Why Cameron must remove Grayling

If Cameron wants to prove that he has changed more than just the Tories' poll ratings, Grayling must

It looks like the Tories have ridden out the row over Chris Grayling's extraordinary defence of the right of B&B owners to turn away gay couples. But the fear that the "Nasty Party" still lives and breathes has been implanted in the mind of every floating voter.

The Conservatives' attempt to defend their shadow home secretary, claiming that his words were merely a recollection of his previous opinion, does not hold water. Instead, the only credible option, as Chris Cook, a former Tory economics adviser, argues in the Financial Times, is for David Cameron to sack Grayling.

If the Tory leader is to dispel the suspicion that his modernisation of the party was a purely tactical manoeuvre, designed to reconstruct the election-winning machine of old, then there is no alternative.

Grayling's comments are unacceptable for two essential reasons. First, as both Johann Hari and Peter Tatchell point out, had Grayling supported discrimination against black or Jewish couples, Cameron would not have hesistated to sack him. To suggest that different standards apply to gay couples is merely to replicate his original sin.

Second, this man, who hopes and expects to become home secretary in a few weeks' time, in effect suggested that it was acceptable for people to break the law. It would now be risible for Cameron to allow him to take charge of the Home Office.

In fact, it is now likely that Grayling will be disposed of quietly, or at least demoted, after the election. As I've pointed out before, his serial gaffes (that comparison of Britain with The Wire, his unwitting attack on General Richard Dannatt's appointment, the manipulation of crime statistics) made him a vulnerable figure long ago.

Still, if Cameron wants to prove that he has changed more than his party's poll ratings, Grayling must go now.

Follow the New Statesman team on Facebook.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The government has quietly shut the door on vulnerable child refugees

The government has tried to halt the Dubs Amendment, a scheme designed to save thousands of vulnerable child refugees.  

The "Dubs Amendment" to the Immigration Bill of last year, in which the government begrudgingly promised to accept 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees from other countries in Europe, was halted this month after only 350 children had been admitted.

It has since become absolutely clear that the government is wriggling out of its obligation to accept child refugees, shutting the door on the most vulnerable. 

The amendment was named after my Labour colleague in the House of Lords. Alfred Dubs, who grew up in Britain and was saved from the hands of the German Nazi regime by Nicholas Winton, who rescued 669 children virtually single-handedly from Czechoslovakia.

The decision – announced at a time when the media was mainly concentrating on Brexit - has since been the source of much outcry both within Parliament and beyond. People across Britain are clear that the government must end these efforts to prevent refugees arriving here, and this is not who we as a society are.

Labour simply cannot accept the government’s decision, which seems to breach the spirit of the law passed with cross-party support. I have challenged Home Secretary Amber Rudd on the issue. 

The government's actions have also been criticised by Yvette Cooper, who heads Labour’s refugee task force and the Home Affairs select committee, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who called it “a clear dereliction of the UK’s moral and global duty”. 

Then at the recent Bafta awards, a number of those in attendance including the actor Viggo Mortensen, also wore lapel badges reading “Dubs now”.

And we have seen more than 200 high-profile public figures including Ralph Fiennes, Keira Knightley, Sir Mark Rylance, Gary Lineker, Michael Morpurgo and the band Coldplay write to Theresa May calling on her government not to close the scheme, decrying the decision as “truly shameful” and adding that “the country we know and love is better than this". 

As the letter states, it is embarrassing, that this government cannot match even Winton’s total. As his own daughter put it in her letter to the Prime Minister, “I know we can’t take in every unaccompanied child in Europe, but I suppose there was a sense when the government accepted the Dubs Amendment that they would make a bigger contribution than they have.”

We need to be clear that where safe and legal routes are blocked for these children, they are left with a terrible choice between train tracks on the one hand, and people traffickers on the other. These children have been identified as the most vulnerable in the world, including girls without parents, who are susceptible to sex traffickers.

The government’s decision is particularly disappointing in that we know that many local authorities across Britain, which assume responsibility for the children once they are admitted to the country, are willing to accept more refugees.

Yet the public outcry shows we can still force a change.

Interestingly, former Conservative minister Nicky Morgan has argued that: “Britain has always been a global, outward-facing country as well as being compassionate to those who need our help most. The Conservative party now needs to demonstrate that combination in our approach to issues such as the Dubs children.”

Let’s keep the pressure up on this vital issue. The internationally agreed principles and the Dubs Amendment were never conceived as a “one-off” - they should continue to commit to meeting their international treaty obligations and our own laws.

And on our part, Labour commits to meeting the obligations of the Dubs Amendment. We will restore the scheme and accept some of the most vulnerable children in the world.

 

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and shadow home secretary. She was previously shadow secretary for health.