Suella Braverman in the speed saga as the migration dispute unfolds

Featured Sponsor

Store	Link	Sample Product
UK Artful Impressions	Premiere Etsy Store

Good morning. A week of testing for Rishi Sunak as internal Conservative party debates over UK net migration figures come out into the open. It’s been a difficult week for me, a man whose knowledge of cars wouldn’t fit in a very small cup, as events force me to grapple with a story involving Suella Braverman and speeding.

Some thoughts on all that follows.

What we talk about when we talk about Suella Braverman

The newspapers are full of stories about Suella Braverman. Harry Yorke of the Sunday Times reports state that, while Attorney General, she was caught speeding and sought help from her civil servants and political aide to secure a one-on-one speed awareness course, one option, Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe and Jim Pickard tell me, which is not available for other drivers. Officials refused, so he finally accepted three points on his license, the paper said. Downing Street said Rishi Sunak would consult his ethics adviser Laurie Magnus.

There are, I think, two parts of the ministerial code which are potentially relevant here. The first is that the benefits of a one-on-one interview cannot, in my eyes, plausibly be seen as anything other than party politics, and trying to use civil servants to make sure one falls short of the code in that respect. The other, identified by the Telegraph, is that the code imposes a general obligation on ministers to ensure that “no conflicts arise, nor can reasonably be perceived as such, between their public duties and their private interests”. The Mirror revealed that Braverman’s aide had denied doing so received a fine for speeding when the newspaper called them about the rumors six weeks ago.

Separately, that of the Guardian reported Pippa Crerar that Braverman tried to walk out of the Commons’ final vote on the small boats bill to visit a police station instead.

Meanwhile on the Telegraph, she said the allies it was all a libel against Braverman, currently embroiled in a series of internal squabbles within the Cabinet and the Conservative Party. Miriam Cates, a Braverman ally, told the newspaper:

“There are many people who disagree with your view that we should limit legal immigration. If you put two and two together, it’s perfectly possible that he’s politically motivated. It is shocking that someone leaks this private information.”

There are two subplots to be aware of here. Many in Westminster believe Braverman will at some point resign or provoke Sunak into sacking her to avoid damaging her position on the right of the party, and anything that confuses the terms of her exit from cabinet could confuse the political impact of her resignation . .

The second is the various squabbles in the Cabinet and Conservative Party over UK net migration figures, which should be at least double what they were before Brexit. Expect more bitter squabbles and more public divisions among Tory politicians over immigration and border control as the week goes on.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before

The long history of British immigration policy has, in the past, been consistently cyclical: periods of openness and high immigration are followed by periods of restriction, punitive policies and kickbacks. The arrival of immigrants including my great-great-great-grandparents from Eastern Europe in the 19th century was followed by the introduction of restrictions on who could enter Britain in the Aliens Act 1905, and that legislation was amended and reinforced on many occasions.

The arrival of immigrants, including my grandmother, from other parts of the British Empire in the 1940s, 50s and 60s led to a series of acts to severely limit and in some cases even remove the rights of Commonwealth citizens to come to the UK, starting with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, which introduced a de facto color bar. (For much more on this, check out Andrew Rosenberg undesirable immigrants, a wonderful book that I recently reviewed for the FT.)

And nowadays, the arrival of people from Central and Eastern Europe in the 2000s has been followed by the UK leaving the EU.

Now, New Labor has tried all sorts of things to manage its electoral coalition while presiding over high levels of immigration. They have largely done this by putting all kinds of new cruelties and barriers into the immigration system for people coming to the UK from outside the European Economic Area and for refugees. (Sarah O’Connor wrote about the legacy of one of those “innovations” last year.)

But it did not work. An intriguing consequence of Brexit is that Boris Johnson has essentially created a similar dynamic: high legal immigration from outside the EEA, coupled with new barriers and cruelties for people trying to come to the UK from the EEA and for refugees.

You are viewing a snapshot of an interactive graph. This is most likely due to the fact that you are offline or JavaScript is disabled in your browser.

So will the Conservatives’ attempts to manage the high immigration through the introduction of new cruelties, particularly for people trying to come to the UK via small boats, be any more successful than New Labour’s? I do not know. I am with Madeleine Sumption, director of the Oxford Migration Observatory think tank, which said William Wallis and Delphine Strauss:

“I continue to expect the importance of migration to rise in public opinion. It’s surprising that you don’t consider how important it is in the political debate.”

I’ll have a lot more to say about the politics of all of this later this week. But for now, one thing I will say is, considering the historical trend, I don’t think we should expect the current mix of cruelty with high levels of migration to age any better or prove more electorally enduring than previous ones.

Now try this

My ideal weekend is one where I wake up before my alarm clock, have a good breakfast, read the FTWeekend, watch a matinee, go to a nice restaurant and Arsenal win. So: close but no cigars this weekend.

I particularly liked the Tabby Kinder and George Hammond piece on eventuality San Francisco can get out of the loop of fateLucy Fisher on the Conservative Party at the crossroadsEnuma Okoro on parenting (and being parents)and Alec Russell in global southern time.

Today’s best stories

• Labor’s pledge to fix the NHS | Labor leader Keir Starmer will outline plans for restore the national health service if his party wins the next general election, pledging to reduce waiting times and deaths from cancer, heart disease and suicide.

• Investigating the Teesside project would be ‘wise’ | The Chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has backed calls for the UK’s public spending watchdog to investigate Teesworksthe major government-backed regeneration program overseen by Ben Houchen.

• T-Level Problems | The heads of more than 100 colleges have warned of plans to shake up professional education in England are likely to leave thousands of school dropouts without access to higher education when they reach 16 because ministers have failed to put in place a “coherent implementation plan”.

• ‘DUP vote held up very, very well’ | The nationalist party Sinn Féin obtained a “tsunami” of votes win a better-than-expected victory in the Northern Ireland council elections. Analysts said the result left a way open for DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson to bring his party back into Stormont establishment.