, tuition fees or taxation.”Rishi Sunak’s allies would say, with some justification, that the prime minister created calm after a spasm of chaos. But looking at recent events, it’s clear that wasn’t powerful enough to prevail. And his many resets have perhaps gone into reverse. The splits now seem as sore as ever. Maybe that’s because after so long being behind in the polls some Tory MPs would rather choose their own principles over the party’s success. Maybe it’s because Rishi Sunak hasn’t been able to persuade them that unity is a prize worth fighting for. Maybe it’s because after so long in power with endless reinventions the party isn’t sure what it’s really for. Maybe it’s a mix of all of the above, and more. In fact, Rishi Sunak still leads a party that enjoys a massive majority in the House of Commons. The next election does not have to happen for another 12 months. Voters are volatile creatures these days, the public mood can move very fast. But the prime minister’s USP – ending the chaos of the Truss and Johnson year – has taken a battering. Splits and scrapping are back. And the public does not like divided parties. Right now, that might be one of the few political truths that Conservative MPs can agree on.Follow Laura on XWhat questions would you like to ask Laura’s guests on Sunday?In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.Use this form to ask your question:

If you are reading this page and can’t see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to [email protected]. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in. More on this storyGet behind my Rwanda plan, Sunak tells ToriesPublished2 days agoQuestions politicians can’t seem to answer on immigrationPublished25 NovemberWho’s scared of Rishi Sunak?Published11 November

Published9 hours agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesBy Jacqueline HowardBBC NewsFormer immigration minister Robert Jenrick has said the government’s latest proposal to ensure it can send asylum seekers to Rwanda will fail to end the “merry-go-round” of the scheme getting caught up in legal issues.Mr Jenrick aired his views in a Daily Telegraph editorial, his first public comment since resigning. He resigned on Wednesday over his lack of faith in the legislation.The government will hold a vote on the proposed legislation on Tuesday.Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has called on MPs to support it, arguing that the new bill is the “only approach” that would successfully prevent further legal challenges stopping flights carrying asylum seekers taking off to Rwanda.But while some MPs think the legislation is too tough, others share Mr Jenrick’s view that it does not go far enough.In his opinion piece, the former immigration minister said the test of the Rwanda legislation was whether it could “end the merry-go-round of legal challenges” that prevented the removal of asylum seekers who have entered the UK illegally after crossing the English Channel in small boats.”Having done as much as I could to strengthen the legislation, I concluded, regrettably, the answer is no,” he wrote, adding the issue forced his resignation.The government has always seen the policy as a key tactic to provide a deterrent to the many thousands of people who attempt to make the perilous journey. In the first nine months of 2023, a total of 24,830 have arrived in this way, after 45,774 did so in the whole of 2022.Mr Jenrick said it was his view that border control would be “far more straightforward if we [the UK] extricated ourselves from the web of international frameworks that have taken on near mythical status within government”.”One of the advantages of our uncodified constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law,” he added.He claimed those who opposed the Rwanda plan, and a tough cut in net migration in general, held “flawed assumptions about the cultural benefits of mass immigration”.Politicians on the right have a choice looming, Mr Jenrick said:, adding “Begin to deliver on the mainstream concerns of ordinary people when it comes to immigration, or face their red-hot fury at the ballot box”.Image source, PA MediaFollowing Mr Jenrick’s resignation last week, Mr Sunak called a news conference to state his confidence in the bill.He insisted the legislation was the “toughest immigration law ever”, that only allowed for individual legal challenges if the small boat arrival can prove “with credible and compelling evidence” they have a “real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm”.”Going any further would mean that Rwanda would collapse the scheme and then we’ll have nowhere to send anyone to – and that is not the way to get this going,” Mr Sunak added.In his editorial, Mr Jenrick said that allowing such challenges invites asylum seekers to “concoct a reason to delay their removal”.”The small-boat-chasing law firms will gladly assist them in this endeavour,” he wrote.Mr Jenrick, and those who share his views, want the bill to prevent the possibility of such legal challenges under domestic and international human rights laws.The bill that will be put to parliament this week compels judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country and gives ministers the powers to disregard sections of the Human Rights Act.It follows the signing of a treaty between the UK and Rwanda that the British government says ensures that people relocated to Rwanda are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.The Liberal Democrats have called for Mr Sunak to be investigated over a £100m payment to Rwanda, which the party argues breaches the ministerial code. because it was not publicly declared for eight months.”The public deserves transparency, not hushed-up backroom dealings. We need an urgent inquiry to get to the bottom of this,” MP Christine Jardine said.The Rwanda scheme – which was first announced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022 – has been repeatedly delayed by legal challenges and was found to be illegal by the UK Supreme Court in November.Labour has also pledged to scrap the policy if it wins the next election and pursue a policy of greater border security.In his editorial, Mr Jenrick described the Labour policy as a “laughable” way to address “one of the great challenges of the 21st Century”.More on this storyHow the UK’s asylum deal is viewed in RwandaPublished1 day agoTory MPs under pressure to back Sunak Rwanda planPublished20 hours agoWhy does the UK want to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?Published1 day ago

Published21 hours agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesBy Paul SeddonPolitics reporterMPs who lose their seat at the next general election are set to get taxpayer-funded help with finding a new job, the BBC can reveal.Under a proposed “career transition” scheme, they could receive free advice with tasks such as writing a CV from a designated career coach.Commons officials are looking to hire a recruitment firm to deliver the programme from next year.The move is part of a push to make being an MP a more attractive career. The scheme has been drawn up in response to a report by a committee of MPs in February, which found some of those suddenly without a job had struggled to find employment.It argued that without more support for people when they leave, Parliament could struggle to “attract and retain talented people” as MPs. What happens when you lose your job as an MP?MPs’ severance pay to double at next electionDefeated MPs’ staff on the ‘grief’ of losing a jobUnder the plans, support would only be offered to MPs voted out of their job at an election, rather than those choosing to stand down. The cross-party body of senior MPs and officials in charge of Commons administration has endorsed the plan, and a process is now under way to choose an external HR company to deliver the training.Commons authorities hope to put a programme in place ahead of the next general election, which is expected to take place next year.The final scheme is yet to be announced, but a draft proposal has been obtained by the BBC following a request under Freedom of Information laws.An internal document from September recommends departing MPs receive a “budget” to spend with the winning training provider. Commons authorities have blanked out the recommended spending level per MP, arguing it could jeopardise the procurement process. ‘Stand out’According to the document, a scheme could see defeated MPs offered “on-demand” career coaching and access to “networking opportunities”.It adds that they could also have access to a career coach to help them identify their transferable skills, and write a CV “that stands out in the crowd”.It was proposed that MPs should be advised of the help on offer during the winding-up period they are given to close down their offices after an election.This period, for which MPs receive their net salary, is set to be extended from two to four months at the next election. MPs who lose their seat also get a separate payment linked to their time in Parliament, which averaged £5,250 after the last election in 2019.Publicly-funded career advice and training could run for up to a year, the proposal recommended. Authorities are planning for 150 MPs to lose their seats, and anticipate around 60% will make use of the advice.A Commons spokesperson said the scheme would seek to deliver “value for money” as well as “the best possible service” for departing MPs.Former MPs’ careers The scheme would emulate the sort of employer-sponsored advice sometimes offered by private firms and larger public sector organisations to employees who are made redundant.A number of local councils, as well as government departments including the Home Office and Ministry of Defence, have offered departing staff such “outplacement” advice in recent years.The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd both have schemes to deliver careers advice to former politicians. In Canada, MPs voted out of office or opting to leave get $15,000 (£8,763) for career advice and training. MPs are paid a basic salary of £86,584, and receive expenses to cover office costs, employing staff, and having to stay in London.In recent years a number of high-profile former MPs have landed lucrative private-sector jobs after leaving Parliament – although there is relatively little recent research on the careers of lesser-known MPs.One academic survey of those leaving Parliament after the 2010 election found almost half of those aged under 65, who responded, took at least three months to find a new job, with one in 10 taking a full year.Although half were earning more than they had done in Parliament, 40% earned less and 10% the same as their MPs’ salary.Those landing well-paid directorships were a “minority”, although the survey was carried out in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal, which was acknowledged by the researchers.More on this storyMedals for MPs among ideas to attract fresh talentPublished8 FebruaryWhat happens when you lose your job as an MP?Published14 December 2019Defeated MPs’ staff on the ‘grief’ of losing a jobPublished23 December 2019

Published1 hour agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, UK Parliament/Roger HarrisThe Metropolitan Police has closed an investigation into alleged breaches of Covid regulations at an event in Parliament in December 2020.The police said the gathering – attended by deputy speaker Dame Eleanor Laing and Tory MPs Virginia Crosbie and Sir Bernard Jenkin – had not met the threshold for issuing fines.All three MPs are now facing an investigation by Parliament’s watchdog.The event was first reported by the Guido Fawkes website in June.The political blog said it was held on 8 December 2020 to celebrate the birthday of Ms Crosbie, the MP for Ynys Mon, and the Conservative peer Baroness Anne Jenkin.At the time, coronavirus rules in London prohibited indoor social mixing outside households or support bubbles. MPs say they have not been fined over lockdown eventConservative MP sorry for going to lockdown drinksSir Bernard sits on the Privileges Committee, which earlier this year produced a damning report into rule breaking in Downing Street during the pandemic. When news of the 8 December event was reported, Boris Johnson accused Sir Bernard of “monstrous hypocrisy”.The Harwich and North Essex MP previously denied attending any drinks parties during lockdown. When he was asked by a Guido Fawkes reporter whether he had a drink at the celebration of his wife’s birthday that evening, he was quoted as saying “I don’t recall”.Ms Crosbie said she apologised “unreservedly for a momentary error of judgement in attending the event”.”I attended the event briefly, I did not drink and I did not celebrate my birthday. I went home shortly after to be with my family.”Dame Eleanor, who is the Conservative MP for Epping Forest, previously told the Guido Fawkes website she held a “business meeting” that evening, adding: “At the beginning of the pandemic I took advice on how many could be present in a room, I had the room measured and I kept a two-metre ruler so that I could always verify that nobody who was working here was put at risk.”The police launched an investigation in July 2023 but have now closed their inquiry saying: “Officers assessed the available information and concluded it did not meet the threshold for the referral of any fixed penalty notices.”Last month, parliamentary commissioner for standards Daniel Greenberg opened an investigation into Dame Eleanor and Mrs Crosbie.On Thursday, a third investigation was opened into Sir Bernard, who chairs the Commons Liaison Committee which includes the chairs of all 32 Commons select committees. The commissioner’s website does not provide any details about the investigations other than to say they relate to claims of “actions causing significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or its members generally”.More on this storyMPs say they have not been fined over lockdown eventPublished16 NovemberConservative MP sorry for going to lockdown drinksPublished27 June

Published1 hour agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, UK Parliament By Chas GeigerPolitical reporterPowerful groups of Conservative MPs are currently studying the small print of Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda legislation to decide whether to back it or not.But who are these factions? And why do they have so much influence?All political parties have factions – like-minded MPs who get together to campaign on issues they care about. Their membership tends to be loose and sometimes overlaps. They don’t all vote the same way, although in some cases they have been remarkably disciplined.Tory MPs under pressure to back Sunak Rwanda planSunak’s Rwanda law at mercy of Tory factionsCan the new Rwanda bill work and what could stop it?The prime minister needs the backing of nearly all of his MPs to stand a chance of getting his plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing and resettlement into law.The verdict of these groups will be crucial.One Nation caucus Image source, BBC The largest single group within the parliamentary party says more than 100 Conservative MPs are members, almost a third of the total. The phrase, “one-nation Tory”, goes back to 19th-century Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, but the caucus was formed only in 2019. Chaired by former First Secretary of State Damian Green, it says it is “committed to the values of the liberal centre right”. Many of its members represent traditionally Tory “blue wall” seats where the Liberal Democrats are the main challengers. Some are known to be unhappy that Mr Sunak’s new Rwanda bill sets aside some of the UK’s obligations in international law. Former Solicitor General Lord Garnier, who is advising the caucus, has described the bill as political and legal “nonsense”, equivalent to ruling “all dogs are cats”. Other leading lights include Education Secretary Gillian Keegan, Security Minister Tom Tugendhat and Caroline Nokes, who chairs the women and equalities committee.European Research Group Image source, Getty ImagesOnce the most powerful grouping of Tory MPs, the ERG played a key role in blocking Theresa May’s Brexit deal and then bringing her down as prime minister, which paved the way for successor Boris Johnson to strike a harder Brexit. It does not publish information about its membership, but this is currently thought to be in the 30s, significantly down on its Brexit heyday. However, the ERG has often punched above its weight, and numerous leading lights have gone on to bigger things – including Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Suella Braverman. New illegal migration minister Michael Tomlinson was deputy chair of the group from 2016-2018. It has been pressing for a hardline approach on the illegal migration issue and its so-called “star chamber” – a group of lawyers chaired by veteran Eurosceptic Sir Bill Cash – is analysing the Rwanda legislation to decide whether it is “fit for purpose”.ERG chairman Mark Francois said Sir Bill was confident the findings would be available in time for the key Commons debate on the bill next Tuesday. New ConservativesImage source, Getty ImagesFormed only in May 2023, the New Conservatives have fast become one of the most vocal factions within the party. Around 30 MPs are members, including deputy Tory chairman Lee Anderson, and group co-chairs Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger. Most were elected in 2019, many in marginal, traditionally Labour, “red wall” seats in the north of England and the Midlands. The New Conservatives have called for radical measures to cut migration and pressed the government to deliver deportations to Rwanda by “unpicking” many of the UK’s international obligations. They have also said they will take account of the ERG’s star chamber findings. On broader policy, the group says the party needs to return its 2019 manifesto by delivering levelling up and reducing taxes, rein back on green measures, and ban “gender ideology” in schools. Common Sense Group Image source, ReutersLaunched in 2020 and with around 30 members, the CSG is led by former Home Office minister Sir John Hayes, a close ally of Suella Braverman. Like her, he has been fiercely critical of Mr Sunak’s Rwanda approach and, alongside the New Conservatives, the group has been pressing for tougher action on both illegal and legal migration.It has also pushed hard on culture issues, such as Mr Sunak’s plans to phase out smoking, other manifestations of what it regards as “the nanny state”, and what it described as the National Trust’s “woke agenda” on colonialism. Other leading figures include Lee Anderson, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Jonathan Gullis. Northern Research Group Thought to number more than 50 MPs, the group was formed in 2019 to press for greater investment in “red wall” areas in the north of England, Wales and the Scottish borders. Senior figures include former party chairman and Northern Powerhouse minister Jake Berry, former Brexit Secretary David Davis, and Esther McVey, who returned to the cabinet last month. The NRG regards immigration as an important issue for many of its MPs’ voters. Chair John Stevenson, MP for Carlisle, said he believed the bill would be “overwhelmingly supported by northern MPs” and he would be “surprised if anybody went against it”.Image source, PA MediaConservative Growth GroupAround 50 MPs are thought to be members of a group set up in the aftermath of Liz Truss’s disastrous, short tenure at No 10. Its focus is chiefly economic: it advocates the libertarian policies it believes Ms Truss was prevented from introducing by the unravelling of her mini-budget in September-October 2022. It says the policies needed to break out of a long period of low growth include slashing business taxes and stamp duty, toughening benefit requirements, relaxing planning, and reintroducing fracking. Prominent figures include former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel and former Levelling-Up Secretary Sir Simon Clarke. Other groupsThese include No Turning Back – formed as far back as 1985 – to promote Margaret Thatcher’s policies. Since 2005, it has been chaired by Sir John Redwood, who has campaigned for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure the Rwanda plan can go ahead without further legal delays. The Conservative Democratic Organisation, launched a year ago, was widely thought to be front for an effort to restore Boris Johnson to Downing Street. It has denied this. It calls for greater party democracy and condemned Mr Sunak’s “coronation” as prime minister without a Tory members’ vote. It has also described his sacking of Ms Braverman as “political suicide”. Dame Priti Patel, Nadine Dorries, who is no longer an MP, and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg are prominent. supporters. More on this storyUK paid Rwanda an extra £100m for asylum dealPublished6 hours agoChris Mason: Rwanda bill a reminder of Brexit Tory divisionsPublished16 hours ago

Published21 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingThis video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.By Becky MortonPolitical reporterThe Archbishop of Canterbury has warned new visa rules will have a “negative impact” on family relationships.Justin Welby said the government was “rightly concerned” with cutting migration. But he said higher income requirements would see many families unable to live together. From next spring, Britons who want to bring a foreign family member or partner to live with them in the UK must earn at least £38,700 a year.The government said the increase from the previous limit of £18,600 “reinforces that all those who want to work and live here must be able to support themselves”.The new figure is above the median gross annual earnings for full-time employees in the UK, which was £34,963 in April 2023. Overseas care workers will also no longer be able to bring family dependants, such as their partner or children, with them to the UK. The changes were part of a package of measures announced earlier this week aimed at cutting net migration – the difference between the number of people coming to live in the UK and those leaving – after the figure reached a record 745,000 last year. Couples ‘devastated’ by migration visa rule changesKey points: What the new UK visa rules meanSpeaking in the House of Lords, the archbishop said: “This week we hear that many people in this country will be prevented from living together with their spouse, child or children … as a result of a big increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas.”The government is rightly concerned with bringing down the legal migration figures and I’m not, you’ll be relieved to know, going into the politics of that.”But there is a cost to be paid in terms of the negative impact this will have on married and family relationships for those who live and work and contribute to our life together, particularly in social care.”He argued the family was “indispensable to the state” and “a lack of strong families undermines our whole society”. “Government needs families to work. They must not set a series of hurdles for them to jump over,” he added. The archbishop’s comments came during an annual debate he leads in the House of Lords, with this year’s topic “Love Matters”, The Report Of The Archbishops’ Commission On Families and Households. ‘Morally wrong’Some Conservatives have also raised concerns about the policy. Former Tory minister Gavin Barwell said: “It is both morally wrong and unconservative to say that only the wealthiest can fall in love, marry someone and then bring them to the UK.”Tory MP Alicia Kearns told LBC she was “very uncomfortable” with increasing the income requirement for family visas. “It risks being very unconservative,” she said, adding that the Conservatives were “the party of family”. Dr Madeleine Sumption, director of the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, said the largest impact of the change would fall on those who tend to earn lower wages, including women, younger people and those living outside of London and south-east England. Earlier this week, No 10 clarified that the minimum income figure was for a “household as a whole”. The prime minister’s spokesman said people could also demonstrate their ability to support a dependant through their level of savings. He added that the rules included a provision for “exceptional circumstances where there would be unjustifiably harsh consequences” if an individual earning below the threshold could not bring their foreign family member to the UK. But the spokesman could not give any examples, saying applications would be considered on a “case-by-case basis”. There is uncertainty over whether the new income rules will apply to people who already have a foreign family member in the UK, when their existing visa comes up for renewal. On Thursday, Downing Street said work was “ongoing” to look at how the change would apply to those renewing visas. More on this storyTougher visa rules unveiled in plan to cut migrationPublished3 days agoCouples ‘devastated’ by migration visa rule changesPublished2 days agoKey points: What the new UK visa rules meanPublished3 days ago

Published33 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, PA MediaBy Kate Whannel & Iain WatsonBBC NewsTory MPs are coming under pressure from ministers to back the PM’s Rwanda plan.Rishi Sunak hopes sending migrants to the African nation for processing and potential resettlement will deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats. He has introduced emergency legislation aimed at overcoming legal issues which have so far delayed the scheme.However, MPs from across his party have concerns about the approach and will be examining the bill over the weekend. Last month, Supreme Court judges blocked the government’s original plan, declaring that Rwanda was not a safe country and that the asylum system was flawed. The government has now introduced the Safety of Rwanda Bill which requires judges to treat Rwanda as safe. It also gives ministers powers to disregard parts of the Human Rights Act, and prevents judges from taking into account other international laws. Sunak’s Rwanda law at mercy of Tory factionsUK paid Rwanda an extra £100m for asylum dealCan the new Rwanda bill work and what could stop it?Government ministers have been putting in calls to persuade MPs to vote for the bill on Tuesday, when it gets its second reading in the House of Commons.This stage of the process is usually reserved for debating the general points of the proposed law. MPs with concerns are likely to wait until later stages before trying to make changes to the draft legislation. But Mr Sunak is keen to avoid a defeat at the hands of Tory rebels and the Labour Party on a key part of his flagship “stop the boats” policy. Concerned Tory MPs are being offered meetings with government ministers.Those who have human rights concerns are being told not all of the Human Rights Act is being disapplied by the proposed law and that asylum seekers facing serious irreversible harm could still challenge a decision to be deported, based on their individual cases. However, MPs on the right of the party are being reassured that such legal challenges would be unlikely to succeed.Both former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick have said Mr Sunak’s plan won’t work.Mr Jenrick resigned his ministerial job shortly after the Safety of Rwanda Bill was published arguing that it didn’t go far enough. The European Research Group, an influential body of pro-Brexit MPs, have said they are studying the bill “forensically” but some are concerned the bill still allows for individuals to appeal a decision to deport them to Rwanda.On the other side of the party, the One Nation group of MPs are taking legal advice from former Solicitor General Lord Garnier.He told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme the legislation was “political nonsense and legal nonsense”.”It’s trying to define things when there is no evidence for that being the case. It’s rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats.”Lord Garnier sits in the House of Lords, where the bill is also likely to run into difficulties.Speaking on Wednesday, Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta said: “It has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of international law.”He added that “without lawful behaviour by the UK” Rwanda would not be able to continue with the agreement.More on this storySunak’s Rwanda law at mercy of Tory factionsPublished18 hours agoCan the new Rwanda bill work and what could stop it?Published1 day ago

Published1 hour agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingBy Louis Inglis & Clara BullockBBC News, BristolPolice are investigating a post by a former Labour councillor calling on someone to “blow up” a Jewish Labour Movement meeting.Harriet Bradley, who was also a university lecturer in Bristol, has apologised “to all people who’ve been hurt” by the now deleted post on X.She added she “deeply regrets” writing the post “in a moment of anger”.Avon and Somerset Police said it is investigating the post as “an incident of malicious communications”.The one-day conference in north London is being organised for 14 January. ‘Blow up the venue’Planned speakers include Wes Streeting, Peter Mandelsen, Bridget Phillipson and Pat McFadden.Ms Bradley posted on X: “Somebody blow up the venue!”Formerly the member for Brislington West, Ms Bradley resigned from Bristol City Council in 2020, citing ill-health.She was suspended from the Labour Party in 2019 for a different social media post that the party deemed as anti-Semitic.Ms Bradley was also a former professor in Sociology at the University of Bristol and at University of the West of England (UWE) Bristol.’Stripped of title’Both universities have now stripped her of an honorary title.A University of Bristol spokesperson said: “We are deeply dismayed by the inflammatory comment on social media from a former employee who has long retired and are taking appropriate action.”We can confirm that we have withdrawn the Emeritus and Honorary Status of retired employee Professor Harriet Bradley with immediate effect.”A spokesperson from UWE said: “Harriet Bradley’s permanent employment at UWE Bristol ended in 2018.”Following her recent offensive remarks on social media, we can confirm that her honorary title of Emeritus Professor has been removed with immediate effect.”Avon and Somerset Police said: “We are aware of a social media message in response to the announcement of a Jewish Labour Movement conference next year – since deleted by X (formerly Twitter).”The post has also been reported to Avon and Somerset Police by a third party. We have recorded it as an incident of malicious communications, which is currently being investigated.”Follow BBC West on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to: [email protected] Internet LinksJewish Labour MovementAvon and Somerset PoliceThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.