Afternoon summary
Updated
Six charts that show why Tories can't win general election (probably)
Reports about political polling tend to focus on voting intention – how many people will vote for each party – and many of us treat these figures with some caution. That is partly because the numbers can change quickly. And partly because, even when the trend is sustained, as it is at the moment, the figures can be hard to believe. There aren’t many people at Westminster who think Labour will be 22 points ahead on polling day.
That is why other polling questions can sometimes be more revealing. Today Ipsos has published some polling on attitudes to public services and, for the government, the findings are beyond abysmal. You should never say for certain that a party can’t win a general election – but it’s Friday afternoon, so here goes; if these figures are right, the election is already over.
1) Almost 80% of Britons believe public services have got worse over the past five years, and only 5% think they have got better. Given that it is hard to get 80% of people to agree on anything, this is an astonishing figure. This is much, much worse than equivalent figures during the austerity years. Another way of putting it would be to say that, for every one person who thinks public services have got better over the past five years, there are almost 16 people saying they have got worse. In 2015, for every one person saying public services were improving, there were only three people saying they were not. (The polling is based on subjective assessments, but the 78% are right; the Institute for Government recently published a report saying public service are getting a lot worse.)
2) People also continue to expect public services to get worse. The respondents weren’t told who would be in power over the next few years, and so people answering this question might not be making a party political judgement. But it suggests that 1) people are not convinced that Rishi Sunak is going to produce miraculous change in public services and; 2) when offered a choice at an election, the party that can present itself as offering change will be in a good place.
3) Most people have no faith in the government’s ability to improve the economy in the long term. Only 25% of people think government policies will improve the economy in the long term, and 68% disagree. These are the worst figures for any government on this question since Ipsos started asking it in July 1980. The only governments that have done almost as badly on this measure were John Major’s before his 1997 defeat and Gordon Brown’s before his 2010 defeat. (People aren’t always right; by the end of the Major government, the economy was doing rather well. But it’s perceptions that matter when people vote.)
4) And people have even less faith in the government’s ability to improve public services. Only 19% of people think government policies will improve the state of public services in the long term, and 75% of people think government policies will make them worse. These are the worst figures for any government on this question since Ipsos started asking it in 2001.
5) Some 50% of people think public services would improve under Labour, and 37% of people think the economy would improve. While not as good as they might be, these figures are decisively better than the equivalent ones for the government. People clearly do not think both main parties are the same.
6) Some 29% of people think they would be better off under a Labour government, against 16% who say they would be better off under a Tory one. This is a key measure, and Labour’s lead on it is substantial.
Updated
David Cameron will be known as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, PA Media reports. PA says:
The former prime minister was elevated to the House of Lords after being appointed foreign secretary by Rishi Sunak, a remarkable return to frontline politics seven years after he resigned in the wake of the Brexit referendum.
It was confirmed today that his full title will be “The Rt Hon the Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton”.
The title confirms Cameron’s long-held ties to the Cotswold town of Chipping Norton, which lies within his former Witney constituency.
Updated
Sunak blames financial mismanagement by Labour for Nottingham city council being close to bankruptcy
Rishi Sunak has blamed financial mismanagement by Labour for Nottingham city council being close to bankruptcy.
Asked about the plight of the council, which is on course to overspend by £23m this year and has said it might have to issue a section 114 notice (in effect declaring bankruptcy), Sunak said:
This year, because of the decisions the government has made, local councils across the country will have on average about 10% more cash to spend on local services than they did last year.
Indeed, days after, weeks after I became prime minister, we announced billions of pounds of extra funding, particularly for social care, which is the most acute pressure that local councils face, and there are now record sums going into social care as a result of my decision.
What you are seeing here is financial mismanagement. You have seen it in Birmingham city council, run by the Labour party, you are seeing it in Nottingham [city council], run by the Labour party, because of the decisions that they have made.
I think local people do deserve better than that and I think it’s an example of what you get when Labour are in power.
Sunak was speaking to the Nottingham Post on a visit to the Bolsover school in Chesterfield, Derbyshire.
As the Nottingham Post reports, the council says the grant funding it receives from Westminster has reduced by £97m over the past decade.
Updated
Jeremy Hunt weighing up inheritance tax cut in autumn statement
Jeremy Hunt is considering slashing the UK inheritance tax rate in next week’s autumn statement after economic forecasters told the chancellor he would have more money to spend thanks to rising tax revenues and falling borrowing costs, Kiran Stacey reports.
Updated
Starmer says his Gaza policy determined by what a UK government should be doing, not what's best for Labour unity
Keir Starmer has implied the threat of further frontbench resignations will not affect his approach to setting Labour’s policy on the Israel-Hamas war.
As Kiran Stacey, Aletha Adu and Ben Quinn report, even though 10 frontbenchers resigned or were sacked on Wednesday after voting for a ceasefire in defiance of the Labour whip, some shadow ministers who reluctantly stayed loyal are willing to quit if Starmer’s approach does not change soon.
Asked today about the prospect of further resignation, replied:
This isn’t a question of the management of the Labour party.
When it was put to him that, as leader of the party, this should be a matter for him, he went on:
I’m the leader of the Labour party. I hope that at the next election, we will be able to form a government.
That is precisely why my focus is on the question of the release of the hostages and precisely on the question of how do we alleviate the suffering on the ground for so many civilians that have lost their lives in Gaza. That is what you would expect from the leader of the opposition.
That is what you would expect from someone who wants to form the next government, working with our international allies to ensure that we can get those hostages released, we can alleviate the situation on the ground, the killing of so many innocent civilians — women and children included.
That is where my focus is. That is where I think anybody watching this would expect the focus to be of the leader of the opposition, not on questions of party management.
Updated
Starmer dismisses new bill promised by Sunak on Rwanda as 'gimmick'
Keir Starmer has dismissed the new legislation promised by Rishi Sunak on Rwanda as a “gimmick” and said instead the government should focus on breaking up people-smuggling gangs.
Speaking on a visit to Aberdeenshire, Starmer said:
What we’ve seen from the government is almost two years wasting time on a gimmick that cost £140m paid to Rwanda, not a single person has gone, [which] has now been declared unanimously unlawful.
In response to that what we do not need is another gimmick from the government to waste more time and more taxpayers’ money. We need a serious solution to a very serious problem because the small boats problem is a very serious problem.
I think that that involves smashing the criminal gangs that are running the vile trade, getting people across the Channel, working with our international partners on smashing those characters.
I’ve done this before when I was chief prosecutor in relation to gangs that are running drugs or people smuggling, [it] can be done.
Here is Labour’s summary of its plan from earlier this week.
The Tories' Rwanda plan has failed. Rishi Sunak is too weak to deliver on his promises to the British people.
— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) November 15, 2023
He should adopt Labour's plan to reduce the backlog and go after criminal gangs 👇 pic.twitter.com/UqhhuxAX6I
Updated
No 10 does not rule out MPs being asked to debate 'emergency' bill on Rwanda over Christmas holiday period
Downing Street has not ruled out asking MPs to spend some of what is meant to be their Christmas break dealing with the PM’s “emergency legislation” on Rwanda.
This is one proposal made by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in her Telegraph article this morning. (See 10.01am.)
Braverman’s main demand is a much stronger bill, enabling the government to ignore the European convention on human rights and other laws that might hold up deportations. No 10 does not accept that “notwithstanding” clauses of this kind are needed, and this morning Rishi Sunak, talking about his bill, said: “This is not about overruling laws.”
But, at the morning lobby briefing, when asked about getting MPs to legislate over Christmas, No 10 did not rule out the idea. A spokesperson said:
I think we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure that we can get this in place and get flights off the ground.
I wouldn’t speculate on parliamentary process but I cannot impress [enough] the importance that the prime minister places on this necessary legislation to deliver for the public on the important priority of stopping the boats.
The spokesperson also said the bill would be published “in the coming days”, but she would not confirm reports it is coming on Monday.
MPs are due to have a break from the Commons lasting almost three weeks over Christmas, with the recess due to start on Tuesday 19 December and ending on Monday 8 January.
Updated
Sunak signals he will blame Labour if Lords fails to pass his 'emergency legislation' on Rwanda quickly
And here are some more quotes from Rishi Sunak’s pooled TV clip this morning.
Sunak suggested he would blame Labour if the Lords refuses to pass his “emergency legislation” on Rwanda (see 11.40am) quickly. Asked if he would call an early election if the Lords block the law, he replied:
It doesn’t have to take a long time to get legislation through – and that is a question for the Labour party.
We’re determined to get this through as quickly as possible. So the real question is: is the Labour party going to stand in the way and stop this from happening, or are they going to work with us and support this bill so we can get it through as quickly as possible?
I know that the British people want this problem gripped. I know the British people will want this new law to pass so we can get flights off to Rwanda.
So really, the question is for Keir Starmer and the Labour party, why don’t they?
Sunak declined to say whether favoured holding an early election on the issue of Rwanda deportations if his bill got held up. Earlier today Sir Simon Clarke suggested this. (See 10.56am.) But, for obvious reasons, the prospect might not appeal.
Sunak claimed he was making “real progress” on stopping small boats. He said:
I think people just want the problem fixed. That’s what I’m here to do, and this year, we’ve already got the numbers down by a third.
That’s because I’ve got new deals with the French, a new deal with Albania. We’re working with Turkey and Bulgaria, multiple other countries. We’re tackling the criminal gangs, we’re cutting through the backlog.
We’re getting people out of hotels, saving taxpayers money, and as I said, numbers down by a third shows real progress.
According to Migration Watch UK which campaigns for lower migration and which has a Channel tracker, small boat arrivals were 35% lower in 2023 up to Wednesday than they were for the equivalent period in 2022.
Sunak said he would “take on” people trying to stop Rwanda flights taking over, whether it was Labour or the House of Lords. He said:
We can pass these laws in parliament that will give us the powers and the tools we need. Then we can get the flights off and whether it’s the House of Lords or the Labour party standing in our way I will take them on because I want to get this thing done and I want to stop the boats.
He said his patience was “wearing thin” with this issue. He said:
People are sick of this merry-go-round. I want to end it – my patience is wearing thin like everyone else’s.
Updated
Sunak rejects Braverman's claim he does not have proper plan for making Rwanda deportations happen
Rishi Sunak has rejected the claim from Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, that he does not have a proper plan in response to the supreme court judgment to enable deportation flights to Rwanda to go ahead. (See 10.01am.) In a pooled clip for broadcasters, asked if she was right to say he was just “tinkering with plan A” without a serious alternative, he replied:
No … The progress we’ve made this year on tackling this issue is meaningful.
The number of crossings are down by a third this year, because we’re cooperating with … other countries to crack down on the criminal gangs.
We’ve got to get the Rwanda plan up and running. I will do whatever it takes to make that happen. People are sick of this merry-go-round. I want to end it – my patience is wearing thin, like everyone else’s.
That’s why our emergency legislation would make it crystal clear that Rwanda is safe for these purposes. It meets all the concerns that people have raised because of our new arrangement with them.
Updated
A reader asks:
Could you please give some commentary on the term ‘emergency legislation’? Is this a defined parliamentary or legal term?
MPs often talk about “emergency bills”, or “emergency legislation”, but it is a general term, not one (like, say, a money bill) with a technical meaning with procedural consequences.
Ministers use it to refer to legislation being sped through parliament. Normally a bill takes many months to go through parliament. But it can happen very quickly, if all stages of a bill get compressed into a single day in the Commons and then in the House of Lords, and this normally happens a few times in a parliament, sometimes in response to a law and order crisis, and sometimes just because there is a hole in legislation that needs plugging urgently.
(On 1 September 1939, two days before the start of the second world war, parliament passed 18 emergency and war provision bills within a few hours.)
In the Commons, the government is in charge of the timetable and it can push a bill through in a day regardless of what the opposition thinks. But it can’t do this in the Lords, where there is no mechanism for guillotining debates, and bills only get fast-tracked there when there is a consensus in favour.
In a genuine emergency, the main parties cooperate, and bills do whizz through the House of Lords.
But the chances of this happening with Rishi Sunak’s new Rwanda legislation are very slim, given the constitutional implications, and it seems very likely that the “emergency legislation” he promised on Wednesday will end up looking like a normal piece of legislation and that it will spend days or weeks being debated by peers.
Updated
The government has not published the “emergency legislation” on Rwanda promised by Rishi Sunak, but the PM spoke on Wednesday about what he wanted it to achieve. Sir Jonathan Jones, who was head of the government’s legal department until he resigned over an attempt by Boris Johnson’s government to ignore international law (Suella Braverman was attorney general at the time), has written a good briefing for the Institute for Government on what Sunak is trying to do, and whether it will work.
Jones is a bit more positive about what a law saying Rwanda is safe might achieve than Lord Sumption, the former supreme court judge who rubbished the idea earlier this week, but he is still sceptical. Here is an extract.
The idea of declaring Rwanda to be safe is a startling one. It would amount to parliament making an assessment of fact (about arrangements in Rwanda) which is directly contrary to the recent findings of the supreme court. Would it work though? I think it might, as a matter of domestic law. Ultimately, one would expect the (UK) courts to give effect to such primary legislation, if drafted sufficiently tightly and unambiguously. That would (probably) close off challenges in the domestic courts.
Even if the bill did not explicitly exclude the application of the Human Rights Act, under that act the courts cannot strike down primary legislation. They can only make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4, leaving it up to the government to decide how (if at all) to respond.
But this part of the plan is not straightforward or risk-free either. First, the government needs to get the bill through parliament – including, of course, the House of Lords. The Lords might well have objections to a bill with major constitutional implications, particularly one which was perceived to breach the UK’s international law obligations under the ECHR or other instruments. There is no manifesto commitment to such legislation. And time for the government to bypass the Lords by using the Parliament Acts is fast running out, since those acts effectively allow the Lords to delay a bill for a year.
But even if parliament does pass the bill, it can only change UK domestic law. It can’t override the UK’s obligations under international law (we have been here before with the internal market bill and the Northern Ireland protocol bill).
Updated
Former cabinet minister Simon Clarke suggests Tories should fight election on hardline Rwanda plans if Lords block them
Sir Simon Clarke, the Tory rightwinger and former levelling up secretary, was also on the Today programme this morning. He explained why he thought Damian Green was wrong (see 10.33am) and why he thought Suella Braverman was right to call for legislation that would allow deportation policy to ignore laws such as the European convention on human rights. He said:
The fundamental point that we need to address is, as my constituents reminded me on the doorsteps of East Cleveland last night, that we need, as a state, to be able to police our borders. And it cannot be the case that our human rights framework effectively renders that undeliverable, nor that it effectively is able to deny a sovereign parliament the ability to do what people want it to …
Nobody, as the prime minister rightly said this week, when the convention was drawn up in ‘51, thought that it meant the UK should not be able to deport people who come here without permission.
Clarke said that, if Rishi Sunak did not think Suella Braverman’s proposals were needed, he had to explain why.
Asked to respond to Green’s point about Braverman wanting to act like Putin, Clarke said:
With respect, I don’t accept that presumption.
I believe that a sovereign parliament, which is ultimately, of course, the supreme democratic embodiment of the land, going through all the checks and balances of our constitution, that is to say both the Commons and the Lords, is entitled to say that, for the specific purpose of enabling a law which it has just passed to be delivered, is entitled, in extremis, to say that certain sections of other laws are disapplied for the purposes of ensuring that that is delivered.
Clarke also suggested that, if the Lords were to block these plans, the Tories should fight an election on them. He said:
If it becomes clear that we cannot deliver this policy within the constraints of what the Lords would allow, then that is that is an issue which I think we could take to the country, and quite quite reasonably so.
This is not a sort of a trivial issue, or an incidental ones, in the eyes of millions of voters. This is fundamental to their confidence, specifically in this government, but more broadly in the ability of the British state to govern Britain.
With the Conservative party more than 20 points behind in the polls, according to the Politico tracker, there is not a strong appetite for an early election in the party. But today’s Daily Mail front page shows how such an election might be framed.
Friday’s Daily MAIL: “Unelected Lords plot to block Rwanda law that could end scenes like this” #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/DFxJGJmZl1
— Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) November 16, 2023
Updated
Damian Green urges Tories to defend principle that government must obey law
In his interview on the Today programme this morning Damian Green, the former first secretary of state, explained why he thought Suella Braverman’s call for “notwithstanding” legislation, that would allow the UK to deport people to Rwanda regardless of what other laws say, made her like Putin. (See 9.23am.) He said:
It’s not just all our own laws passed by parliament, and all international treaties that we have signed, that Suella wants to sweep away. She specifically says let’s sweep away all judicial review protection, and all common law protections, and that’s why I said on Twitter that this is the most unconservative proposal I have ever heard.
Conservatives believe in a democratic country run by the rule of law. And dictators, Xi and Putin, would prefer to have the state completely untrammelled by any law. And so, as a democrat I oppose it.
But quite specifically, as a Conservative, because if we Conservatives don’t believe that the state should be controlled by the law, that the government has to obey the law as much as you or I have to obey the law, then that seems to me to be very profoundly unconservative …
If a government takes itself powers that say, there are no constraints on us, none of the edifice of protection of the law that has been built up over the centuries – which by and large Conservatives like me think is one of the glories of this country – then that government would be behaving in a dictatorial way.
And I don’t think parliament should go there. I very definitely don’t think the Conservative party should go there.
Asked how he would respond to Tory colleagues who say parliament should be sovereign, and that it should be able to legislate for the will of the people, Green replied:
Parliament is a sovereign and can do what it likes, but it should also do it and pass it within the framework of the law …
I would say to my colleagues, let’s conceive of the possibility that there’s not a Conservative government in power. Suppose Jeremy Corbyn had come to power and said, ‘I want to nationalise every bit of the British economy. And accept it’s going to be expensive if I have to it legally, so I have to pay compensation, so I’m going to pass a law that removes all legal constraints on the government, and I’m just going to confiscate the whole of the British economy.’ We would have been up in arms about that, and I think defending the principle that governments have to obey the law as well is really important for Conservatives.
Rishi Sunak has been taking part in a Q&A in Worksop. Pictures have arrived on the wires, but no words yet. As soon as we hear what he said, I’ll post his comments.
Braverman questions value of 'vague, unaccountable concept of international law'
Here is a summary of the main points from Suella Braverman’s Telegraph article attacking Rishi Sunak’s revised Rwanda plan.
Braverman, the former home secretary, criticises the government for not legislating in a way that might have stopped the supreme court ruling the Rwanda deportation policy unlawful. Given that Braverman was in government until Monday, this is a brave argument to make, but Braverman is restating the argument she made in her departure letter on Tuesday, in which she claimed Rishi Sunak repeatedly blocked her ideas. In the Telegraph Braverman says:
The fault lies with the politicians who have failed to introduce legislation that would guarantee delivery of our Rwanda partnership.
And Braverman restates the claim she made in her letter on Tuesday that Sunak is guilty of “magical thinking”. She says:
What matters for those of us who believe in effective immigration control is how to move forward. This requires honesty.
Above all, it demands of the government an end to self-deception and spin. There must be no more magical thinking. Tinkering with a failed plan will not stop the boats.
Braverman says Sunak’s revised Rwanda plan (turning the agreement with Rwanda into a treaty, and passing a new law saying it’s a safe country) won’t work. She says:
Amending our agreement with Rwanda and converting it into a treaty, even with explicit obligations on non-refoulement, will not solve the fundamental issue …
To try and deliver flights to Rwanda under any new treaty would still require going back through the courts, a process that would likely take at least another year.
That process could culminate in yet another defeat, on new grounds, or on similar grounds to Wednesday: principally, that judges can’t be certain Rwanda will abide by the terms of any new treaty.
She says under Sunak’s plan deportation flights to Rwanda won’t start before the general election. She says:
That is why the plan outlined by the PM will not yield flights to Rwanda before an election if Plan B is simply a tweaked version of the failed Plan A.
She proposes a new, five-point plan to enable deportations to Rwanda to start quickly. I have quoted the key element in full already. (See 9.23am.) Here are the other four proposals in full.
The Bill must address the Supreme Court’s concerns regarding Rwanda
Parliament is entitled to assert that Rwanda is safe without making any changes to our Rwanda partnership.
However, for substantive and presentational reasons, it would be preferable to amend that agreement to address issues identified by the judges. This could include embedding UK observers and independent reviewers of asylum decisions.
It is less important whether these commitments are embodied in an amended memorandum or a new treaty.
What is crucial is that they are practical steps to improve Rwanda’s asylum system. On the basis of these new commitments, Rwanda’s safety could be credibly confirmed on the face of the Bill.Swift removal must mean swift removal
Those arriving illegally must be removed in a matter of days rather than months as under the Illegal Migration Act. This means amending the act to ensure that removals to Rwanda are mandated under the duty to remove, with strict time limits. This will streamline the Home Office process as much as possible, so that the only Home Office decision is to determine whether an individual falls within the scheme or not.Those arriving here illegally must be detained
Legal challenges to detention must be excluded to avoid burdening the courts, making it clear that detention is mandated until removal.This must be treated as an emergency
The bill should be introduced by Christmas recess and Parliament should be recalled to sit and debate it over the holiday period.
She questions the value of international law, referring at one point to the “vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of “international law’”. She says:
The more fundamental question is where does ultimate authority in the United Kingdom sit? Is it with the British people and their elected representatives in Parliament? Or is it with the vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of “international law”?
In a post last week, in response to a question from a reader, I explained why Braverman could be described as far right. This article makes the case for using the label even stronger.
Updated
Senior Tory says Suella Braverman wants to act like Putin with hardline alternative Rwanda proposals
Good morning. In Politico’s London Playbook briefing this morning, Eleni Courea quotes “a Tory minister allied with [Rishi] Sunak” claiming: “All things considered this week went as well it could have gone – the Rwanda judgment could have been a moment that open warfare broke out in the party, but that didn’t happen.”
Optimism is a good trait to have in life, but this is looking premature, to put it mildly. This morning the effective leader of one faction in the Conservative party is accusing the effective leader of another – quite seriously, it seems – of wanting to act like Putin.
The row has been triggered by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary. After she was sacked her allies briefed that she was ready to unleash a “grid of shit” on Sunak (“grid” is Whitehallspeak for news announcements lined up in advance) and one element has turned up this morning in the Daily Telegraph. On Wednesday Braverman said on X the government should respond to the supreme court Rwanda judgment by passing emergency legislation allowing the UK to ignore the European convention on human rights on this policy. In the Telegraph she has explained this plan in detail, and firmed it up.
Here is the most controversial proposal.
The [new Rwanda bill promised by Sunak] must enable flights before the next general election
Legislation must therefore circumvent the lengthy process of further domestic litigation, to ensure that flights can take off as soon as the new bill becomes law. To do this, the bill must exclude all avenues of legal challenge. The entirety of the Human Rights Act and European convention on human rights, and other relevant international obligations, or legislation, including the Refugee Convention, must be disapplied by way of clear “notwithstanding” clauses.
Judicial Review, all common law challenges, and all injunctive relief, including the suspensive challenges available under the Illegal Migration Act must be expressly excluded. Individuals would, however, be given the chance to demonstrate that they had entered the country legally, were under 18, or were medically unfit to fly – but Home Office decisions on these claims could not be challenged in court.
Last night Damian Green, who was de facto deputy PM under Theresa May, said this proposal meant Braverman wanted to act like Vladimir Putin.
The second test is the most unconservative statement I have ever heard from a Conservative politician. Giving the state the explicit power to override every legal constraint is what Putin and Xi do. We absolutely cannot go there.
The second test is the most unconservative statement I have ever heard from a Conservative politician. Giving the state the explicit power to override every legal constraint is what Putin and Xi do. We absolutely cannot go there. https://t.co/vYv6PiJRWb
— Damian Green MP (@DamianGreen) November 16, 2023
This is not just a row between two backbenchers. Green is chair of the One Nation Conservative Caucus. It is not a particularly powerful group in the party now, but it does represent what many voters might still think of as traditional Conservatism. And Braverman will be the lead candidate for the right in a future leadership contest; currently she is fourth favourite to win.
Green was not the only Tory tweeting about Braverman’s article last night. Sir Simon Clarke, levelling up secretary in Liz Truss’s government, says he agrees with Braverman’s plan, and that if the Lords block it, Sunak should call an election.
Suella sets out clear and rigorous tests for new legislation on small boats. We should be crystal clear: half measures won’t work. We need the legislation that is brought forward to be truly effective, and if the Lords block it – let’s take it to the country.
Suella sets out clear and rigorous tests for new legislation on small boats. We should be crystal clear: half measures won’t work. We need the legislation that is brought forward to be truly effective, and if the Lords block it - let’s take it to the country. https://t.co/sPfd1rR7ia
— Simon Clarke MP (@SimonClarkeMP) November 16, 2023
I will post more from Braverman’s article, and from Green and Clarke, who were both on the Today programme this morning, shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak is on a visit in Nottinghamshire, where he is due to record a pooled TV clip.
Morning: Keir Starmer is visting a carbon capture storage facility in Aberdeen with Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, and Ed Miliband, the shadow climate change and net zero secretary. Starmer will record a pooled TV clip, and in the afternoon he is recording an interview with the News Agents podcast.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
