For some, Rishi Sunak’s shuffle felt like a return of some common sense. Still, the appointment of Esther McVey as minister for commonsense, or even more ridiculously named, ‘Commonsense Tsar’, only proves it’s still all about nonsense.

Minister for common sense

Reactions to the announcement that Conservative MP Esther McVey was given a brand new shiny ministerial position as the minister for common sense were met understandably with confusion and well-deserved hilarity.

Went into a meeting early eve and have just come out and found out #EstherMcvey is Minister For Commonsense

Haven't laughed out loud this hard for a while #Sunak's #reshuffle is a Carry On farce

— Gina Miller (@thatginamiller) November 13, 2023

Here we have the Conservative Party who, in general, are against the so-called ‘nanny state’ and all about individual freedom and individual responsibility, yet we are now to believe that the British public needs schooling to ensure what they think of common sense is instilled in us all.

What will the position require, and what about the scope of the work? We already have a good idea because others have already laid the groundwork.

The Conservatives Common Sense Group

Yes, there’s a Conservative sub-group for common sense, which I wrote about here in March 2022. Set up in 2020 by Sir John Hayes, CBE MP, it has dozens of Conservative MP members. It is yet another Conservative group whose focus is on attacking liberal and compassionate thinking, challenging the government on policies like net zero and immigration. It is a significant player in the so-called ‘war on wokeness’.

They even have their own manifesto : ‘Conservative Thinking for a Post-Liberal Age’. A 136-page collection of what can only be called essays of opinion, written by some of the group’s members.

Many of their thoughts and ideas in the book are predictable. There are frequent attacks on human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Sir John talks of the liberal elite and intolerant “woke” dogma of Black Lives Matter, transgender rights activists, advocates of “decolonisation”, and critics of “white privilege”, describing them all as “woke warriors”. He calls Extinction Rebellion extremists and attacks institutions and multinational businesses like Starbucks and the National Trust for daring to educate its members on slavery ties to some of its properties.

What they call common sense is, in fact, ultra-conservatism

Elements of ultra-conservatism typically rely on cultural crisis; they frequently support anti-globalism and adopt stances of anti-immigration, nationalism, and sovereignty. They use populism and political polarisation with in-group and out-group practices. Their primary economic ideology is neoliberalism, while the use of conspiracy theories is also common amongst ultraconservatives.

John Hayes, Chairman of the New Conservatives, President of The Common Sense Group, Braverman's handler & adviser,
has likened climate protesters to ‘Radical Islam’, has received a £50,000 salary from BB Energy since 2018.https://t.co/Z2lfRbQ2p2
Religion and politics do not mix

— Raven Cozens-Hardy (@RaveCozensHardy) November 14, 2023

You can see these ideas play out in both the manifesto and a letter written to the Telegraph, signed by Sir John and others, stating:

Translated: Our mission is to ensure only the history we want to be taught is taught. It should not acknowledge any acts of brutality or atrocities committed by the Empire. People calling for what has been suppressed by us to be revealed are a danger to our society, a threat to our imperial greatness and British exceptionalism. A traitorous Marxist, liberal, set out to destroy the society we made in OUR image.

Why has McVey been tasked with leading the government’s ‘anti-woke’ agenda?

McVey entered the House of Commons as MP for Wirral West at the 2010 general election, lost her seat in 2015, and re-entered parliament in 2017. She stood in the 2019 Conservative leadership election but finished last. She then left the Cabinet and returned to the backbenches when Boris Johnson became PM and sacked her as housing minister.

McVey has caused controversy over the years with her comments on the welfare system, defending the bedroom tax introduced by David Cameron’s government and describing the rise of foodbanks since the financial crisis as “positive”. McVey also defended sanctions imposed on benefit claimants for making minor mistakes. During the leadership election, she refused to back net zero targets for 2050, and her husband, Philip Davies, was one of only five MPs to have voted against the UK’s Climate Change Act in 2008.

Esther McVey appointed Minister without Portfolio.

Falsely claimed that EU would force UK to join the Euro.
Broke Ministerial Code in accepting GB News job
Misled parliament on Universal Credit
Sacked by Johnson
Claimed £8,750 in expenses for personal photographer

Normal Tory!

— Prem Sikka (@premnsikka) November 14, 2023

In June 2021, she joined GB News, with her husband joining later. They jointly presented programmes titled Friday and Saturday Morning with Esther and Philip, which she has now had to step away from due to her new position. She also regularly writes for the Daily Express.

GB News has come under criticism for having Conservative MPs as hosts as Ofcom rules are clear: no politician can be used as an interviewer or reporter “unless editorially justified”, while Ofcom has now found McVey and GB News (who currently have 14 live investigations by Ofcom) to be in breach of impartiality rules.

GB News supports Conservative policy, populism and thinking above all others. They regularly indulge in the ‘anti-woke’ agenda, conspiracy theory, climate change denial and hard-right populism. Like the Conservative government, they are on a mission to divide and conquer us.

To distract us from their astounding failings, they set one group of people against another, attacking compassion, empathy and tolerance; therefore, they have provided McVey with the ideal training ground to continue this path. Now, unluckily for us, she gets to do it all in the name of common sense and government.

Rishi Sunak has a plan. It’s not a very cunning plan, but it is one that Baldrick would be proud of. The prime minister, in response to the largely expected Supreme Court ruling on the Rwanda deportation plan, is not a happy bunny. He has, yet again, been thwarted (who ever used that word before Brexit?), by the law. And here was him thinking that as PM, he was the one that made all the laws, and everyone had to obey him.

Following today’s ruling, I’m taking the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation to confirm Rwanda is safe.

I will not allow a foreign court, like the European Court of Human Rights, to block these flights.

Here’s the plan in full ⬇️
1/5 pic.twitter.com/6MVqYWS65O

— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) November 15, 2023

The Supreme Court decision

On Wednesday 15 November, the UK Supreme Court handed down its ruling in response to former home secretary Suella Braverman’s final appeal. The court unanimously dismissed the appeal – an attempt to overturn earlier rulings – and upheld the Court of Appeal’s earlier conclusion that “the Rwanda policy is unlawful”.

In their judgment the court determined there were “substantial grounds” for believing there was a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda. This could lead to asylum seekers being subjected to human rights breaches and to being returned wrongfully to their country of origin. Lord reed concluded, “the Home Secretary’s appeal is therefore dismissed”.

Judgment has been handed down this morning in the ‘Rwanda Appeals.’ UKSC 2023/0093, UKSC 2023/0094, UKSC 2023/0095, UKSC 2023/0096, UKSC 2023/0097, UKSC 2023/0105: https://t.co/T35WcqVI16 pic.twitter.com/Xao8DquoeY

— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) November 15, 2023

Sunak’s desperate Rwanda plan

Despite recent suggestions from Braverman that there was no plan B in the event of the Supreme Court ruling against the government, Sunak seems to have other ideas. His response was immediate, which rather suggested he already suspected what the court’s decision might be. Appearing at a news conference, Sunak said he was taking “the extraordinary step of announcing emergency legislation” which would “enable parliament to confirm that our new treaty is safe”. Which, of course, it wouldn’t be.      

Rishi Sunak: "We will take the extraordinary step of announcing emergency legislation. This will enable Parliament to confirm that with our new treaty Rwanda is safe. I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights to Rwanda." pic.twitter.com/rbzRWFgWJd

— Haggis_UK 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@Haggis_UK) November 15, 2023

He went on to say that he would “not allow a foreign court, like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), to block these flights”, rather ignoring the fact that it was highest court in the UK that made this final ruling.

“The plan in full”, according to Sunak, is to ratify a new agreement with Rwanda that will provide legal protections. Asylum seekers deported from the UK would be “protected against removal” from Rwanda by law. Whether the Rwandan government, or indeed the British one, could be trusted to respect and abide by international law is questionable, to say the least.

Sunak is, he says, “prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships to remove the obstacles in our way”. Should the ECHR choose “to intervene against parliament”, the PM is “prepared to do whatever is necessary to get flights off”. Sunak went on say that the British people expect the “boats to stop”, and claimed – despite all evidence to the contrary – that progress is being made.

Sunak’s speech, repeated on social media, was accompanied by a meme stating, “When I said I would stop the boats, I meant it”. His Twitter (X) thread ended with him reiterating the “need to stop the boats” and with the suggestion that the Rwanda deportation policy was “an essential part of the deterrent”. The rise this year in the numbers of desperate asylum seekers willing to risk all to cross the Channel in small boats would appear to contradict that claim.

Court exposed complete failure of Sunak’s flagship policy & his judgement

PM knew problems w scheme yet still gave Rwanda £140m, still made it centre of his plan, still had no proper plan to go after criminal gangs to stop boat crossings instead

Government by gimmick not grip pic.twitter.com/ZIhtnYroSs

— Yvette Cooper (@YvetteCooperMP) November 15, 2023

Widespread condemnation

There has been widespread criticism of the Rwanda policy both in parliament and across social media. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said at the despatch box on Wednesday that the court ruling had exposed a “complete failure of Sunak’s flagship policy and his judgment”. Addressing the new home secretary, James Cleverly – the eighth home secretary in eight years – Cooper said the government was “wasting time, wasting money, and letting the country down”.

As Cleverly attempted to defend the policy in parliament, Cooper alleged that he had previously, in private, described the policy as “batshit”. The home secretary failed to deny the claim, and stated on TV the following day that he didn’t remember “saying anything like that”.

Green MP Caroline Lucas described the policy as “utterly inhumane, grotesquely immoral and totally unworkable”. She pleaded with Sunak for an asylum policy that would treat people with “respect and dignity”.

In response to Sunak’s statement, Jessica Simor KC described the comments as “beyond idiotic”. Simor also called on Sunak to fire Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson, for saying government should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”. Former Downing Street chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, described the government’s response as “utterly depressing”, asking what had happened to the party that he devoted 30 years of his life to.

It appears Conservative MPs no longer have to believe in the rule of law. What has happened to the party I devoted nearly 30 years of my life to? Utterly depressing https://t.co/ww4AvVS3dQ

— Gavin Barwell (@GavinBarwell) November 15, 2023

Apart from Sunak and his cunning plan B, no doubt we can expect the Brexiters to be ranting about “illegal” immigrants, woke lawyers and the ECHR for as long (or as short) as they remain in power. But no amount of ranting will return the millions in public money paid to Rwanda and government lawyers. No amount of ranting will reduce the numbers of asylum seekers risking life and limb in small boats in dangerous waters. No amount of ranting will save the government from election defeat

Another empty threat

In 1950, following WW2, the ECHR was drafted to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms for the people of Europe. It protects citizens from, amongst other things, their own governments. So, it’s not hard to see why its removal might appeal to the man who thinks he’s running our country. While the government may threaten to pull out of the ECHR, it’s an empty threat. Even if it had the time available, such an action would unravel the Good Friday agreement and further alienate Britain in the eyes of the international community – just for starters.

While the country must sit back and wait for a different government with a different plan, we can only feel for those suffering as a result of the current one. With no safe asylum routes in place and a tragically slow asylum approval process, desperate people are being left in desperate situations by a desperate government.

Sunak’s latest cunning plan is just another terrible idea that’s doomed to failure. Rather like the government, the Tory party and the prime minister himself. Any court in the land would surely not hesitate to come to the same conclusion.

Just a few short (or tediously long) weeks ago, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared himself to be the man to “fundamentally change our country”. At the recent Conservative Party conference, Sunak aimed to convince his audience that he was the “change candidate” – the one to breathe new life into a very poorly party, and a very poorly country. Those claims now look increasingly ridiculous following his latest reshuffle, and the return of David Cameron to frontline politics.

“How can you argue that you're bringing back somebody like David Cameron when you're also trying to be the man of change?”

Rishi Sunak has appointed the former Prime Minister as Foreign Secretary. @NatashaC is outside Number 10. pic.twitter.com/XrOH1NkgVw

— LBC (@LBC) November 13, 2023

Cameron’s back

Following the sacking of Home Secretary Suella Braverman (finally, and not for the first time) on Monday morning, James Cleverly was shuffled from the Foreign Office to the Home Office. His appointment as Home Secretary comes just 48 hours ahead of a Supreme Court decision on Wednesday regarding the government’s Rwanda deportation plans.

In his place, former PM David Cameron has been appointed foreign secretary, despite him not being a serving MP. In order to be able to take up a place in Cabinet, Cameron – who resigned as PM over Brexit following the 2016 referendum – has also received a life peerage.

It would seem that Sunak is willing to overlook Cameron’s previous poor judgement over Brexit, austerity and a lobbying Scandal involving Greensill and the pocketing of $10mn dollars. Perhaps, after everything that Braverman has put Sunak through while in office, Cameron looks a cosy companion by comparison.

Rishi Sunak can’t find a single Conservative MP good enough to fill the Foreign Secretary role, and has to resort to bringing back David Cameron, who left our country in a mess and who is still under suspicion for a lobbying scandal. https://t.co/4P7DHOXSws

— Tim Farron (@timfarron) November 13, 2023

Spoilt for choice, not!

When the answer to any question is David Cameron, then you know the country is in deep trouble. Bringing back the man largely responsible for the beginning – if not the end – of the destruction of the Tory party, is bad enough. Let alone the damage done to the country. Not that this would be of any concern to Sunak, who seems intent on doing all he can to make matters even worse.

What the decision does spell out clearly – to those in Westminster and in the country at large – is the complete lack of talent there is to choose from, either on the front or back benches.

Beth Rigby, "One former Cabinet Minister messaged me saying.. Cameron is superb, but also it's a message to the House of Commons that we don't have any MPs that the Prime Minister felt was good enough to be his Home or Foreign Secretary" pic.twitter.com/9oVyXnvrmg

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) November 13, 2023

According to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby, a former Cabinet minister said Cameron’s return was “a message to the House of Commons that we don’t have any MPs that the prime minister felt was good enough”. And these are the people making life-changing decisions and supposedly running our country.

Leader of the True and Fair Party, Gina Miller, said of Cameron’s appointment that it exposed “the vacuum of accountability at the heart of government”. Miller also pointed out that Cameron would “not even be able to answer questions in the House of Commons”. She called on Sunak to reset the rules to allow ministers from the House of Lords to be questioned in the Commons.

Green MP Caroline Lucas questioned whether we can now expect major foreign policy statements to be made in the unelected Lords, describing the prospect as an “unacceptable degrading of [a] key office of state”. She added, “appointing the reckless Brexit referendum instigator” as foreign secretary was a “democratic embarrassment”

Sense of entitlement

If Sunak believes Cameron to be the best person for the job, then he is seriously misjudging both the role of foreign secretary and the extent of Cameron’s talents. But then he’d be in good company with Cameron himself. According to LBC’s James O’Brien, author of How they broke Britain, Cameron not only “thinks he’s a genius” but thinks he’s “possessed of some unique set of skills”. His tenure at number 10, and his handling of Conservative Party divisions – Brexit in particular – would seem to prove otherwise.

Sharing his good fortune on X, formerly known as Twitter, Cameron identified a “daunting set of international challenges” that the country faces, “at this time of global change”. He said that while he “may have disagreed with some individual decisions” made by the PM, Sunak was a “strong and capable Prime Minister”. Clearly Cameron’s judgement has not improved any over his seven-year semi-retirement. Nor his sense of entitlement.

Cameron may not be expecting a full-blooded welcome back, but I wouldn’t put it past him. Whether the country has forgiven or forgotten his misdeeds – gambling away our futures for the sake of his party, ruining our trading relationship with our European neighbours, or walking away from the mess he created – remains to be seen.

One saving grace is that, if all goes as expected, Cameron’s role will be short-lived. His likely replacement, shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, put it best. Cameron “was a disastrous PM” and this is “a last gasp act of desperation from a government devoid of talent and ideas”.

What a shame we won’t get to see Cameron vs Lammy at the despatch boxes. But let’s be grateful for small mercies. Not seeing Cameron back in the Commons is definitely preferable to the alternative.

On Thursday 9 November, The Times published an article by the home secretary entitled, ‘Suella Braverman brands Met police biased over pro-Palestinian protest’. The much-criticised article came after days of media speculation regarding a planned march in London this weekend.

Initially, there were concerns that the march would interfere with the Remembrance Day service at the Cenotaph on Sunday. But it soon became clear, to any with their eyes and their hearts open, that the two events were on different days and in different parts of London, so one was unlikely to interfere with the other. The article seems to have been in direct response to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s comments a day earlier that there were insufficient grounds to ban this weekend’s march.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman repeats her assertion that pro-Palestinian protestors are “hate marchers” and accuses police of showing “favouritism”.

Two questions:
1. Did PM sanction this?
2. Can he tolerate a rival leadership campaign in plain sight?https://t.co/BkMiCgouzv

— Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) November 8, 2023

In her article, Braverman asks the question, “are some public displays so offensive that they deserve to be banned?” Clearly, she believes the answer to be yes, and that doesn’t apply just to marches. In fact, the list of things that the home secretary finds offensive is a long one, including, not least, the homeless and asylum seekers. What’s worse is she claims to speak on behalf of the “compassionate” British public.

According to the home secretary, the pro-Palestinian movement “has mobilised tens of thousands of angry demonstrators and marched them through London every weekend”. She refuted the claim that the marches were a “cry for help for Gaza” and even accused the march group’s organisers of having links to terrorist organisations, including Hamas. She again used the term “hate marchers”, adding that she did not “resile” from the term

Braverman: police ‘playing favourites’

Braverman suggested these events were problematic, not because of the “violence around the fringes” but because of “the highly offensive content of chants, posters and stickers”. She believes “there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protestors”, with the police favouring the left. A claim that Mr. Stop Brexit, Steve Bray, would no doubt dispute most vigorously. She suggested that aggressive right-wing protestors are met with a “stern response” from the police, while their left-wing counterparts are “largely ignored” when displaying the same behaviour. Senior former and serving officers agreed with her that there was a “double standard”, she claimed, though not enough for any of them to have been quoted directly, it would seem.

Suella Braverman is "deliberately undermining respect for the police", shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper tells the Commons

She says the home secretary's comments are "irresponsible and dangerous"https://t.co/Xh2HtCujz6 pic.twitter.com/xdc65tuEyI

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 9, 2023

Strong criticism from Labour

Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, didn’t mince her words. She accused the home secretary of “attacking police impartiality” and “deliberately undermining respect for the police”. Braverman was “deliberately inflaming community tensions in the most dangerous of ways”, and was attacking the police at a time when she should be supporting them.

Cooper described Braverman’s comments as “highly irresponsible and dangerous”, and said that many former police chiefs were lining up to condemn her. She asked if the government “still believe in the operational independence of the police” and questioned whether the prime minister had endorsed the article. If he had done so, or was too weak to sack Braverman, then he had “given up”, and both the prime minister and the home secretary should go.

Chris Bryant described Suella Braverman as “a danger”, adding that her article “imperils good policing” and “inflames an already difficult situation”. He pointed out that only two Conservative MPs spoke in the House of Commons in defence of the home secretary, and only a handful were in attendance. He said not only was there no place for hate on our streets, but there was no place for hate in the Home Office either. The home secretary was trying to “command the police” and was “inciting hatred”.

Shadow Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, called the home secretary “out of control”, “utterly irresponsible” and “unhinged”. Cooper also critici

Chris Bryant; The fact that only 2 Tory MPs turned up to defend Suella Braverman… shows she's already lost the support of the house.. there's no place for hate in the HO.. she's trying to command the police & that completely breaches.. the operational independence of the police pic.twitter.com/EAalO7vDMf

— Haggis_UK 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@Haggis_UK) November 9, 2023

What did Downing Street know?

After much speculation on social media, regarding whether the prime minister had endorsed, or even seen, the Times article ahead of publication, Number 10 were forced to issue a statement. Downing Street had not signed off on the content, despite claims from Braverman’s aides to the contrary. Policing Minister, Chris Philps, when asked if Downing Street had approved the article said, “I’m afraid I don’t have any visibility on that at all”. No change there, then.

In fact, Number 10 had reviewed the content – even suggesting “major changes” – but it would appear those suggestions were ignored. The Downing Street response was then quickly followed by suggestions that Braverman was perhaps – not for the first time – in breach of the ministerial code. A Number 10 spokesperson confirmed that “the content was not agreed” and that the matter was being looked into. The ministerial code clearly states that the policy content and timing of all major press releases, interviews and appearances should be cleared by Number 10 “to ensure the effective coordination of cabinet business”.

Sky News confirms Downing Street did not fully sign off the Home Secretary's article in the Times today. It's understood No10 were sent it and suggested changes that were not then carried out, via @SamCoatesSky

— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) November 9, 2023

No doubt there will be calls for Braverman’s resignation from the Home Office. Again. Even Sunak’s misguided predecessor had the temerity to fire the home secretary during her short reign in Number 10. Of course, it is possible, as many – including Cooper – have suggested, that this is exactly what Braverman wants, so she can openly campaign to be the next leader of the Conservatives/the next prime minister. Though its hard to see how that might look any different from what she’s doing right now.

The home secretary closed her article with, “the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder”. Perhaps, in the interests of free speech, democracy and tolerance, the police might like to start with the home secretary herself. Surely Braverman has done more to incite hatred, violence and division that any protestor on the streets of London.