TWO years of chaos and incompetence – and still no certainty!
The Withdrawal Agreement was supposed to be concluded this time last year and we had been told that by now there would be clarity on the future Free Trade Agreement between ourselves and the EU.
Instead we have a putative agreement, which most commentators think will not secure enough votes in Parliament, and a scant seven pages of the future policy outline.
It would be tempting to think that after losing two Brexit secretaries in a row, with five front bench ministers resigning and with the No Deal wing of her party trying to secure enough letters to mount a leadership challenge, that things for the prime minister could scarcely get much worse. But that would be to reckon without the five No Deal ministers who actually stayed in her cabinet to try and steer the agreement onto the rocks.
So if the arithmetic does not work out for the prime minister and her agreement cannot secure a majority in the House of Commons, what are the realistic options?
First she can go back to the EU and renegotiate. Of course European leaders are adamant that “This is it!” But as Mandy Rice Davis once infamously remarked: “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” If we look back, we see that when France and the Netherlands refused to accept the Lisbon Treaty the Commission simply had to knuckle down to the renegotiations.
The prime minister’s detractors on the right want her to pull out of any customs agreement and not accept a backstop, whilst in the Labour Party we believe that the renegotiation should be to secure a permanent customs union in which the UK would have a say in any future trade agreement with third countries.
So what happens if the prime minister refuses to go back and renegotiate? She could of course call a general election. But she has form in this area! And the last time she did so, she lost even her slim parliamentary majority. I have found it interesting to hear so many cabinet ministers try to persuade their colleagues to support May’s deal telling them: “If you don’t, you are risking Jeremy Corbyn getting into 10 Downing Street”. I am glad to see that they understand the attractiveness of Labour’s policies to the UK electorate. I’m just not sure it is a clever political strategy for them to proclaim it so loudly!
I have always believed that a prime minister is called to form a government on the basis that he or she can command a majority in the House of Commons. If they can no longer do that, then they should move aside in the country’s interest and see if someone else can. It would appear though that this prime minister is determined to cling on even if she cannot secure a majority to pass the most important legislation our parliament has considered in 50 years.
Her rhetoric seems to be that she will insist it is “Either her deal or No Deal”. This is the false choice she wishes to impose upon MPs. It used to be that she said: “No Deal is better than a Bad Deal”. But lately she has changed her tune. Now she is threatening us with No Deal and saying “Any deal is better than No Deal”. No self-respecting MP would vote for something they know to be wrong for the country just because the prime minister threatens to do something worse if we don’t support her. That is not rational politics, it is blackmail. The Labour Party will not be complicit in it. Beyond that, we have not ruled anything out, including a people’s vote.
Labour has proposed a sensible middle way that respects the referendum result and could secure a majority in the House of Commons. After all, it was Dominic Greive and other conservative MPs who tabled amendments in favour of a permanent customs union. The prime minister should accept it and deliver certainty to business and security to Northern Ireland.
It is time to move on and deal with the real day-to-day problems of austerity, our health service, violent crime and our underfunded schools. That is what a Labour government would focus on doing.
August is dubbed 'the silly season’ as the media must fill the airwaves with little going on. But there was a more sinister undertone to how that vacation news vacuum got filled this year. The recurring story of the political summer was the populist right’s confidence in setting the agenda and the anxiety of opponents about how to respond.
Tensions were simmering over asylum. Yet frequent predictions of mass unrest failed to materialise. The patchwork of local protests and counter-protests had a strikingly different geography to last summer. The sporadic efforts of disorder came in the affluent southern suburbs of Epping and Hillingdon, Canary Wharf and Cheshunt with no disorder and few large protests in the thirty towns that saw riots last August. Prosecutions, removing local ringleaders, deter. Local cohesion has been a higher priority where violence broke out than everywhere else. Hotel use for asylum has halved - and is more common in the south. The Home Office went to court to keep asylum seekers in Epping’s Bell Hotel, for now, yet stresses its goal to stop using hotels by 2029. The Refugee Council’s pragmatic suggestion of giving time-limited leave to remain to asylum seekers from the five most dangerous countries could halve the need for hotels within months.
The drumbeat from hyping up the asylum protests helped those trying to shift the political argument to the right. Reform leader Nigel Farage set out his plans on asylum: to abolish it entirely. Any asylum seekers who did arrive would be sent somewhere, anywhere else - perhaps to a faraway island, or back to the regimes they had fled. Farage’s opponents offered the most muted criticism. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch declared he had copied the Conservatives’ homework. The government’s main point was that Farage had not shown how it would all work in practice. The Taliban said they would be delighted for Farage to deliver those who had fled their persecution back into their clutches - and would hardly need a cash bribe, too. Opinion polls showing broad public revulsion at this idea might yet encourage opponents to challenge the principles, not just the practicalities, of Reform’s plans.
A year ago, Farage said he would not pitch ‘mass deportation’ plans that were impossible to deliver. Doing exactly that, his former MP Rupert Lowe declared this a victory for the online right - but said he would keep pushing for a ‘proper deportations’ plan to remove many millions of legal migrants too. An increasingly radicalised Elon Musk critiqued Farage’s plans as “weak sauce”, promoting Tommy Robinson’s far right street protests and even the furthest right factions who decry Robinson for not advocating the forced deportation of British-born minorities too. Even as Musk shows no limits to which racists he will personally promote, the government stays mute on an epidemic of online racism. It is a strange world where the expectations we place on every primary and secondary school on British values, tolerance, respect and the rule of law go out of the window when the world’s richest man promotes neo-Nazis. If the government cannot find a voice to challenge racism, it can expect no credibility when it talks about community cohesion from ethnic minority Britons - nor, I would hope, from many of our fellow citizens too.
It was a summer when flags could be symbols of both pride and prejudice. We wore red and white face-paint in the Katwala household to cheer England’s Lionesses to winning the women’s Euros. The St George’s bunting in our High Street in Dartford has a welcoming intent, but the red paint crosses daubed messily on our street sign send a more intimidating message. An important British ethnic minority response - from the Windrush onwards - to those questioning our status as British has been that the racists should try to learn a little bit more of the history of our country. We should be loath to let our national flags be claimed as symbols of exclusion, by those of all ethnicities and faiths doing more to say and show what they can mean when we fly them together.
That depends on preventing the populist right setting the agenda by default. The irony of Farage being dubbed a populist is that he is often on the unpopular side of most major issues - slashing public spending, scrapping human rights, ditching closer UK-EU post-Brexit links, or not bothering about climate change. Yet Farage often speaks much more confidently for what a quarter of the public think than those who could try to mobilise the anti-populist majority. So the stakes are high for prime minister Sir Keir Starmer this autumn. If Starmer does not find a stronger response, populism may turn out to be more than a passing storm, exposing a lack of strategy, leadership, and ethics that could prove fatal for this government.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
NAGA MUNCHETTY should feel secretly pleased that after Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, she has become the number one hate figure in the media, especially for white women feature writers who earn less than her £360,000.
Naga apparently gets cross with junior staff who don’t do her toast right – it apparently has to be burnt the way she likes it.
Naga, a presenter on BBC Breakfast, is accused, among other things, of bullying staff. If her critics have their way, she will soon be toast herself.
Last week, following the resignation of Rushanara Ali as a junior housing minister, I drew attention to other Asian women politicians – among them Tulip Siddiq, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Baroness Pola Uddin and Rupa Huq – who have got into trouble for one reason or another.
Is something similar happening in the media?
Samira Ahmed
Apart from Naga, I can think of other Asian women journalists in television or radio who have not seen eye to eye with the employers.
I will come to the others – Mishal Husain, Sangita Myska, Ritula Shah and Lisa Aziz – but Naga first.
Annabel Denham, columnist and deputy comment editor in the Daily Telegraph, had a piece, “It’s not easy to defend Naga Munchetty, but workplace wokery is out of control”, which said: “This generously paid cultural arbiter once called Boris Johnson a ‘useless tosser’, liked disparaging tweets about Robert Jenrick and bizarrely scolded Kemi Badenoch for failing to watch that tendentious Adolescence series – prompting the Tory leader to reply, rather neatly: ‘In the same way that I don’t need to watch Casualty to know what’s going on in the NHS, I don’t need to watch a Netflix drama to understand what’s going on.’
” Her colleague, Liam Kelly, wrote: “Her on-air behaviour has also occasionally caused controversy. She was censured in 2019 for criticising Donald Trump for telling a group of non-white Democrat congresswomen to ‘go back’ to their ‘crime-infested’ countries. ‘Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism,’ she said live on BBC Breakfast, before later adding that she was ‘absolutely furious’ about the US president’s comments.
“The Corporation partially upheld a complaint that her remarks had breached editorial guidelines before Tony Hall, then the directorgeneral, intervened to reverse that decision. Some two years later, Munchetty apologised after liking ‘offensive’ tweets that disparaged Robert Jenrick, then the housing secretary, for being interviewed on Breakfast with a large Union Flag and a portrait of the late Queen behind him.”
Pointing out she tied for 11th place on the BBC’s high pay list, Kelly added: “It is a far cry from her childhood growing up in Streatham, south London. Her Indian mother, Muthu, and Mauritian father, David, moved to Britain in the 1970s and worked as nurses while they brought up Munchetty and her younger sister, Mimi.”
Mishal Husain left the BBC earlier this year for Bloomberg TV after 11 years as a presenter on Radio 4’s flagship Today programme.This was after Andrew Marr was replaced by Laura Kuenssberg as presenter of the Sunday morning politics slot.
Sangita Myska
Last year, LBC removed Sangita Myska as a presenter after she was a little too robust in questioning the Israeli government spokesman, Avi Hyman.
In 2000, Samira Ahmed took the BBC to an employment tribunal, after protesting she was paid £440 for Newswatch, which is shown on the BBC News Channel and BBC Breakfast. But Jeremy Vine was getting £3,000 per episode for the similar BBC One’s Points of View. The tribunal agreed with Samira: “The difference in pay in this case is striking. Jeremy Vine was paid more than six times what the claimant was paid for doing the same work as her.”
In 2023, Ritula Shah left the BBC after 35 years, having been lead presenter of the World Tonight on Radio 4 since 2013. She said she was upset to discover she was being paid tens of thousands of pounds fewer than her male colleagues. She now has a late night slot on Classic FM, but misses the urgency of current affairs: “It’s a really painful episode in my life and I still can’t quite get over it, even though it’s now behind me.”
Liza Aziz, once the glamour girl among TV presenters, joined ITV in 2006 after 10 years with Sky News. But after four years she fell out with ITV West in Bristol after her employers accused her of financial irregularities and she considered taking legal action for race, sex and age discrimination. Lisa left after a settlement was reached.
Each case is different, and I am not taking sides. But Asian women with high profile jobs in the media have to be extra careful about not giving offence. Quite often in order to fit in, they have to buy a bottle of wine to share with their male white colleagues after work. In the workplace culture, they have to go with the flow.
Ritula Shah
Sheela Banerjee, author of What’s in a Name? Friendship, Identity and History in Modern Multicultural Britain, told Eastern Eye a couple years ago when her book came out: “I gave up TV. As a state school educated, nonOxbridge, brown woman, it is hard. There are not that many of us. If you were trying to make documentaries, it was virtually impossible. We’d get shunted off into light entertainment and stuff like that. Which is fine. But that’s not what I wanted to do. And also, it’s just rife with discrimination. That’s the problem. And it’s really stressful. It’s still the same.”
She quoted some diversity figures from television. “The number of black, Asian and minority ethnic directors in factual television in 2018 – not that long ago – was like three per cent. I mean it’s absurd. And most of the productions are in London or Manchester, hugely diverse cities. And most programmes are now made by independent production companies, even for the BBC. If you go on to their websites and then ‘meet the team’ pages, there’s a sea of Hannahs and Lucys and Elsas and Charlottes. It makes me so angry. There are lots of industries that are exactly the same – for example, academia and publishing. But television is still really important because lots of people watch it and get their information from it.”
HERE’S a list of Asian women politicians who have got into trouble in recent years for one reason or another – Rushanara Ali, Tulip Siddiq, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Baroness Pola Uddin and Rupa Huq.
Is it that they are held to higher standards than others? Or do some allow their greed to get the better of themselves, especially when it comes to expenses?
If there is a lesson, it is that Asian women going into politics have to be like Caesar’s wife. The Latin version is sometimes loosely quoted as Uxorem Caesaris tam suspicione quam crimine carere oportet. The phrase originates from an incident involving Julius Caesar and his wife, Pompeia. When allegations of an affair arose, even though Caesar claimed to know nothing of any wrongdoing, he divorced Pompeia, stating, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.” The idiom is used to highlight that those in positions of public trust must be beyond reproach and that their actions, and even the perception of their actions, can have significant consequences.
Rushanara Ali
Rushanara Ali resigned last Thursday (7) as parliamentary under-secretary of state for homelessness and rough sleeping after being “accused of hypocrisy over the way she handled rent increases on a house she owns in east London”. Laura Jackson, one of her former tenants, said she and three others collectively paid £3,300 in rent. Weeks after she and her fellow tenants had left – apparently because the property was going to be sold – “the self-employed restaurant owner said she saw the house re-listed with a rent of around £4,000”.
Rushanara, born in Sylhet on March 14, 1975, and PPE graduate from St John’s College, Oxford, has been a Labour MP since 2010, first for Bethnal Green and Bow, and then, after boundary changes in 2024, for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
Suella Braverman
Her career is damaged as is that of Bangladeshiorigin Tulip Siddiq, who resigned on January 14, 2025, as economic secretary to the treasury. She was targeted by the regime in Dhaka after her aunt, Sheikh Hasina Wazed, the country’s prime minister, had to flee to India. Much of the mud thrown at Tulip is probably concocted. What was harder to understand was the way she either owned or rented various properties in London. She remains MP for Hampstead and Highgate where she was successor to the late Glenda Jackson, the double Oscar winning actress. The prime minister’s standards adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, said he had “not identified evidence of improprieties” but it was “regrettable” that Tulip had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of the ties to her aunt. It has to be said the new lot in Dhaka are not an improvement on Hasina.
Baroness Pola Uddin
Goan-origin Sue-Ellen Cassiana (“Suella”) Braverman (née Fernandes) has the distinction of twice having to quit as home secretary. She resigned as home secretary on October 19, 2022, from Liz Truss’s cabinet “following public claims that she had broken the ministerial code by sending a cabinet document using her personal email address. Six days later, she was reinstated as home secretary by Truss’s successor, Rishi Sunak. She was dismissed from her post by Sunak in the November 2023 British cabinet reshuffle.” She then sought vengeance by doing her best to bring down the Sunak government. She will probably join Reform if Nigel Farage promises her the job of home secretary should he win the next election.
Priti Patel resigned as international development secretary on November 8, 2017, amid controversy over her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials. She was ordered back from an official trip in Africa by Theresa May, then prime minister, and summoned to Downing Street over the row. In her resignation letter, Priti acknowledged her actions “fell below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated”. Priti, born in the UK of Gujarati parents who came from Uganda, has undergone reincarnation as shadow foreign secretary under Kemi Badenoch. One of the Israelis she met in 2017 happened to be Benjamin Netanyahu, now prime minister. Priti is also a strong supporter of Narendra Modi.
Priti Patel
Another Bangladeshi, Baroness Pola Uddin, was suspended in October 2010 following the findings of the parliamentary expenses committee. They found that from 2005 to 2010, Pola, then with Labour, named a flat in Kent as her main residence while living in a housing association property in Wapping. She returned to the Lords in May 2012 after repaying £125,349, the “largest amount of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal”.
In May 2023, Rupa Huq, Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton since 2015, was stripped of the party whip after disparaging Ghanaian-origin Kwasi Kwarteng, chancellor under Truss: “He’s superficially, he’s, a black man but again he’s got more in common... he went to Eton, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through top schools in the country. If you hear him on the Today programme you wouldn’t know he’s black.”
Rupa and her TV presenter young sister, Konnie – both went to Cambridge University – were born in Britain of parents who came from East Pakistan (Bangladesh after 1971) in 1962.Rupa had her whip restored after five months, apologised for her remarks and indicated she did penance by undertaking “anti-racism and bias training”.
Asian women are to be commended for having the courage to go into politics but they should realise people look up to them as role models. Views in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper.
Keep ReadingShow less
The Cross of Sacrifice and outline of the tennis court at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery in Kohima
AS THE King and prime minister lead the 80th anniversary commemorations of VJ Day on Friday (15), this may be the last poignant major wartime anniversary where the last few who fought that war can be present.
Everybody knows we won the second world war against Hitler. But how many could confidently explain the complex jigsaw across different theatres of the wider global conflict? The anniversary is a chance too for the rest of us to learn a little more about a history that most people wish they knew better.
Those three short months from May to August between VE Day and VJ Day in 1945 reshaped our modern world. The Potsdam conference rewrote the map of Europe. Britain’s voters dismissed Churchill with a Labour landslide. Atom bombs were dropped, killing 70,000 people instantly in Hiroshima. Historians still debate whether it was a terrible crime or a defensible choice to avoid a land invasion of Japan. Yet the second bomb on Nagasaki, killing 50,000 more, is harder to try to rationalise in utilitarian terms. The shadow of the mushroom clouds add to the solemnity of the VJ Day commemoration. Eight decades on, the focus is on commemorating service and mourning all who suffered from war and dictatorship.
The vast Commonwealth contribution to the war in the east will be one focus of the 80th anniversary commemorations. General Slim’s Fourteenth Army has been called the “forgotten army” which won a “forgotten war” in Burma. It was an enormous multi-national force. Old war movies of the Burma campaign rarely reflected that only a tenth of its soldiers were from Britain, with nine-tenths from India or Africa.
The Indian Army of the second world was the largest volunteer army in history, growing from 195,000 men in 1939 to 2.5 million by 1945, its fledgling air force expanding a hundred-fold from 285 men to 29,000.
The battle of Kohima in May and June 1944 was the turning point of the war in the East. It blocked the Japanese invasion of India from advancing to seize Dimapur, while creating the route into Burma. Kohima even won a surprise victory over D-Day as Britain’s greatest battle at a National Army Museum event a decade ago. The audience found historian Robert Lyman’s argument persuasive that “great things were at stake in a war with the toughest enemy any British army has had to fight”.
It sounds strange, to our modern ears, that Indian soldiers would volunteer for the army of the British imperial power. Yet, the British Indian army’s successful defence of Kohima illustrates why many Indian officers saw the Japanese regime as the more imminent existential threat than a faraway Hitler. So the Indian Army outnumbered – by a 50:1 ratio – the 43,000 rebels who heeded Subhas Chandas Bose’s effort to raise a rebel army for the Germans and Japanese. Indian soldiers won 22 of the 34 Victoria and George Crosses of the Burma campaign. Commonwealth service was honoured despite and alongside the Empire’s entrenched racial hierarchies. General Sir Claude Auchinleck, commander-in-chief of the Indian Army, said in 1945 that ‘every Indian officer worth his salt today is a nationalist’. Their crucial role in defeating Japan was one final proof that India was as ready for self-government as Canada or Australia.
And ,the plaque honouring those who fought in the Battle of Kohima
On the second anniversary of VJ Day, Jawaharlal Nehru was already declaring India’s independence. The speed with which the British finally quit India left veterans forming the new armies of India and Pakistan struggling to mitigate the bloody tragedy of Partition.
So this shared endeavour in defeating Japan is a crucial bridge in the arc of both British and Indian history, but rarely recognised in either country’s national narrative in the decades after 1945.
As the world wars slip beyond living memory, many anticipate that the meanings of 1945 will fade. Yet we should be ever more proactive – between now and the 2039-2045 centenary of the second world war – in ensuring everybody understands its foundational part in our national story.
It matters that the next generation understand that the armies that fought and won two world wars resemble the Britain of 2025 much more than that of 1945 or 1915 in their ethnic and faith demographics. The scale of the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim contribution to the Commonwealth effort, and joining the dots between wartime service and the post-war arrival of the Windrush are keys to understanding the making of modern Britain. British Future, Eastern Eye and the Royal British Legion will launch an exciting new project this autumn to honour and raise awareness of south Asian service in the world wars.
Let us never duck the controversies of the complex and contested history of empire. But understanding how it shaped the society that we are today should include recognising all of those who contributed to protecting the democratic freedoms that we share today.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
THE headline in the Daily Telegraph read: “Kemi Badenoch: I no longer identify as Nigerian.”
The Tory leader, Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, was born in Wimbledon on January 2, 1980. But her parents returned to Nigeria where she grew up until she was 16. She returned to the UK and is now married to Hamish Badenoch and the couple have two daughters and a son.
Speaking on the Rosebud podcast with Gyles Brandreth, she said: “I have not renewed my Nigerian passport, I think, not since the early 2000s. I don’t identify with it anymore, most of my life has been in the UK and I’ve just never felt the need to. I’m Nigerian through ancestry, by birth despite not being born there because of my parents, but by identity I’m not really. I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there, and I’m very interested in what happens there. But home is where my now family is, and my now family is my children, it’s my husband and my brother and his children, in-laws. The Conservative party is very much part of my family, my extended family, I call it.”
Her comments have been widely reported. I would have thought her identity is not unidimensional but a real potpourri – Nigerian (it’s hard not to be since she spent her formative years in Nigeria), British, wife, mother, the first black woman to be Tory party leader and would be prime minister.
It is important not to twist her words or misrepresent her, but she almost appears to be saying: “I am distancing myself from my Nigerian roots. Although I may look like a black woman, inside I am culturally white.”
The question to ask is: why is Kemi Badenoch saying what she is saying?
Is she a little confused and in need of a session with Raj Persaud? Is she to be applauded for asserting, “I’m black and British” (which she could have said but didn’t), or is she scared of Nigel Farage?
Not so long ago, Rishi Sunak said: “Of course I’m English, born here, brought up here, yeah, of course I’m English.”
But he was also happy to light Diwali diyas in Downing Street and visit Hindu temples and didn’t feel the need to say, “I no longer identify as Indian.”
Lord Swraj Paul has long used a mathematical impossibility: “I am 100 per cent British and I am 100 per cent Indian.”