Election
The biggest threat to the UK’s borders comes from climate change
Rishi Sunak was interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky News this morning. He was petulant, pedantic, defensive of his record and simultaneously aggressive towards Phillips, whilst also being inappropriate and evasive. Apart from that, the interview went well.
I do, however, wish to ignore all those points and pick up an issue which he did not, of course highlight. Nor did Phillips.
Sunak’s claim was that we have to increase defence spending in the UK as part of our programme of defending our borders. It’s all very Trumpian.
Simultaneously, he was adamant that we have to ‘stop the boats’, and that those words should be interpreted in accordance with their plain meaning. In other words, he was saying that there should be no more of what he describes as illegal immigration, even though the vast majority of people crossing the Channel do so legally, meaning he entirely misdescribes the problem.
In all this Sunak downgrades the significance of any measures to tackle climate change. He has no interest in doing that. Trump does not believe climate change is real, so nor can Rishi. In doing so he does, however, miss the glaringly obvious point, which is that the biggest threat to our borders comes from climate change.
We face the threat of serious inundation of large parts of the country from floodwater, whilst anyone who pretends that climate change will not create refugees in record numbers is straightforwardly in denial of a glaringly obvious truth that is staring us in the face.
That is what Sunak is now doing.
Unfortunately, it seems to be what Labour is doing as well.
We have a particular problem there seem to be no grown-up thinkers in UK politics right now who can look at the underlying long-term causes of the issues that we face and base policy upon addressing those issues so that we might anticipate and even prevent problems arising. They prefer short-term posturing instead.
It would really help if we could have politicians who could think beyond their need for instant gratification right now, but Labour and the Tories (at least) do not seem capable of providing them.
Dan Poulter MP’s defection to Labour looks like self preservation, cynical manoeuvring and keeping some doors just a little bit open
Dan Poulter MP has resigned from the Tories, crossed the floor of the Commons, and joined Labour.
Once upon a time this might have taken courage. It might have also delivered a particular political message. I do not think either of these is true in the case of the little known Poulter, who is not seeking a return to the Commons when he leaves Parliament at his own choice at the forthcoming general election.
Poulter, who is MP for North Ipswich and Central Suffolk, is also a hospital consultant. He says he is quitting because only Labour now believes in the NHS. If I might be polite, I think he is quitting so that he has at least some credibility with colleagues when he returns to full time work in the NHS later this year. To have been a Tory MP and find anyone to talk to would, I suspect, have been nigh on impossible if he had not quit the Tories now. By quitting now he might just find someone willing to have coffee with, if he’s lucky, on his return. I think the politics involved in this are no more complicated than that.
Please forgive my cynicism, but being a former Tory MP is not going to look good on the CVs of a lot of redundant former members fairly soon. At least Poulter might have a job to go to. But he also wants people to talk to.
Let me add another, necessary, cynical note. Moving from being a Tory MP for the last 14 years - who has held office and who has no doubt voted many times to impose untold harm on the very people whom he will no doubt soon be seeing as patients - to Labour is really not so very hard these days. Labour is almost certainly to the political right now of where Poulter might have thought himself to be when he was first elected to parliament in 2010. I should think he feels quite at home with Wes Streeting. A job as a junior Labour health minister in the Lords might well be on offer, I would have thought.
So is this a move of any political significance? No, not really. This is about self preservation, cynical manoeuvring and keeping some doors just a little bit open as far as I can see. Might we be spared a by further analysis?
Are Presidents Above the Law? Donald Trump thinks presidents...
Are Presidents Above the Law?
Donald Trump thinks presidents should be allowed to commit crimes. Rubbish.
Trump claims that quote, “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY” from prosecution for any crime committed while in office. His lawyers even claim that a president could be immune from prosecution for having a political opponent assassinated.
Trump says anything less than total immunity would quote, "incapacitate every future president.” Baloney. It would incapacitate him! He’s the only president who’s been criminally charged with trying to orchestrate a violent coup on January 6th, 2021.
Trump wants to turn the U.S. president into a supreme ruler — who is not bound to the same laws that everybody else is — the very antithesis of the bedrock values this country was founded on. A president shouldn’t be above the law.
In reality, this is all part of Trump’s plan to avoid accountability. He wants to gum up the legal system to delay his federal trial until after the 2024 election. If he really believed he was innocent, wouldn’t he want to have a trial as soon as possible?
Just as bad, the Supreme Court is abetting his plan by dragging its feet.
Trump’s criminal trial in the January 6 case was supposed to begin in March. But now, it’s on hold until Trump’s immunity claim is resolved by the Supreme Court. Who knows how long that will take?
The high court could have ruled on Trump’s immunity claim immediately — which Special Counsel Jack Smith asked it to do last December. Instead, the Supreme Court accepted Trump’s request not to expedite a ruling. Trump’s immunity claim then went slowly through the lower courts, which, not surprisingly, found that, no, presidents DO NOT have carte blanche to commit crimes.
The Supreme Court then had another chance to expedite a ruling on this, but it took weeks even to set a date for arguments.
The Supreme Court can move quickly when it wants to. When Trump appealed Colorado’s decision to keep him off the state ballot, the Supreme Court rushed to get a ruling out before the Colorado primary. Shouldn’t the court move with the same urgency on Trump’s immunity claim? Otherwise, Trump’s January 6th trial may not be decided before the presidential election.
Voters are entitled to know before casting their ballots whether they are choosing a felon for president.
As disasters go, the Rwanda Bill knows almost no limits.
The Lords gave in to the Commons on the Safety of Rwanda Bill last night, as ultimately they must. Democracy is sovereign and if those who have been elected insist that red is blue then the Lords, having used their best endeavours to request that the Commons change its mind, must give way even though they know that what the Commons is claiming is wrong.
This is what happened last night. The Lords eventually agreed to let a Bill promoted by a corrupt and racist government pass despite all the false claims within it. Rwanda is not safe, whatever the Tories say.
The Lords are also right that the damage to the UK’s reputation as an upholder of international law will be considerable.
The law that will now be enacted is also absurd. Instead of in any way solving the problem of migration it will throw vast sums of money at token gesture deportations that will be devastating for those involved, including most of the public servants who will have to be engaged in this process. It is not even clear, as yet, that any planes will be found to undertake the necessary flights to Rwanda.
And at the end of the day, after all this waste of effort, political capital, international reputation and money, the policy will not work. The chance of being deported to Rwanda will be so small, so extraordinary is the cost of each person deported and so limited is the capacity to actually secure agreement for anyone to leave, that the deterrent effect on those seeking to cross the Channel will be precisely zero. The boats will not be stopped, and that was the aim, racist as it always was.
So, what has been achieved by the Tories? They have proved that they are racist, vindictive, callous and straightforwardly cruel.
They have evidenced that the truth does not matter to them, and nor does the rule of law.
They have delivered overwhelming evidence of their ability to waste public funds when it suits them.
Most of all, they have shown that they are liars. Rwanda is not safe, even if they have passed a law saying it is, contrary to all the evidence.
So, electorally I think this also backfires for them. As disasters go, this one knows almost no limits.
The absurdity was apparent in comments by Tim Loughton MP on Sky last night. His claim was that we must have somewhere to send people who came to the UK who we decide are not refugees but who could not be returned to their country of origin because they would be refused entry there or they would be harmed if they did return. In other words, they are undoubtedly refugees with a right to asylum but we just do not want them, which contravenes international law. He then wanted them sent to Rwanda, with a dubious recent history on this issue.
You could not make such absurd claims up, but he offered then as if he was sincere. If he was then he also proved he will be doing politics a public service at the next election by standing down. In the kindest possible comment I can offer, let me suggest that he clearly is unable to construct coherent thoughts.
And meanwhile, some poor refugees will suffer the most inhumane treatment by this government. It is my hope that lawyers will still be able to find ways to obstruct their evil desires. What else is Common Law for?
TSSA members in Network Rail London South vote no-confidence in Eslamdoust, Heywood
Motion and letter reveal deep dissatisfaction among members as branch says it will support union staff when they strike and accuses management of inflaming the problems and indulging in delusion
TSSA rail union members in south London have passed a motion of no confidence in the union’s general secretary Maryam Eslamdoust and its president Melissa Heywood over their conduct toward union staff and the GMB union that represents them at work.
The TSSA and Eslamdoust and her team have been in crisis since the Kennedy Report exposed widespread bullying and sexual harassment by senior union figures, leading to the sacking of former general secretary Manuel Cortes and Eslamdoust, who was supposedly going to clean up the union after the scandal. was rocked by fresh allegations of abuse and deep resentment against the new general secretary for the treatment of staff, particularly women.
Eslamdoust, who was recommended to members by the union’s executive despite what appears to be a complete lack of relevant experience, wrote a bizarre article for the Guardian in which she accused the GMB union of attempting to bully her so it could take over the TSSA and distract from its own renewed sexual harassment scandal, and tried to blame others for her failure to take meaningful action to implement the Kennedy Report’s recommendations.
“It’s the fault of everyone but me”. TSSA has a General Secretary that seems unable to accept any responsibility for anything! https://t.co/EW2uQrRJc3
— Steve Coe (@stevecoe1057) April 18, 2024
Former TSSA Assistant General Secretary’s take on Eslamdoust’s actions
She then followed up her attack on the GMB by emailing all TSSA member branches with an astonishing assault branding the union’s workers as greedy and lazy, and treating the GMB union as if it, and not the unhappiness of TSSA staff, was the driver of the impending strike action for which more than 93% of staff voted last week.
Such is the anger among members at the situation that earlier this month the TSSA’s branch for members working in Network Rail in South London passed the following resolution:
That this branch has no confidence in the leadership of the General Secretary and President in the management of internal conflicts that exist in our union and have been created since the election of our General Secretary.
Our branch has more confidence in our TSSA staff who are currently in dispute. Should our TSSA staff who are represented by the GMB decide they have no option but take industrial action, our branch will support them in this action.
The branch then sent a letter to the TSSA executive:
Network Rail London South Branch
Notice of vote of no confidence in TSSA Leadership of our General Secretary and President for circulation to TSSA Executive Committee
At our branch meeting on Thursday 11 April, we invited our General Secretary and President to respond to concerns that our branch has regarding the internal conflicts within our union.
Melissa Heywood did attend this meeting despite her partner being in hospital and joined via phone from her car in the hospital car park. Our branch very much appreciated her attendance, and it would have been entirely justifiable to give apologies, and not attend in these circumstances. Our branch meeting later agreed to specifically thank Melissa for attending this challenging meeting and will make that clear with a separate message to her. Maryam had indicated she would be attending but did not attend, although it was noted that there may have been family commitments for this non-attendance.
We presented an outline of our concerns which included the following:
TSSA had been through the massive challenge of removing the previous senior management team, including our General Secretary following an investigation and report by QC Helena Kennedy. There was a remarkable and positive consensus across the union to achieve these goals.
We have gone through the election process for a new General Secretary with Maryam being successful in that election, being endorsed by the Executive Committee. At that point Maryam had the overwhelming support of our union employees and members, with the hope that we had every prospect of a positive leadership that would have learnt from our previous conflicts.
Within weeks internal conflicts started to emerge, including one EC member leaving as he found the environment to be intolerable. The derecognition of Women in Focus was illegitimate and unnecessary.
Disputes between TSSA staff and the senior management team soon emerged, with complaints about non-compliance with agreements, accusations and counter accusations of bullying, with TSSA staff now moving to a ballot for industrial action, referencing “a culture of bullying, harassment and victimisation.”
The communications from our General Secretary to the employees appear to have inflamed rather than attempted to resolve this conflict. The article in the Guardian, in which the dispute is claimed by Maryam to be a takeover attempt by the GMB, can have done nothing but harm to our union and the GMB, and appears to have no basis in reality.
Subsequently there was evidence that our President liked a social media post that called for the derecognition of the GMB, which represents our employees in TSSA. There now appears to an extension of this conflict with the Executive Committee apparently agreeing this week to the suspension of three TSSA members who have been critical of the leadership.
Whilst it is not for our branch to consider the detail of the staff complaints, we should however be able to expect that our leadership acts in the best interest of our union and does not bring our union into disrepute. Currently, there appears to be no path to resolve this.
Our President responded to some of these challenges and to many others made in the meeting. There was however no indication that the leadership recognised that they have a responsibility to resolve the many conflicts which appear to have been caused by the action of the General Secretary and the President.
Our branch therefore proceeded to debate and vote for the following:
That this branch has no confidence in the leadership of the General Secretary and President in the management of internal conflicts that exist in our union and have been created since the election of our General Secretary.
Our branch has more confidence in our TSSA staff who are currently in dispute. Should our TSSA staff who are represented by the GMB decide they have no option but take industrial action, our branch will support them in this action.
Invited to comment, a TSSA spokesperson said:
“The TSSA is committed to working with our staff to ensure that we have a union that is fit for purpose and fully focused on delivering for members. We have arranged talks with Acas on 24th April. However, so far, the GMB is refusing to take part. We hope the GMB leadership will reconsider its approach and join the talks.”
GMB reps among TSSA staff have accused Eslamdoust and her team of not informing them that they had approached ACAS, and of bypassing them to try to negotiate the dispute with GMB general secretary Gary Smith instead of engaging with workers and their representatives.
Other branches are expected to follow suit in the coming weeks. The workers’ first strikes will take place on 30 April and 4 June, including pickets of TSSA offices.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Cartoon: Strategies for victory
As always: if you find value in this work I do, please consider helping me keep it sustainable by joining my weekly newsletter, Sparky’s List! You can get it in your inbox or read it on Patreon, the content is the same. And don’t forget to visit the Tom Tomorrow Merchandise Mall!
Why doesn’t Labour want to be in government forever?
I just posted this short video on YouTube, TikTok and elsewhere:
And, yes, the video does include a mistake. I say first past the post increases constituency size when, of course, it is PR that dues that.
Wes Streeting is a disgrace
Labour's Shadow Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has been writing in The Sun and winning its support for his diagnosis for NHS reform. As they note:
THE Shadow Health Secretary warns the NHS today that there will be no additional funding without the “major surgery” of reform under Labour.
Wes Streeting asks for Sun readers’ backing for a massive overhaul of our troubled healthcare system.
They added:
[This] would include bringing in the private sector to help cut waiting times.
Their conclusion was:
Pitching himself against healthcare unions and Labour supporters, he says “middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’”, but he is “up for the fight”.
Now I know he did not write the Sun's story, but he chose to talk about this in The Sun, and he used the words he is quoted as saying - because that is the way that these things work.
So, we have a Labour shadow minister actively seeking office, declaring war on his own party's natural supporters and the NHS unions. And people wonder why I can see nothing of merit left in Labour.
This labour leadership is a total disgrace, having sold out on any remaining principles the right of the Party ever had.
I am not convinced that we are facing any good electoral outcome this year
As has been my habit for the last few days, and as might well be the case for many days to come, I posted a poll on Twitter yesterday. This one was back on political territory, asking:
All the usual caveats on the statistical validity of Twitter polls apply here, especially as there is almost bound to be a bias towards Labour supporters amongst those who I reach on that platform.
That said, I was surprised by the level of delight at a possible Labour victory expressed by the 10,000 or more people voting in this poll. Seventy per cent of those voting seem to be more pleased than anything else at the prospect of an overwhelming Labour victory in the next general election.
As usual, I did not really try to hide my own concerns even while allowing differing views to be expressed. Nineteen per cent of those who voted share my concern about what Labour might do with the power that they win, and have my sympathy. There will be many who vote Labour at the next general election who will wonder about whether the party that now has that name really represents the opinions that they always associated with it.
The third and fourth options represented alternative ways of expressing concern about our electoral system. I was very surprised at how few people opted for the third option, but maybe the fourth was more obvious as an explanation of the sentiment that many will feel about an outcome that will very clearly not reflect the desires of the country as a whole.
Candidly, I found very little encouraging about the result of this poll. If the anticipation of a Labour win is as strong as it suggests, my sense that the scale of buyer's remorse that will follow the election might be sufficiently dramatic to give rise to a massive collapse in support for that party soon thereafter is very strong.
I am not convinced that we are facing any good electoral outcome this year.
How Trump is Following Hitler’s PlaybookYou’ve heard...
How Trump is Following Hitler’s Playbook
You’ve heard Trump’s promise:
TRUMP: I’m going to be a dictator for one day.
History shows there are no “one-day” dictatorships. When democracies fall, they typically fall completely.
In a previous video, I laid out the defining traits of fascism and how MAGA Republicans embody them. But how could Trump — or someone like him — actually turn America into a fascist state? Here’s how in five steps.
Step 1: Use threats of violence to gain power
Hitler and Mussolini relied on their vigilante militias to intimidate voters and local officials. We watched Trump try to do the same in 2020.
TRUMP: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.
Republican election officials testified to the threats they faced when they refused Trump’s demands to falsify the election results.
RAFFENSPERGER: My email, my cell phone was doxxed.
RUSTY BOWERS: They have had video panel trucks with videos of me proclaiming me to be a pedophile.
GABRIEL STERLING: A 20-something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out saying he should be hung for treason.
If the next election is close, threats to voters and election officials could be enough to sabotage it.
Step 2: Consolidate power
After taking office, a would-be fascist must turn every arm of government into a tool of the party. One of Hitler’s first steps was to take over the civil service, purging it of non-Nazis.
In October of 2020, Trump issued his own executive order that would have enabled him to fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them with MAGA loyalists. He never got to act on it, but he’s now promising to apply it to the entire civil service.
That’s become the centerpiece of something called Project 2025, a presidential agenda assembled by MAGA Republicans, that would, as the AP put it, “dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision.”
Step 3: Establish a police state
Hitler used the imaginary threat of “the poison of foreign races” to justify taking control of the military and police, placing both under his top general, and granting law-enforcement powers to his civilian militias.
Now Trump is using the same language to claim he needs similar powers to deal with immigrants.
Trump plans to deploy troops within the U.S. to conduct immigration raids and round up what he estimates to be 18 million people who would be placed in mass-detention camps while their fate is decided.
And even though crime is actually down across the nation, Trump is citing an imaginary crime wave to justify sending troops into blue cities and states against the will of governors and mayors.
Trump insiders say he plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to have the military crush civilian protests. We saw a glimpse of that in 2020, when Trump deployed the National Guard against peaceful protesters outside the White House.
And with promises to pardon January 6 criminals and stop prosecutions of right-wing domestic terrorists, Trump would empower groups like the Proud Boys to act as MAGA enforcers.
Step 4: Jail the opposition
In classic dictatorial fashion, Trump is now openly threatening to prosecute his opponents.
And he’s looking to remake the Justice Department into a tool for his personal vendettas.
In the model of Hitler and Mussolini, Trump describes his opponents as subhuman.
TRUMP: …the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country…
Step 5: Undermine the free press
As Hitler well understood, a fascist needs to control the flow of information. Trump has been attacking the press for years.
And he’s threatening to punish news outlets whose coverage he dislikes.
He has helped to reduce trust in the media to such a historic low that his supporters now view him as their most trusted source of information.
Within a democracy, we may often have leaders we don’t like. But we have the power to change them — at the ballot box and through public pressure. Once fascism takes hold, those freedoms are gone and can’t easily be won back.
We must recognize the threat of fascism when it appears, and do everything in our power to stop it.