Britain attempts to weaken European domestic violence deal

Leaked documents show the UK questioning definition of violence against women as a violation of huma

Today, International Women's Day, will see the Home Secretary, Theresa May, launch the government's strategy on tackling violence against women.

Yet documents leaked to the Times (£) show that Britain is trying to water down an international agreement to protect women against domestic and sexual violence.

The Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence has been two years in the making and was ready to be signed off by the 47 member states.

But, in an unprecedented step, Britain has intervened to object to the wording "violence against women is understood as a violation of human rights". Instead, it wants "violence against women constitutes a serious obstacle for women's enjoyment of human rights".

It also wants to alter the document so that it applies only in peacetime, and not during armed conflict – a surprising request, given the widespread international use of rape as a weapon of war.

José Mendes Bota, president of the Committee on Equal Opportunities at the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, said he was "very concerned about UK objections". Reportedly only Russia supports the idea of reopening negotiations.

This intervention seems utterly inexplicable. As Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, points out:

Britain was part of establishing an international consensus in the 1990s that violence against women should be treated as a human rights abuse. So why on earth is the Tory-led government ripping up this now?

A spokesman for the Home Office told the Times only that a "detailed action plan" would be announced later today, including "the action we are taking worldwide" for the first time. It remains to be seen whether today's revelation will be addressed.

Back in July, May said that her ambition was "nothing less than ending violence against women and girls". The government's claims to be strengthening women's rights at home sound distinctly hollow if it is covertly seeking to weaken them internationally.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496