When Rishi Sunak appeared before the Covid inquiry yesterday morning, there was ample reason to think this would be a blockbuster moment for his premiership. The prime minister – who served as chancellor during the pandemic – is accused of prioritising the economy over saving lives, to the point that Boris Johnson labelled his Treasury the “pro-death squad”. He has faced criticism from the scientific community over his “eat out to help out” scheme, and that’s before we even get to his disappearing WhatsApp messages – with none remaining from the pandemic period.
So, it says something about the prime minister’s current predicament that his Covid evidence is probably one of his lesser problems when it comes to the week ahead. Sunak – who is often most comfortable when dealing in policy details – sat calmly throughout the session, apologising to those affected by the pandemic and defending Johnson. “In a way this is Rishi’s happy place,” says a colleague – of the forum, which allowed him to focus in an orderly way on facts and detail.
It also helped matters that others have been more in the frame so far when it comes to ministers behaving badly. While Johnson has received heavy criticism, it is the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, who has far attracted the most ire from the sessions. What’s more, when it comes to the Conservative party, Sunak’s lockdown stance is one area where the right of the Tory party has warm words for him. As a lockdown hawk, challenging Sage and at times Johnson on the need for further restrictions and lockdowns, Sunak was in tune with many Tory backbenchers at the time.
But the bigger reason it wasn’t so bad is that the Covid inquiry is nowhere near the top of his list of problems. With his Rwanda policy heading to a crunch Commons vote today, the prime minister finds himself boxed in with few good options. There are already parallels being drawn with the Brexit era, when Theresa May found herself pulled and pushed around by various Tory factions with irreconcilable differences.
When No 10 devised the illegal migration bill at the beginning of the year, the idea was that this was a policy that would allow the Tories to take the fight to Labour, the House of Lords and so-called “lefty lawyers”. Sunak could work on stopping the boats (one of his five priorities) while showing the opposition to be uncommitted to the cause of being tough on illegal migration. Even if he failed, the Tories could blame these establishment forces. It was a win-win.
Only it hasn’t turned out like that. While the illegal migration bill has become law, the supreme court ruling that the Rwanda bill is unlawful has meant that Sunak has had to come up with a plan B. Unveiled this week, he plans to use the “safety of Rwanda” bill to declare that Rwanda is a safe country and that some international laws will have no effect.
Unfortunately for Sunak, his attempt to find a policy that will suit all sides has so far appeared to fail in satisfying either the left or the right of the party. The One Nation MPs, who were due to meet last night to discuss options, worry the bill goes too far when it comes to potential breaches of international law. Meanwhile, the right of the party is not convinced by Sunak’s claims that there is only an inch between his bill and their proposed plan to include “notwithstanding clauses”, which would allow ministers to ignore the European convention on human rights (ECHR). The European Research Group chief, Mark Francois, has urged Sunak to scrap the bill and start again. This group has been encouraged by Robert Jenrick quitting as immigration minister in protest. There is relief in government that so far, no one has followed. “Contagion was halted – for now at least,” says one aide.
The last time a government bill was defeated at a similar stage was in 1986 on Sunday trading. For Sunak’s bill to fail, 29 MPs need to vote against it – the same number that voted against the Windsor framework. But senior Tories believe the bigger danger is so many abstentions that it would fail to pass. Unlike with the Windsor framework, Labour will not back the bill. “There is a danger we abstain our way to defeat,” says a government adviser.
“I think it will go right to the wire,” says a senior Tory. The prime minister is expected to meet potential rebels today as he tries to stave off a Commons defeat. While No 10 has been clear the prime minister does not want to make the vote a confidence issue, it may not be up to him. “If he loses at second reading, it would be a devastating blow to the prime minister’s authority – colleagues would start the letters,” says one Tory MP.
At that point, Sunak’s authority would be badly damaged and he would be out of many options on the boats. When Sunak first decided to include “stop the boats” in his five pledges, there were ministers who questioned the wisdom. Why promise something so hard to achieve? “If you set an objective to stop the boats when that is clearly impossible, you are bound to get found out eventually,” says one.
Were Sunak to take Francois’s advice and come up with a new bill that went further in disapplying the ECHR and breaching international law, the Rwandan government could refuse to play ball. Even if it stuck with it, it is hard to see the One Nation Tories backing it in the Commons – they have enough reservations about the current one. “His position would be precarious,” says one Conservative party insider. “The One Nation group would not accept any more changes. He would become the new Theresa May.”
But excited talk that the Tories could be about to change leader yet again is somewhat premature. Were Sunak to lose the vote and eventually fall into no-confidence territory (for now the Christmas break ought to act as a firebreak), he should win the vote comfortably. But at that point he would be viewed by his party and the public as weakened and on borrowed time. “The prime minister always wins,” says one MP. “But it would land a serious blow on him.” Talk of an early election would grow louder.
There is no obvious successor – and for now at least, most MPs view changing leader this close to an election year as an act of gross self-harm. “A lot of my colleagues don’t realise what is at stake,” says one MP who is concerned the party is on the brink of unleashing chaos. “It’s a domino effect – they are thinking about the first domino if they do this but not where it leads.” If the legislation were to fail, Sunak would find himself in a weakened position – with no clear next step. The only certain outcome is that the Tory party would look increasingly unruly and ungovernable to the general public.
Katy Balls is the Spectator’s political editor
