Tory divisions on show as Rwanda crunch votes loom
- Published
- comments
Since the tail end of last week, those agitating for the government to beef up its Rwanda plan, as they see it, have been ratcheting up their public argument.
The former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick has been out and about on the airwaves.
So too was the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
Mrs Braverman also revealed letters she sent to Rishi Sunak last summer as home secretary, urging him to act more radically and more quickly - everything from dreaming up a new plan then, rather than waiting for possible defeat in the Supreme Court, to having migrant processing centres in the Falkland Islands, St Helena and Ascension Island.
In short, the contention of those broadly on the right of the Conservative Party is the government's plan amounts to tepid half measures that are likely doomed.
Enter next two deputy chairmen of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith.
They have both said they will vote for some of the proposed changes, or amendments, being suggested - which have attracted the support of more than 60 Conservative MPs, a sizeable chunk.
If you fancy a wholesome delve into the amendments, you can read them here, external.
Neither Mr Anderson nor Mr Clarke-Smith are in government - their roles are party ones - but their decision is an intentional act of indiscipline, of public mutiny - and so a challenge to the prime minister's authority.
Will they resign their roles or be sacked?
I wonder if Rishi Sunak might be inclined to draw a distinction between backing a change - which will be defeated in the Commons - and voting against the entire bill, in a vote expected on Wednesday night?
Let's see.
Meanwhile, those broadly on the left of the party privately regard their colleagues on the opposite wing as bonkers.
If you're of a generous disposition, all this points to the Conservative Party as a broad church on this issue.
The less gentle analysis is there is a colossal disagreement.
Not so much on the principle of the idea, but on the instincts and practicalities underpinning making it work.
The government is attempting to find a path through this.
A Number 10 source said: "Before Christmas the prime minister was clear that we would consider any amendments that had a respectable legal argument underpinning it. This is critical to ensure the scheme does not collapse and we can pass the bill through the house."
The source added: "It's incumbent anyone putting down amendments to demonstrate the legal basis for those amendments to ensure the legislation works and we can get flights off as soon as humanly possible."
They point to Rwanda's insistence that any plan is consistent with international law.
They are also pointing to lawyers such as Harry Gillow, external, who suggests changes might leave the plan entangled with the domestic courts.
But those wanting change counter they have sought legal opinion from John Larkin KC - and that has been set out in a letter from Robert Jenrick, sent privately to Downing Street.
As things stand, the government appears relatively confident they can get their plans through.
But they know how high the stakes are.
Last night, at a meeting of Conservative MPs, the party's elections strategist Issac Levido turned up.
"Let me be clear. Divided parties fail. It's time to get serious."
What could he possibly have been referring to?
We'll find out just how divided the party is in the next few days.