THE Conservatives are once again tearing themselves to pieces as the party battles over the ideological purity of its barmy Rwanda plan.
In the red corner, we have the Tory right, with groups like the New Conservatives (their oldest member Bill Cash is 83). They are concerned the Government’s emergency Rwanda bill is too weak.
And in the blue corner, we have the Tory moderates – wets as they used to be known – who will back the Rwanda plan even if they privately think the whole thing a bit iffy, old chap.
The legislation has not seen any asylum seekers sent to Rwanda yet – despite its estimated cost standing at around £240 million and counting – but it has dispatched one immigration minister to the back benches.
Robert Jenrick (below) encapsulated the Tory right’s gripes about the bill in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister.
As it stands, the bill falls short of disapplying the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which saw flights to Rwanda blocked in the past.
Jenrick says this means asylum seekers will still be able to appeal decisions to deport them to the central African nation – effectively defeating its purpose as a supposed deterrent.
Rishi Sunak has said trying to get around the ECHR will mean the UK Government is at odds with international law – a red line for Rwanda.
The country has said it will pull out of the lucrative deal if the UK crosses the boundaries of international law to get the bill over the line.
READ MORE: Robert Jenrick criticises Rishi Sunak's Rwanda stance in resignation statement
It’s expected there will be a rather substantial rebellion when the bill goes to its vote next week.
But none of this matters a jot for Britain’s broken asylum system, which provides virtually no safe or legal routes to the country, while around 91,000 people languish on waiting lists to have decisions processed.
Even if the scheme was up and running only a paltry few would be sent to Rwanda. Would they be safe? The UK Government seems to think that by declaring the country safe in legislation they will be.
A flapping Sunak (below) told an emergency press conference this week: "The idea that Rwanda isn't safe, blocked."
As Tory peer Edward Garnier put it, that would be like the Government legislating to say “all dogs are cats”.
So if the Rwanda plan is a ridiculous sideshow, why does any of this matter?
One, because it means the Tories have once again started publicly tearing lumps out of one another, which can only spell more trouble for their already pitiful showing in the polls.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak conducts urgent reshuffle of ministers after Robert Jenrick resignation
Two, because it makes the prospect of a late election more likely. They are fast-tracking the policy through the Commons but it seems unlikely flights will be taking off – if it is successful – by the spring.
The Tories think that if they can get the scheme working, they will have an easier time in the election and win back right-wing voters in England who polls show now see Keir Starmer’s Labour as being “stronger” on immigration.
But that will take time. A sobering piece of analysis in politics.co.uk last month spelled out why a January 2024 election now seems “more likely than ever”. Grim stuff.
You can get the Worst of Westminster delivered to your email inbox every Friday for FREE by signing up here.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here