As the Conservatives face a likely general election defeat following 14 years in power, some are already wondering who might be tasked with reversing the party's fortunes after polling day.

With Rishi Sunak's Tories lagging far behind Labour in the polls, more than 50 Conservative MPs have already said they will step down at the next election. But across the numerous remaining Tory factions, the battle for control of the party's future is stepping up. 

What did the commentators say?

In the public mind, the Sunak family are "already booked on a one-way first-class flight to California early next year," wrote Adam Boulton for Reaction. Opinion polling for the Conservatives is now "so dire" that being "only" 5% behind in some rural areas is being hailed as "good news" among the party faithful. 

In the event of a big election defeat, "big changes in the party are a certainty". And even if the Conservatives did miraculously manage to retain power, the in-fighting is unlikely to stop. "The Tories have developed such a taste for their own blood – five leaders in eight years – that the factional wars will wage on, win or lose," said Boulton.

The party's next leadership election will almost certainly take place after the general election, agreed Stephen Bush in the Financial Times. Those looking to run will need to be a plausible candidate to the Tory right, but also someone "who doesn't prompt people in the Conservative, middle and left of the party to make a face like you've just kicked their dog when you raise the idea of them as leader". 

Even the supporters of one slated contender, former home secretary Suella Braverman, privately concede that it may be a "tall order for her to overcome the depth and breadth of opposition to her among Conservative MPs", according to Bush.

Amid fears that the right will hijack the party after the election, Tory centrists are searching for a leader who can stop the party "going full Trump", said Politico. But these so-called "One Nation" liberal Conservatives lack "an obvious leader". 

Commons leader Penny Mordaunt is thought to be "good and well-liked", but "mad on the woke stuff" – a reference to her support of trans rights – a source told Politico. James Cleverly is said to be "the obvious unity candidate", but too gaffe-prone. Tom Tugendhat would want to throw his hat in the ring only if he "felt he had a really good shot". 

The party's "perceived drift to the right" means that Kemi Badenoch is also getting a second look by moderates, who say that next to Braverman – who suggested this week that the British way of life was under assault from "Islamists" and "extremists" – Badenoch now appears to be the more liberal choice. But with just seven years as an MP under her belt, one former minister reportedly likened her to a "young Beaujolais nouveau". 

What next?

A catastrophic election defeat would tilt the party to the populist right, an analysis by The Guardian found. Seat projections suggest that if there were a further 2% swing to Labour before the election, about 40% of remaining Tory MPs would come from the right of the party. So odds are that a post-Sunak contest would  "end up as a bitterly fought battle between the party's right and centre", said the paper.

One overlooked candidate who could prove an asset to the Tory right is Priti Patel, said former MP and justice secretary David Gauke in an article for The New Statesman. If the Conservatives are defeated in the next election, the solution will be "obvious" to this wing of the party: bring back Boris Johnson and bring in Nigel Farage. 

Patel would be by far the best candidate to deliver on this strategy, said Gauke. She stuck with Johnson until the end, and is on friendly terms with Farage. And after what is likely to be an "emphatic" election loss, a "breezy message that it would be possible to bring together the big beasts of populism might be just what the modern Tory party membership wants to hear". It could be as simple as "Vote Patel, get Patel, Johnson and Farage".

Rishi Sunak hoped a picture of party unity at the Conservatives' conference in Manchester would provide the platform to reset his premiership ahead of next year's general election.

Instead, the first few days of the annual gathering have revealed bitter infighting, with different tribes vying for influence and attention.

Membership of what are mainly unofficial groupings overlap, said The Guardian, and "divisions are often more Venn diagram than hard borders". 

The free-market ultras

It may surprise those not used to the idiosyncrasies of internal Tory politics that exactly a year on from her disastrous 49-day term as prime minister – when her radical tax-cutting programme spooked the markets and turbocharged interest rates – Liz Truss is back as the darling of the Conservative Party conference.

Leading the call against what she first described in office as the "anti-growth coalition", Truss is the standard-bearer for small state, low tax, supply-side reforms.

These ideas still have "significant currency across a swathe of the Conservative Party", said The Times, while several of her former ministers "retain enough of a profile to carry significant sway".

Presenting themselves as keepers of the Thatcherite flame, these free-market ultras include former business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, former home secretary Priti Patel, former housing minister Simon Clarke and Ranil Jayawardena, who leads the recently formed and increasingly influential Conservative Growth Group.

As Richard Vaughan and Hugo Gye wrote in i news in February, those backing Truss's revivalist mission leave Sunak "at risk of becoming sandwiched" between the two previous incumbents.

Northern Tories

With the Tories trailing Labour by double digits in opinion polls, this group of MPs from the North "are focused on policies that could appeal to Red Wall voters who switched their allegiance from Labour to give Boris Johnson his landslide victory at the general election four years ago", said The Independent.

Known as the Northern Research Group (NRG), they have lobbied the government for more tax responsibilities to be devolved from Westminster, the prioritisation of an east-west rail line linking Liverpool and Hull, and the creation of a "minister for the north".

Made up of prominent figures including former party chairman Jake Berry and current Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson, "the yearning for the party to look beyond England’s south-east finds an echo among Scottish Tories and others including the north-east mayor Ben Houchen", said The Guardian.

This group will be crucial to how Sunak's impending decision to scrap HS2 between Birmingham and Manchester – and the government's wider levelling up agenda – will go down with voters in the North. Channel 4 News reported that "they’d accept a compromise over connections to London as long as East-West links connecting Northern cities get built".

Culture warriors

Promoting an anti-woke, anti-immigration message, this group of right-wing pro-Brexit MPs could make the running at the next Tory leadership contest. Champions of what they term "national conservatism", leading lights include Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch.

While there is an overlap with the social conservatism of Northern Tories, theirs is a "more pessimistic, authoritarian, explicitly Christian and anti-woke world-view, closer in spirit to some of the national populist movements in Europe than to neoliberalism", said The New Statesman.

Among the most vocal are Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates, who lead the so-called New Conservatives group of MPs from the 2017 and 2019 intake. It has called for a ban on "gender ideology" being taught in schools, curbs on legal migration and the withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This tribe may be on "the fanatic fringe", wrote Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in i news, but to an extent it has already been "absorbed into the mainstream of Conservative politics", said The Guardian, "with even Sunak, once mistakenly viewed as a largely ideology-free technocrat, expected to lean increasingly into culture war issues as the election approaches".

'One Nation' Tories

Probably the largest group, centrist 'One Nation' Tories are also the least formalised. They "have struggled for influence under recent prime ministers" and "currently lack a standard-bearer for the internal debates convulsing the party", reported The Times.

Made up of MPs who present themselves as serious politicians for serious times, they boast the likes of the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, security minister Tom Tugendhat, Tobias Ellwood and Damian Green among their number.

Less vocal than other Tory factions, the group appears to be "biding their time for what could be a bare-knuckle fight against the culture warriors and Truss's rump group of ultra free-market devotees for the future direction of the party", The Guardian concluded.

The policing watchdog has placed the Metropolitan Police under special measures after a force-wide inspection raised “substantial and persistent concerns”.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services said in a statement that “we are now monitoring” the London force “to help it make improvements”.

The measures “will place extra scrutiny on the Met”, which is “already suffering a leadership vacuum and fighting to improve public trust”, said The Times.

What triggered the move?

The decision followed the uncovering of a “litany” of failings by Scotland Yard in “fighting crime and serving victims”, The Guardian’s police and crime correspondent Vikram Dodd reported. The watchdog pointed to misconduct scandals, a failure to stamp out corruption, and “barely adequate standard of crime-recording accuracy”, with an estimated 69,000 crimes going unrecorded each year.

Matt Parr, who led the recent inspection, said other concerns included a lack of victim engagement, a vast backlog of online child abuse referrals, and a “lack of detailed understanding” of capability across all policing.

The Met was also found to be failing to meet national standards, and to be making errors on stop and search. The grounds for a quarter of stops were not recorded, “thus thwarting scrutiny of whether they were justifiable”, said Dodd.

What are special measures?

Inspectors usually conduct a “root-and-branch review of forces every few years”, according to The Times. But the watchdog can escalate a force into the “engage” stage, also known as special measures, on the basis of “significant or enduring concerns” about their ability to address underperformance.

For the Met, that means increased scrutiny and a requirement for the force’s leadership to produce an improvement plan. The Met will also have to report regularly to inspectors, the Home Office and other organisations.

And “later on”, a policing performance oversight group will scrutinise the changes made by the Met to “address its problems”, said��BBC home affairs researcher Lucy Gilder.

Only three other of the total 43 forces in England and Wales are in special measures. Greater Manchester, Cleveland and Gloucestershire are facing the same restrictions.

What next for the Met?

The watchdog’s criticisms follow a series of scandals involving the force. Inspection chief Parr said that the abduction, rape and murder last year of Sarah Everard by a serving officer had also had a “chilling effect on public trust and confidence”.

Former Met commissioner Dame Cressida Dick was forced out of the role earlier this year after losing the confidence of London Mayor Sadiq Khan as well.

Home Secretary Priti Patel is seeking a replacement for Dick, with the shortlist reduced to two Met insiders: Mark Rowley, a former head of counterterrorism, and Nick Ephgrave, currently part of the force’s top leadership.

A source told The Telegraph that the special measures move could prove “helpful for the new commissioner”, as “a launchpad to reform”.

Backing the special measures move, Patel said she expected “the Met and the London mayor to take immediate action to begin addressing” the issues raised.

Khan said that he would work closely with the watchdog and that the extra scrutiny was a “crucial first step” in reforming the force.

In a statement, the Met acknowledged the “cumulative impact of events and problems” facing the force. “We understand the impact this has had on communities and share their disappointment,” the statement continued.

“We are determined to be a police service Londoners can be proud of. We are talking to the inspectorate about next steps.”

The UK government is under growing pressure to grant more visas for Ukrainian refugees after it emerged that only 300 had been issued as of yesterday.

The Home Office said a total of 17,700 visa applications have been started under the government’s Ukraine Family Scheme, which launched on 4 March. Three days later, 8,900 applications had been submitted, while 4,300 applicants had made appointments to submit their biometric details.

Of these, 640 applications had been confirmed, and 300 visas issued. More than two million people have fled the war in Ukraine, with the majority seeking safety in neighbouring Poland, which has taken in 1.2 million refugees, according to the United Nations.

Technical difficulties and delays

The Guardian reported that Ukrainians attempting to flee to safety in the UK have described their “intense frustration and anger at the bureaucratic hurdles and technical difficulties” in trying to get a visa under the new scheme.

Applicants told the paper they have been left in unfamiliar countries “wrestling with the complex application process” and hindered further by “difficulties uploading crucial documents or the application website was crashing”. Others have complained that there are “no appointment slots available to finalise their applications” or found themselves being asked to “post supporting documents to an office in Wandsworth”.

And Ukrainian refugees arriving in Calais have faced uncertainty and delays, with almost 600 refugees stuck in the French port town, reported the BBC. Many said they have been turned away at the border for “for lack of paperwork”. The French authorities told the broadcaster that “almost 300 people have been turned away while trying to cross to the UK”.

Some refugees told the BBC that they had been told to go to Paris to apply for the visa, where they have “faced a wait of more than a week” for an appointment.

On Monday, Home Secretary Priti Patel denied that refugees were being turned back in the French port town, and said her department was in the process of setting up an application centre. “We have staff in Calais, we have support on the ground. It is wrong to say we’re just turning people back, we’re absolutely not, we’re supporting those that have been coming to Calais,” she said.

But the Daily Mirror’s chief reporter Andy Lines tweeted a picture of a poster in a youth hostel in Calais that appeared to suggest that visas would not be delivered to the town, and directed people to fill out an online form before going to visa centres in Paris or Brussels.

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has criticised the number of visas issued for Ukrainian refugees as “shockingly low and painfully slow”.

After the publication of the Home Office figures, she tweeted: “Just 250 since yesterday. At this rate it would be weeks before many families reunite. Urgent action needed.”

She also questioned why there were so many reports of Ukrainians in the French town unable to apply for a visa because there was no official available to process applications, reported The Guardian.

“I hope the home secretary is going to deliver some of the promises she has made, but there is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the reality that is badly, badly letting Ukrainian families down,” Cooper said.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the government should be offering a “simple route to sanctuary” for those feeling Ukraine, and criticised the Home Office as “in a complete mess”, said the BBC.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International UK suggested “history is repeating itself” after the response to last year’s crisis in Afghanistan.

Refugee and migrant rights director Steve Valdez-Symonds said the Home Office was “once again too slow and too bureaucratic in response to a refugee crisis that almost everyone saw coming”.

The UK visa routes open to Ukrainian refugees

Under the UK’s recently extended family visa scheme, Ukrainians with parents, grandparents, children and siblings already in the UK are allowed to stay for up to three years.

Another route for Ukrainian refugees is through sponsorship by an individual or business.

But the offer “does not match that of EU countries”, said ITV. Some have already waived visa rules for Ukrainian refugees, allowing them to enter EU countries for up to three years without first having to seek asylum.

It is thought that Patel could be examining “legal options” to create a “humanitarian route”, which would offer all Ukrainians seeking refuge the right to come to the UK, whether or not they have family ties to the UK, in a scheme similar to the EU’s.

But Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared to talk down the possibility of such a route being introduced, telling reporters on Monday: “What we won’t do is have a system where people can come into the UK without any checks or any controls at all, I don’t think that is the right approach,” the Independent reported.

“But what we will do is have a system that is very, very generous,” he added.

Johnson continued: “As the situation in Ukraine deteriorates, people are going to want to see this country open our arms to people fleeing persecution, fleeing a war zone.

“I think people who have spare rooms who want to receive people coming from Ukraine will want us to have a system that enables them to do that. And that is already happening.”

Desperate migrants are vowing to continue attempting dangerous sea crossings despite the drowning of at least 27 people in the deadliest day in the English Channel since records began, according to reports.

After visiting a makeshift camp on the outskirts of Dunkirk following Wednesday’s tragedy, The Guardian’s security editor Dan Sabbagh reported that “everybody says they still have the same plan, to try to get on a boat to the UK”.

“Everybody knows the risks,” he wrote. But the crossings will continue “because they do not believe that death will come to them – and because of their hope for a better life”.

An Iraqi Kurd migrant named only as Mira told the paper that he had left his home in the city of Sulaymaniyah because “there is no life” there. That phrase, said Sabbagh, was “repeated by many in and around the camp” who are “ready to make the perilous journey in the hope of eventually making money to send back home”.

Another migrant, Muhammed, said Britain was his favoured destination because he has “friends in Nottingham, in London and Birmingham”.

An Iraqi Kurd at the same camp told the Daily Mail that he has tried to cross the channel 11 times so far and would continue trying, even in a fragile dinghy. “If I don’t get in this year, I’ll try again next year – it’s very dangerous but we’re obligated to try again,” he said.

A source told the paper that the “thousands of migrants in France” are” in a state of collective hysteria”, because “by the time they reach France, they are exhausted”.

“They are not thinking straight,” the source said. “They can’t go back, only forward”.

People-smugglers are also reported to be determined to ensure that the crossings do not stop. Criminals charging up to £6,000 for each crossing “put guns to the heads of anyone who dithers about getting on a boat”, because “the more seats they fill on a vessel, the more money they make”.

The “lure” of the UK is down to a “few main factors”, said The Times – namely “work, family ties and the English language”. Informal work in the black market is “easier to find in Britain”, and many people who make it across will have family and contacts here who can “smooth their path”. And most migrants are more likely to already speak at least some English than other European languages.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has claimed that 70% of people crossing the Channel in small boats are economic migrants, but this figure been disputed by the Refugee Council.

Undocumented economic migrants “do not generally deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil”, The Guardian noted. The paper pointed out that Patel and the then immigration minister Chris Philp rejected recommendations to make payments of £12.11 a week to asylum seekers in UK hotels for essential living needs because they “did not want to further increase any possible pull factors”.

Patel has also proposed a “turn back the boats” policy. But the policy has “triggered a heated battle inside the government amid fears that people on the boats could puncture them as UK vessels try to turn them around, meaning they would have to be rescued”, The Telegraph reported.

At least 27 people including a pregnant woman died trying to cross the English Channel in a small boat yesterday in the worst migrant tragedy in the Channel since records began.

Three children, seven women and 17 men were confirmed to have drowned after the inflatable boat capsized, according to the French authorities. The Guardian reported that Paris and London have “traded accusations” over who is to blame for the deaths and the rise in dangerous crossings of the Channel by migrants.

Rising numbers

The tragedy on Wednesday has triggered fresh calls for action over the growing number of people attempting to cross one of the busiest, most dangerous shipping lanes in the world in inflatable dinghies and other makeshift vessels.

Home Office data suggests that the number of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats has soared in the past three years. Almost 26,000 people are believed to have arrived in Britain since January after crossing the Channel on a small boat – an increase of almost 8,700% on the 299 recorded in 2018.

The tally of people who have reached the UK via the Channel so far this year is “roughly equivalent to the population of Staines-upon-Thames, in Surrey”, said the i news site.

In the past, many migrants sought to smuggle themselves aboard trucks that regularly cross the Channel on ferries or by rail from France. But a migration expert told CNN in 2019 that the UK had “invested a lot of money” in blocking such access, and that people-smugglers had increased their fees for the routes that remained.

The Covid-19 crisis has also fuelled the increase in Channel crossings, because lockdowns have made road, rail and air routes more difficult to access.

And in recent weeks, the weather has been “less stormy than is usual for autumn, which has meant the crossings have continued beyond summer”, The Telegraph added.

Patel’s dilemma

The possible options available to Home Secretary Priti Patel to try to prevent migrants from crossing the Channel all have practical, political or moral drawbacks.

Everyone agrees that “the system is broken and in desperate need of reform”, said The Times. “What they disagree on is why the system is broken and the methods for fixing it.”

Some migrants are attracted to the UK because of the relatively high levels of “irregular work”, such as at car washes,the paper continued. But enforcing stricter rules for employing people would be a “sledgehammer approach to cracking the problem as it would hurt the whole economy”.

Intercepting migrant boats in the Channel could breach international maritime law and Border Force guidance rules that the tactic can only be used under very limited circumstances and in a particular section of the waters that is just 1.8 miles wide.

Patel has agreed two multimillion-pound deals with Paris since 2019 to pay for more surveillance of the French coast, but the agreements have failed to reduce migrant crossing numbers and have caused political tensions.

The home secretary has also introduced rules barring people who have travelled through “safe” third countries from claiming asylum. But while 4,561 people who crossed the Channel in the first six months after the rules came into effect post-Brexit were flagged as “inadmissible”, a lack of evidence meant only seven were eventually judged to be so by officials.

A bid to shake up the UK’s asylum laws has met with criticism too. Opponents claim that the Nationality and Borders Bill will not prevent arrivals from becoming a drain on national resources and could face a legal challenge.

Other possible options to tackle the Channel crossings crisis, including new criminal offences and offshore processing and reception centres, have been deemed inadequate or impractical.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has travelled to Dover today to try to get a grip on a UK asylum system she says is “broken”.

The process for housing asylum seekers has been labelled a “national disgrace”. Overcrowding at detention centres set up to process record numbers of migrants crossing the Channel has led to the spread of disease and the government spending millions of pounds a day to house people in hotels.

The number of people crossing the Channel this year will soon reach 40,000, twice the number that had arrived by this time last year.

Braverman, recently reinstalled as home secretary after being forced to resign, has been accused of ignoring legal advice and deliberately allowing overcrowding at the Manston airfield processing centre in Kent. “The Channel migrant crisis has swiftly emerged as one of the biggest challenges facing Rishi Sunak,” said The Times.

Last week, the prime minister spoke about how to finally fix the crisis, telling French president Emmanuel Macron that they must find a way to make cross-Channel migration “completely unviable”.

But what are the options for Sunak to fix the UK’s broken asylum system?

What did the papers say?

“Key to fixing the crisis is a deal that stops migrants making the journey in the first place,” said The Times.

France and the UK already have an annual security pact that governs the Channel border. Under the 2021 agreement, the UK sent about €60m to France in exchange for specific policing and control measures. However, Sunak is said to want a more “ambitious” deal.

Euronews said that “in contrast to previous governments, which took an aggressive stance towards France with regards to migrant crossings, the new UK administration has already adopted a more conciliatory tone”.

According to The Times, Home Office officials believe that if the interception rate can reach 75%, “it will be enough to destroy the business model of people smugglers and make attempts to cross the Channel not worthwhile”. However, the French interception rate has dropped from 50% last year to just 42% this year.

Some charities have suggested that the UK should allow asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to register their claim with UK officials and then be safely placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed.

The Guardian said if such a scheme were adopted it would “achieve what the government has repeatedly promised to do: smash the business model of the people smugglers”.

Perhaps the most contentious option is the “turnback” policy, which gives UK Border Force officers the power to intercept migrant boats and redirect them back towards France.

After Australia introduced the policy in 2013 to “combat migrant boat arrivals”, the number of maritime asylum seekers fell from 20,000 to just 160 people and the next year none arrived, said The Times. However, the tactic risks breaching international maritime law and would require the co-operation of the French authorities, who have already stated they will not comply.

The suggestion “triggered a heated battle inside the government amid fears that people on the boats could puncture them as UK vessels try to turn them around, meaning they would have to be rescued”, The Telegraph reported.

What next?

The issue is increasingly pressing because the current system is designed for about 20,000 asylum seekers a year so “when around 50,000 applications were made last year (the highest number since 2003) by mainly irregular entrants – 28,500 from the Channel, more than 8,000 on lorries – it seizes up”, said The Spectator.

Aside from building new migrant centres to house and process those applying for asylum more efficiently, The Times has said the Home Office is “considering introducing targets for staff to process 80% of asylum claims within six months”.

Some in Tory circles have pressed the government to try to make the UK a less attractive proposition for asylum seekers, a policy that has its roots in Theresa May’s controversial “hostile environment” strategy of a decade ago.

But informal work in the black market is “easier to find in Britain”, said The Times, and many people who make it across will have family and contacts here who can “smooth their path”.

For now, both Braverman and Sunak have reaffirmed their commitment to follow through with the controversial deal to send illegal migrants to Rwanda.

Yes “it has many drawbacks: it is inhumane, it is expensive, it is unwieldy and impractical. And, like socialism, it has never been tried” said Tom Harris in The Telegraph.

But if “ministers finally find a way through the morass of legal objections, judicial reviews and general outrage of the legal and charity establishments”, it could actually provide “a severe deterrence effect on others contemplating that short, hazardous journey across the waves”.

Offenders whose crimes result in the death of emergency service workers in the line of duty will receive mandatory life sentences under a new law being introduced by the government

The Ministry of Justice said today that Harper’s Law, named after police officer Andrew Harper, would be passed “as soon as possible”, following a campaign by his widow. Welcoming the announcement, Lissie Harper said that her late husband “would be proud to see Harper’s Law reach this important milestone”.

PC Andrew Harper was 28 and recently married when he was “dragged down a winding country road” by a car while responding to a quad bike theft by a trio of teenagers in August 2019, said The Guardian. He died from his injuries after his foot became tangled in a tow rope attached to the car as the teenagers made their getaway in the Berkshire village of Sulhamstead.

Henry Long, 19, was sentenced to 16 years in July last year after pleading guilty to manslaughter at the Old Bailey, while Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers, both 18, were each jailed for 13 years. The Court of Appeal rejected a bid by the attorney general to increase their sentences.

Harper’s widow told reporters that she had been “shocked and appalled” that the teens were cleared of murder and felt “let down” when senior judges refused to extend their prison sentences. She launched a campaign for mandatory life sentences for such killers, with more than 750,000 people signing a petition backing the proposal.

Following the law change, life sentences will “apply to manslaughter of emergency service workers in nearly all circumstances”, The Times reported, “even in cases where the accused may not have had the intent to kill”.

Under the legislation, Harper’s killers would have received a mandatory life sentence on conviction of manslaughter and would have had to appear before a parole board before they would become eligible for release.

Ministry of Justice (MoJ) sources told The Telegraph that there would be scope for judicial discretion in “exceptional” circumstances. For example, a drunk or careless driver who killed a police officer could face prosecution under the new law, but “if it was careless driving and it was low culpability, the judge might think a mandatory life sentence is too harsh”, according to an insider.

The reform will apply to the killings of police officers, paramedics, firefighters and prison guards, and will go on to the statute book via an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It is likely to become law in early 2022.

Priti Patel said that she was “proud to be able to honour Andrew’s life by introducing Harper’s Law”. Thanking his widow for her campaigning efforts, the home secretary added that people who sought to harm emergency workers represented the “worst of humanity”.

“It is right that future killers be stripped of the freedom to walk our streets with a life sentence,” Patel said.

The Church of England has defended itself against accusations of having helped asylum seekers “game the system” by converting to Christianity.

Questions were raised after it emerged that the Liverpool hospital bomb suspect, Emad Al Swealmeen, had converted to Christianity from Islam. The suspected suicide bomber is reported to have been baptised in 2015 and confirmed two years later at a ceremony in Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral, close to where he died when a home-made device detonated in a taxi on Remembrance Sunday.

According to reports, Swealmeen – who was born in Iraq – had been refused asylum in 2014, before losing further appeals.

‘Gaming the system’

A Home Office source told The Times that Swealmeen was among a number of asylum seekers who try to “game the system” by converting to Christianity.

The newspaper said that “applicants who show they are committed Christians can argue that their new faith would put them at risk in their home country”.

The Telegraph reported that “thousands” of asylum seekers had been “welcomed into the Anglican faith in recent years, with clergy even given written guidance on how to navigate the Home Office system”.

In an article published in the paper yesterday, former Scottish Labour MP Tom Harris wrote that a “crucial piece of advice” offered by people traffickers to many asylum seekers was to “get involved in a local church” immediately after lodging an initial asylum claim. “A full-on conversion to Christianity was even better, though not always necessary,” Harris added.

Several newspapers pointed to a tribunal decision on an anonymous asylum case in 2017 that suggested an “improbably large” number of Iranians attending the Liverpool Anglican Cathedral cast doubt on whether they were all “genuine converts”. In other cases, asylum was granted after conversions were deemed authentic.

According to The Sun, Tim Loughton, a senior Tory MP on the Home Affairs Select Committe, has vowed to launch a Commons investigation into the alleged “loophole” used by “certain” asylum seekers. Some were “playing the religious card to avoid deportation”, he told the paper.

‘Seeing into minds and hearts’

The allegations against the Church of England have generated a “certain amount of anger” among religious leaders, said the BBC’s Harry Farley on Radio 4’s Today programme.

A CoE spokesperson said: “We are not aware of any evidence to suggest a widespread correlation between conversion to Christianity, or any other faith, and abuse of the asylum system.”

Separately, an insider told religious affairs reporter Farley that responsibility for assessing asylum claims laid with the Home Office, not the Church.

While it is “certainly true” that large-scale services for asylum seekers have been held in the past, including at the Liverpool Anglican Church, said Farley, “it is very difficult to see into people’s minds and hearts”.

Liverpool Bishop Cyril Ashton, who conducted Swealmeen’s confirmation, said the Church takes the ritual seriously. The suspect “would have been thoroughly ­prepared with an understanding of the Christian faith”, Ashton said.

“It seems that, sadly, despite this grounding, the bomber chose a ­different path for his life,” the bishop added.

The Daily Mail said that another clergyman at the cathedral raised concerns in 2016 that asylum seekers were posing as Christians, in a scheme dubbed “pray to stay”.

“There are many people abusing the system,” Rev Mohammad Eghtedarian reportedly said. “I’m not ashamed of saying that. But is it the person’s fault or the system’s fault? And who are they deceiving? The Home Office, me as a pastor, or God?”

Another church worker who let Swealmeen live with him and his wife told the BBC that he still believed the bomb suspect was a “genuine Christian”. Malcolm Hitchcott, who welcomed Swealmeen into his home for eight months in 2017, said: “What went wrong, I do not know.”

‘Dysfunctional system’

Home Secretary Priti Patel last night pledged to overhaul the asylum process. The case in Liverpool was “a complete reflection of how dysfunctional, how broken, the system has been”, she told reporters.

The system was “a complete merry-go-round” that had been “exploited by a whole professional legal services industry”, she added.

The home secretary spoke out as a newly published analysis by the Refugee Council contradicted her past claims that 70% of people who risk Channel crossings in small boats are single men who are economic migrants to the UK.

Using “Home Office data and requests under freedom of information laws”, the council concluded that “nearly two-thirds of people who migrate to the UK in small boats are deemed to be genuine refugees and allowed to remain”, The Guardian reported.

1. Boris Johnson should explain his climate conversion

David Aaronovitch in The Times

On the PM’s chutzpah

Boris Johnson was “on a cloud of chutzpah” when he arrived at this week’s UN General Assembly in New York to tell the world it needed to “grow up” on climate change, writes David Aaronovitch in The Times. Yet this is the same man who once ridiculed “eco doomsters” and their absurd belief that “evil gases” were encircling the planet, and who has “invoked the work of the climate denier (and now antivax activist) Piers Corbyn to cast doubt on claims that warming might be affecting weather”. Of course, “it may be that Johnson changed his mind and changed his views”, says Aaronovitch, but “he has never explained his conversion”. A “full accounting” by the prime minister for his “180-degree shift in attitude towards global warming” could help persuade the hold-outs “that they should undergo a similar conversion. And reassure the rest of us that he’s actually serious.”

Read more

2. Why has Sabina Nessa’s murder not dominated the news? Take a wild guess

Hira Ali for The Independent

On disproportionate coverage

The case of Sabina Nessa, a 28-year-old primary school teacher believed to have been murdered as she walked home in southeast London on Saturday afternoon, bears a “painful resemblance” to Sarah Everard’s killing six months ago, says Hira Ali. But Nessa’s case “has not dominated the news yet because of how the media treats victims of colour differently”, Ali writes in The Independent. She insists that “it would be naive to ignore the repeated pattern of discrimination in the way media and police treat victims of colour”. This “disproportionate coverage and attention is in equal parts appalling and disheartening”. As “an Asian woman of colour” like Nessa, Ali finds it “disappointing to see how much it takes to bring cases like her’s into the limelight”. Gender violence does not discriminate, she concludes, “but we do”.

Read more

3. What would Jesus do? He’d get vaccinated, that’s what

Robin Abcarian in the Los Angeles Times

On jabs and Jesus

More than 500 members of the Los Angeles Police Department have filed a federal lawsuit against the city over its vaccine mandate on city employees, which they claim violates constitutional rights to privacy and due process. Robin Abcarian argues that the group bringing the lawsuit are “pawns” who have been “manipulated by social-media-spawned misinformation, ignorance and antagonism toward scientific expertise”. And “now we learn that about a quarter of the Police Department’s workforce has indicated it plans to pursue religious exemptions to the vaccine, a patently absurd and disingenuous dodge”, she writes in the Los Angeles Times. But “if you’re wondering what Jesus would do, by now it should be pretty obvious: love your neighbor, get the shot”.

Read more

4. Britain faces a triple crunch – and the political cost for the Tories could be huge

Larry Elliott in The Guardian

On looming challenges

“It is easy to see why ministers are getting a bit jittery,” writes Larry Elliott. The national energy crisis is growing, economic growth is slowing and inflation is rising, while Covid-19 infection rates remain high. Adding to the misery are the end of furlough, the withdrawal of the £20 uplift to Universal Credit, plus higher fuel bills and food shortages. In fact, Elliott warns in The Guardian, a “triple crunch” now looms: an economic crunch, an energy crunch and a climate crunch. He predicts that the “political cost” for the Tories could be “huge” and could allow Labour to inflict some “serious damage”. Indeed, Keir Starmer is “never going to have a better opportunity” to “land a knockout blow”.

Read more

5. Angela Rayner vs. Dominic Raab: a contest of wet lettuce against flame-haired fury

Madeline Grant for The Telegraph

On class war

Deputising for Boris Johnson at Prime Minister’s Questions while the Tory leader was in the US, Dominic Raab “delivered his lines with his usual bland efficiency - the interminable dullness of a Tim Henman post-match interview enlivened by occasional glimpses of Andy Murray-style surliness”, says Madeline Grant. Meanwhile, Angela Rayner stood in for Keir Starmer. The Labour MP was “resplendent in her pretty frock - the kind of delicate floral pattern you might see in the revamped No. 10 powder room”, writes The Telegraph sketchwriter. “Her Excellency could have been off to lunch at The Ivy, or quaffing Pimm’s at the Wimbledon Members’ Enclosure.” But “appearances proved deceptive, for Angela’s game was class war, red in tooth and claw, and waged with all the subtlety of a heat-seeking missile”. In the end, Grant concludes, “this battle of fire and water - wet lettuce vs. flame-haired fury - proved an inconclusive tussle”. Deciding who won “all depends on which extreme you prefer”.

Read more

1. It’s shocking to see so many leftwingers lured to the far right by conspiracy theories

George Monbiot in The Guardian

on individualist hippies

“It’s an uncomfortable thing to admit, but in the countercultural movements where my sympathies lie, people are dropping like flies,” writes George Monbiot for The Guardian. Acquaintances are becoming “seriously ill with Covid, after proudly proclaiming the benefits of ‘natural immunity’, denouncing vaccines and refusing to take the precautions that apply to lesser mortals”, he says. Mourning what he sees as anti-vaccine conspiracy theories “travelling smoothly from right to left”, he writes of “hippies who once sought to build communities sharing the memes of extreme individualism”. Granting that “there has long been an overlap between certain new age and far-right ideas”, Monbiot adds that “much of what we are seeing at the moment is new” because “the old boundaries have broken down, and the most unlikely people have become susceptible to rightwing extremism”. He concludes that the trend has been “accelerated by despondency, confusion and betrayal” on top of the Covid pandemic. However, “there’s a temptation to overthink this”, he says: “we should never discount the role of sheer bloody idiocy”.

Read more

2. Biden’s vacuous platitudes at the UN won’t fix his tattered global image

The New York Post editorial board

on blah and blather

“US presidents rarely look to make waves with speeches to the annual United Nations General Assembly,” says a leader in the New York Post, but President Joe Biden’s talk “actually challenged global leaders… to stay awake.” He “lectured” countries to “act together” to prevent pandemics and fight climate change, to meet “the challenges” we face by “looking to the future”. “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,” says the paper’s editorial board, which accuses the Democrat of “empty claims” and of a diplomacy that means US interests “will again take a back seat to whatever the world body’s thugs and corruptocrats prefer”. It concludes that “the worst world leaders surely loved Biden’s blather (if they didn’t nod off), while America’s friends frantically try to figure out how to handle the leadership vacuum in Washington”.

Read more

3. The grim spectre of the 1970s haunts politicians to this day

Philip Johnston in The Telegraph

on eerie discontent

“The auguries are eerily familiar to anyone who lived through the Seventies,” writes Philip Johnston for The Telegraph. “An energy crisis, rising inflation, price controls, massive indebtedness and complacent ministers insisting that there is nothing to worry about.” Forty years on, he explains, the winter of discontent is “a period that continues to cast a pall over politics”. Johnston says that although “ministers are going out of their way not to sound alarmist”, as in the 1970s, matters are “beyond their control”. Therefore, he argues, this reassurance comes over more as “worrying insouciance”. He concludes that “if Boris Johnson’s famed luck runs out, this winter could be bad, even worse, indeed, than the lockdowns. Now, where did I put those candles?”

Read more

4. As Angela Merkel steps down, her kindness to refugees is in stark contrast to Priti Patel’s lack of compassion

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in The i

on a crass approach

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says she will never forget the day in August 2015, when Angela Merkel said: “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do this!”) and allowed over a million displaced people to settle in Germany. “Compare and contrast Merkel with our Home Secretary, Priti Patel, whose own family, like mine, was forced to leave Uganda,” continues The i columnist. “We started over again and remade our lives. Yet when she talks about migrants and asylum seekers it’s like a dragon breathing out fire. There is no compassion, no vision, no plan, only a growing list of strict, impossible regulations.” The Tories now in charge are “feral, unbeholden to international treaties, crass and careless about suffering humans outside these isles”, mourns Alibhai-Brown. “Merkel was the opposite.”

Read more

5. Marcus Rashford is now on the GCSE syllabus – exactly where he belongs

Rupert Hawksley for The Independent

on a class act

“You would have to be very stupid and oddly traditional – obsessed with, say, imperial weights and measures – not to see the benefits of teenagers learning more about Rashford and the ways he has harnessed the media to promote his campaigns on food poverty and free school meals,” writes Rupert Hawksley for The Independent. The columnist says “we should applaud AQA for its willingness to put together an original and creative syllabus” and that he hopes “parents, surely, will have no objections to their sons and daughters learning about a young footballer who has tackled food poverty, promotes reading and cares deeply about fighting racism in the UK?” He also hopes that “we are coming to the end of the era in which reality television stars and ‘celebrities’ are idolised; when being famous is a goal in itself” because “young people now look to those with drive and decency”. Rashford, he concludes, “is at the top of that list and absolutely belongs on the academic syllabus”.

Read more

1. Crime always pays for the Tories – that’s why they turn to it again and again

Martin Kettle in The Guardian

on a weak strategy

“What better way to signal a return to supposed political normality than to reprise that old Conservative favourite, a dose of law and order?” writes Martin Kettle in The Guardian. “July’s opinion polls have not been as good for the Tories as those of the spring”, and it seems a “crime crackdown is a way of reassuring the voters that, whatever the appearance otherwise, the government really is in control”. Except, says Kettle, that “actually the government is not exercising control over crime”. He says this week’s package is for show. “To dignify it as a real anti-crime strategy is to miss the point of it, which is rhetorical.” The plan will therefore “not work because it has not been designed to work. It has been designed to be noticed.”

Read more

2. If we want to live we have to suffer and weep

James Marriott in The Times

on human pain

“David Pearce, a leading figure in the transhumanist movement that obsesses Silicon Valley’s elites, is an ‘abolitionist’,” writes James Marriott in The Times. That is, he “is an abolitionist with respect to the totality of human suffering,” continues Marriott, and he believes “states of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health”. While the “scale of Pearce’s ambition” might qualify him as an “eccentric”, he is also “a man very much of his time”, Marriott says. “Witness the behaviour of the 21st century’s affluent classes: their neurotic and elaborate evasion of even small degrees of suffering through therapy, mindfulness, yoga, meditation, esoteric workout routines, wild swimming and (more commonly in America) medication,” he says. “But we must not pathologise the human condition. It is terrible to suffer but suffering is valuable because it broadens our understanding of what life is and what the business of being a human might involve.”

Read more

3. Britain is a hostile place to become a mother

Olivia Utley in The Telegraph

on the baby bust

“Whichever way you look at it, 21st century Britain is a hostile environment to become a mother,” writes Olivia Utley in The Telegraph. “Despite the UK being in the grip of a baby bust that has the potential to cripple our economy in the not so distant future, there is a growing cultural hostility to those who want to start families, let alone large ones.” Indeed, “I’ve heard woke young greens with an armageddon complex – who see children primarily as energy guzzlers – argue that bringing them into a world on the brink of collapse is selfish.” Utley concludes: “Having babies isn’t for everyone. And no one should be shamed for wanting to remain childless. But there is power to be found in being a pro-natal society, with the confidence and vision to regenerate and grow.”

Read more

4. What if the unvaccinated can’t be persuaded?

Ezra Klein in The New York Times

on vaccination passports

“It is nearly impossible to convince people of what they don’t want to believe,” writes Ezra Klein in The New York Times. “Decades of work in psychology attest to this truth, as does most everything in our politics and most of our everyday experience,” writes Klein. “Which brings me to the difficult choice we face on coronavirus vaccinations. The conventional wisdom is that there is some argument, yet unmade and perhaps undiscovered, that will change the minds of the roughly 30 per cent of American adults who haven’t gotten at least one dose”. But the truth is: “There probably isn’t.” Indeed, “the Delta strain is fearsome enough, but if we keep permitting the virus to dance across the defenceless, we could soon have a strain that evades vaccines while retaining lethality, or that attacks children with more force.” As a result, says Klein, “I urge those who object to vaccination passports as an unprecedented stricture on liberty to widen their tragic imagination.”

Read more

5. Make time for the people at the edge of your life

Elizabeth Uviebinene in the Financial Times

on weak ties

“I bumped into someone recently at a mutual friend’s event,” writes Elizabeth Uviebinene in the Financial Times. “We caught up for 30 minutes and then parted ways. I left feeling invigorated and inspired. During this brief chat we were able to brainstorm and discuss new projects we were working on, which in turn provided much needed sense-making and problem solving”. These friendly acquaintances, with whom we have “weak ties”, serve “many important functions, including promoting a sense of belonging, boosting both happiness and knowledge”, new research suggests. “As we begin to reconnect in person, it is a good moment to make time for casual conversations. The fear of being awkward or embarrassed stops many people from initiating weak ties, but you miss 100 per cent of the shots you don’t take. Besides, what’s the worst that can happen?”

Read more

1. The freedom divide: Why are politicians able to side-step their own rules?

Kate Andrews in The Spectator

on double standards

If the government line is to be believed, we are all simply doing our part: “the Prime Minister, Chancellor and the public all in this together”, writes Kate Andrews in The Spectator. “Everyone’s obeying the rules: it’s just that what those rules are, and who they apply to, looks slightly different.” Of course, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak went back on their decision to skip quarantine and be part of an exclusive pilot scheme “almost as quickly as it was announced”, she says. But not before it sparked outrage “akin to the Matt Hancock revelations that social distancing didn’t apply in his office”. The U-turn may “quell the political damage this time around”, but “it is becoming increasingly difficult to hide the double standards that exist for those inside Whitehall”, Andrews continues. “The ‘party elite’ designed the rules, and alongside them the loopholes and get-out clauses that have allowed ministers to carry on with many aspects of normal life, while the public is sat at home, isolated and often alone.”

Read more

2. The “pingdemic” is a symptom of the UK’s problems, not the cause

Stephen Bush in the New Statesman

on the United Pingdom

“It’s true to say that a summer of stop-start self-isolations is potentially disastrous for most businesses,” writes Stephen Bush in The New Statesman. “If you run a restaurant and your staff are in self-isolation, you are simply losing trade,” he writes. However, there is an important “but” here, too, says Bush. It is that “amid all the talk of a ‘pingdemic’, it’s easy to forget that the constant threat of being asked to self-isolate by the NHS app isn’t a glitch in the system or some strange oversight.” He says it is “a feature, not a bug, of England unlocking, and this, coupled with the faster-spreading Delta variant, means a new wave of coronavirus cases.” He concludes: “Complaining about a pingdemic is a bit like complaining that your fire alarm has gone off because you’ve burnt something on the hob: yes, it’s a pain, but the problem isn’t the fire alarm.”

Read more

3. The good ship GB News is listing – and Nigel Farage is here to sink it

Katherine Denkinson in The Independent

on the new news channel

“The good ship GB News is listing dangerously to the Left. As one of its presenters takes the knee, the moral fibre of the country is at stake. The captain flails around desperately: ‘Is there anyone on board who can sail?!’” writes Katherine Denkinson in The Independent. “Luckily for our failing start-up, an unassuming commodities broker raises a tentative hand. Doffing his flat-cap and rolling up his sleeves, Nigel Farage bravely prepares to steer the creaking vessel into safer waters.” “Given Farage’s track record, it is unlikely that GB News will be any more successful than Reform UK or the Unfortunate Mr Fox’s political career,” writes Denkinson. “These extreme right-wing voices are active on Twitter, but the very existence of GB News and its desperate scramble to conjure into being the culture war they want us all to fear, is a sign of impending demise.”

Read more

4. Germany’s floods are politically dangerous, too

Katja Hoyer on UnHerd

on disaster politics

“A cynical mind might think that natural catastrophes like the floods in west Germany are a God-sent for politicians in election campaign mode,” writes Katja Hoyer on UnHerd. “If you can credibly pull off the rolled up sleeves, the wellies and a facial expression somewhere between grim concern and firm reassurance, the emotional gravity of the moment will do the rest.” And unfortunately for Armin Laschet – “currently the most likely candidate to become chancellor” – he “messed up”. A video emerged that seemed to show him “sniggering” while German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier “spoke of the ‘heart-tearing’ grief” he felt for the victims of the floods. Indeed, “how lasting the damage will be remains to be seen”, writes Hoyer, but as “the rain is beginning to subside and the torrents of mud are painstakingly carried away in buckets, what remains behind is potential and risk for Germany’s politicians”.

Read more

5. It is time for Priti Patel to step in and force change on the failing Met Police

Nick Timothy in The Telegraph

on radical reform

“Disdain for independent oversight and disrespect to victims of crime and their families is part of a rotten Met culture,” writes Nick Timothy in The Telegraph. “The sheer size of the force makes its leaders remote from local concerns,” writes Timothy, and while policing a population the size of London is “difficult enough”, adding the challenges presented by a capital city, like “national sporting events, security for embassies and visiting foreign leaders, and regular protests and marches”, the task becomes “tougher still”. If London Mayor Sadiq Khan “continues to refuse to accept responsibility for policing London”, then Priti Patel should “legislate to put the Met into special measures and impose change on it herself”, suggests Timothy. “London’s police cannot be allowed to lurch from crisis to crisis. The Met is failing, it needs to be radically reformed, and the only person who can make that happen is the Home Secretary.”

Read more

Boris Johnson and Priti Patel have been accused of hypocrisy in their condemnation of racist abuse targeted at the England footballing squad’s penalty takers.

The prime minister and home secretary spoke out against social media attacks on Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho, who all missed penalties in the nail-biting Euro 2020 final at Wembley on Sunday night.

Yet both Johnson and Patel have “repeatedly stopped short” of criticising fans who booed England players for “taking the knee”, the now well-known gesture against racism and discrimination, reports The Guardian. Patel even dismissed it as “gesture politics” and said booing England players was a “choice” for fans to make.

‘We’ve run out of room on the bandwagon’

Former England right-back and football pundit Gary Neville told Sky News he “wasn’t surprised” at the abuse England players have faced given the previous statements made by Johnson.

“The prime minister said it was OK for the population of this country to boo those players who were trying to promote equality and defend against racism,” Neville told the broadcaster.

“It starts at the very top. I wasn’t surprised in the slightest that I woke up to those headlines; I expected it the minute the three players missed.”

Neville also slammed previous comments made by Johnson about Muslim women, particularly a 2018 column in The Telegraph in which he compared veiled women to “letterboxes”.

“Gareth Southgate and Boris Johnson are poles apart. You can be a leader and gentleman. You can be ruthless but have empathy and compassion,” said Neville.

The Daily Mirror’s sports writer Darren Lewis accused the PM of having a “Donald Trump ‘good people on both sides’ moment” after failing to denounce fans who had booed ahead of matches in the early weeks of the tournament.

“Sadly for Priti Patel and Boris Johnson we’ve run out of room on the bandwagon,” he wrote ahead of last week’s semi-final match against Denmark.

England player Tyrone Mings also had strong words of criticism for Patel on the social media platform, tweeting: “You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ & then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens.”

Conservative peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi also called on the home secretary to “think about our role in feeding this culture in our country”.

“If we ‘whistle’ & the ‘dog’ reacts, we can’t be shocked if it barks & bites,” Warsi wrote in a fiery public tweet. “It’s time to stop the culture wars that are feeding division. Dog whistles win votes but destroy nations.”

But a No. 10 spokesperson defended the prime minister against accusations of racism, telling journalists Johnson had made it “extremely clear” that “racism in any form has no place in our society” and that “he wanted to see the whole nation getting behind the team and not booing”.

Johnson also tweeted: “This England team deserve to be lauded as heroes, not racially abused on social media. Those responsible for this appalling abuse should be ashamed of themselves.”

‘I will never apologise for who I am and where I came from’

In an emotional message to fans, the 23-year-old England forward Marcus Rashford tweeted that he felt he had “let everyone down” in missing a crucial penalty against Italy. But while he could take the criticism of his performance “all day long”, he said “I will never apologise for who I am and where I came from.”

A mural dedicated to the young player in Withington, Manchester, was defaced and “daubed” with swear words after the England loss, reports the BBC. The mural, dedicated to Rashford after he was awarded an MBE for services to vulnerable children during the pandemic, has since been covered by “hearts, flags and notes expressing their support and admiration for Rashford”, says the broadcaster.

‘It’s just not what we stand for’

Racist incidents in the aftermath of the match show how social media companies have “struggled to crack down on racism and abuse” on their platforms, “despite high-profile players, including the England team, and lawmakers repeatedly calling for action”, reports the Financial Times.

In April, the Premier League and other clubs and sporting bodies boycotted Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for four days in order to draw attention to the abuse, with the worst abuse “typically reserved for black footballers and ethnic minorities”, reports the paper.

In April, the Premier League and other clubs and sporting bodies boycotted Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to draw attention to the abuse, with the worst abuse “typically reserved for black footballers and ethnic minorities”, reports the paper.

England manager Gareth Southgate has described the abuse directed at his young players as “unforgivable”.

“It's just not what we stand for,” he said during a news conference on Monday.

“We have been a beacon of light in bringing people together, in people being able to relate to the national team, and the national team stands for everybody, and so that togetherness has to continue.

“We have shown the power our country has when it does come together and has that energy and positivity together.”

The home secretary has ordered a review into the mandatory reporting of what are known as “non-crime hate incidents”.

Verbal abuse, bullying, offensive jokes, hoax calls and malicious complaints could all fall into the category of hate incidents but fall short of being criminal offences.

Priti Patel wants the College of Policing, the police service’s professional body, to review whether these should be reported on a person’s criminal record, which critics say can present problems for individuals when applying for jobs or having a DBS check.

Sarah Phillimore, barrister and co-founder of campaign group Fair Cop, told The Telegraph she hopes the review “marks the beginning of the end for the well-intentioned but deeply flawed hate crimes guidance”.

However, the College of Policing’s Iain Raphael has warned that, without recording the incidents, officers risk “having a blind spot in their local understanding, hampering their ability to protect members of vulnerable and marginalised groups”. Raphael cited the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report as showing the need for officers to understand “how hate can escalate”.

How is a ‘hate crime’ different to a ‘non-crime hate incident’?

A hate crime is defined by the Crown Prosecution Service as an incident where the offending party is “motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility” towards a person’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity. In order to prosecute an alleged hate crime “it is necessary to demonstrate hostility” through evidence, the College of Policing explains.

Verbal abuse, damage to property, threats and intimidation can all be classed as forms of hate crime. In March, following the murder of Sarah Everard, Patel “hinted” that the government will look into whether misogyny should be recorded as a hate crime, according to The Guardian.

If it is found that a reported incident can not be classed as a criminal offence but the victim “or any other person perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility”, the current policy outlined by the College of Policing means the incident will be recorded as a non-crime hate incident, or NCHI, and put on the perpetrator’s criminal record.

What does Patel want to change?

Critics of the current policy say that the potential ramifications for the perpetrator of an NCHI infringes upon their right to freedom of speech. “We need to avoid a situation where something you said entirely lawfully, possibly in the heat of the moment and some time ago can blight your employment prospects permanently,” writes The Spectator’s Andrew Tettenborn.

Patel has told the College of Policing to change guidelines that state that NCHIs be recorded on police files, according to The Times. If the police review of the policy leads to the removal of the guidance, it could signal the end of NCHI reporting.

“These so called non-crime hate incidents have a chilling effect on free speech and potentially stop people expressing views legally and legitimately,” the paper reports a Whitehall source as saying.

Priti Patel is today unveiling what is billed as the “biggest overhaul of the UK’s asylum system in decades”.

The home secretary’s “New Plan for Immigration” sets out tough new rules that “will for the first time treat those who come to the UK illegally differently from those who enter via legal routes”, The Times reports.

A two-tier system

Patel is planning a “two-tier” or “twin-track” system under which the status of asylum seekers who arrive in the UK via unauthorised routes - such as boats across the Channel - will automatically be downgraded.

These illegal migrants will only be granted “temporary protection status”, which means “they will be regularly reassessed for removal from the UK, have limited family reunion rights and no access to benefits unless destitute”, The Telegraph reports.

By contrast, those who arrive through new legal routes set up to help refugees escape war zones or persecution will be allowed to stay in the country and given access to subsidies “to help integrate”, says The Times.

The plan, outlined in a 60-page document, is “designed to eradicate the ‘pull factors’ that are seen as having encouraged 8,420 people to cross the Channel in small boats last year”, the paper continues.

The Home Office has said the changes will ensure that access to asylum is based on “genuine need of refuge, not on the ability to pay people smugglers”.

But the chief executive of the Refugee Council has warned that the new system will “unjustly differentiate between the deserving and undeserving refugee”. Many refugees are “forced to take extraordinary measures [without] a choice about how they seek safety”, Enver Solomon tweeted.

Patel hit back at widespread criticism from rights campaigners as she prepared to set out the full details of her plan in the Commons this afternoon. The new rules are “firm” but “undeniably fair”, she said, and will also crack down on asylum seekers who come to the UK after arriving in other “safe” European countries.

“If, like over 60% of illegal arrivals, they have travelled through a safe country like France to get here, they will not have immediate entry into the asylum system, which is what happens today,” she told the BBC’s Today programme.

“Profiteering from illegal migration to Britain will no longer be worth the risk, with new maximum life sentences for people smugglers,” she continued.

“I make no apology for these actions being firm, but as they will also save lives and target people smugglers, they are also undeniably fair.”

‘Withdrawing support from desperate people’

As it stands, “the majority” of people granted refugee status in the UK arrive via unauthorised routes, says The Independent.

“In 2019, only around one in five grants of protection arrived through the government’s designated resettlement schemes,” the paper reports.

A total of almost 30,000 people sought asylum in the UK last year, and the Home Office says the system is “collapsing” under the weight of illegal entries.

“But the current rate of arrivals to the UK is a third of the all-time record and well below the numbers in some European Union neighbours”, writes the BBC’s Dominic Casciani.

Meanwhile, the backlog of asylum seekers waiting for a decision on their application has risen to “eight times higher than a decade ago”, leading some critics to argue that “the real problem is years of mismanagement”, Casciani adds.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has warned that Patel’s new plans will create an even more “chaotic, dangerous and fragmented” asylum system that will make journeys into the UK “more perilous” than ever.

Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has also criticised the new rules, but has stopped short of a “total rejection of the proposals”, reports Politico’s London Playbook.

“Measures are clearly needed to speed up processes and stop criminal gangs profiting from dangerous crossing,” the Labour MP said.

“However, we fear these plans will do next to nothing to stop people making dangerous crossings, and risk withdrawing support from desperate people, such as victims of human trafficking.”

Seven people have been detained after special forces commandos stormed a tanker off the Isle of Wight following a suspected hijacking by stowaways.

The nine-minute operation, by members of the Special Boat Service (SBS), ended a ten-hour stand-off that reportedly began when stowaways on board the Liberian-registered Nave Andromeda became violent.

Navios Tanker Management, operator of the crude oil tanker, said the master of the vessel became concerned about the “increasingly hostile behaviour of the stowaways”, who had “illegally boarded” in Lagos, Nigeria, earlier this month.

Adhering to a maritime drill, the crew locked themselves inside the ship’s strong room, known as “the citadel”, before calling for assistance. According to the Daily Mail, the captain sent a “panicked” mayday message that read: “I’m trying to keep them calm but please send help.”

In response to what the Ministry of Defence has described as the “suspected hijacking”, a total of 16 SBS commandos boarded the vessel by either “fast-roping down from Merlin and Wildcat helicopters hovering above the deck of the tanker” or “rappelling up the side from inflatable ribs bobbing on the black waters below”, Sky News reports.

The stowaways, believed to be Nigerians seeking UK asylum, were handed over to Hampshire Police on Sunday evening. The ship later docked in Southampton, with all 22 crew members found safe.

The raid “was authorised by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and Home Secretary Priti Patel”, ITV News reports.

The SBS is Britain’s “elite military unit tasked with tackling terrorist and other localised, violent incidents at sea”, says The Guardian. “Its origins date back to the second world war, and the Ministry of Defence refuses to say how many fighters it comprises or give any detail of its operations.”

The UK government could offer British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders in Hong Kong a path to UK citizenship if China continues to impose itself on the state.

Up to 300,000 BNOs could see their rights to visit the UK without a visa extended if China does not suspend plans for an oppressive new security law in the former British colony, says The Guardian.

China’s parliament yesterday approved new national security legislation that will make it a crime to undermine Beijing’s authority in the territory. Opponents claim that the new laws may be used to permanently undermine the “one country two systems” structure that gives Hong Kong autonomy from the Chinese mainland.

Home Secretary Priti Patel said on Twitter she was “deeply concerned at China’s proposals” and would “explore options for a path to citizenship for BNO passport holders” with the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab.

The “UK will continue to defend the rights & freedoms of the people of Hong Kong”, Patel wrote. Raab later added that, if China’s security proposals were confirmed, the UK would extend the six-month limit on BNO visitors and “provide a pathway to future citizenship”.

China has rejected foreign criticism of the proposed law, and says it could take “countermeasures” against the UK, reports the BBC.

Foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said: “All such BNO passport holders are Chinese nationals and if the UK insists on changing this practice it will not only violate its own stance but also international law.”

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world - and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda - try The Week magazine. Start your trial subscription today –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The Week’s daily round-up highlights the five best opinion pieces from across the British and international media, with excerpts from each.

1. Aisha Moodie-Mills on CNN

on winning over the electorate

The Super Tuesday no one predicted a week ago: Black voters matter

“Tonight's results affirm that the pathway to the Democratic nomination runs directly through the black community. Candidates who are unable to break through to black voters just aren't viable contenders despite how great they might be on issues of racial justice and regardless of how many endorsements they receive from black influencers. Take Elizabeth Warren, for example, who literally has a comprehensive plan to address everything, including a host of issues that disproportionately impact black people. Even though she amassed an impressive list of endorsements from black leaders - from Black Womxn For to the founders of Black Lives Matter - she's been unable to break through to black voters in any contest thus far.”

2. Alex Massie in The Spectator

on a PM up against the ropes

The government’s political capital is waning

“Upon how many fronts can a government fight at any one time? Political capital has a short-enough half-life as it is without the risk of it being diluted through simultaneous multiple battles. Concentration of political firepower matters. At a rough count, Boris Johnson’s ministry is currently fighting the civil service, the media, the European Union and now, of course, a looming public health emergency from a likely coronavirus epidemic. There is also the small matter of a budget and the government’s actual – or, if you prefer, notional – plans for ‘levelling-up’ the United Kingdom.”

3. Jonn Elledge in the New Statesman

on the UK housing secretary

Why Robert Jenrick is the worst cabinet minister you haven’t heard of

“The idea that the government should be taking active steps towards making housing cheaper seems not to have occurred to Jenrick. And why should it? He owned three houses (yes, yes, ‘class war’, I know, I know). He’s only been an MP for six years: his prospects within the Conservative Party are not likely to be improved by garnering a reputation for being the guy who crashed the housing market and brought back council housing. Much better to keep stoking the fire.”

4. The civil servant in The Guardian

on the bullying claims against the home secretary

The Priti Patel allegations are turning into a #MeToo moment for the civil service

“It might not be a stretch to say that this feels like like a sort of #MeToo moment for the civil service. Those who, like me, have been around government for several years reckon more allegations are on the way. There may be blood. It probably won’t be Patel’s. For now, an investigation has been promised into whether she has broken the ministerial code, but swift endorsements from Michael Gove – the minister for the Cabinet Office, which will conduct that investigation – and the prime minister suggest the outcome is already secure. The message seems clear: Priti’s safe.”

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a weekly round-up of the best articles and columns from the UK and abroad, try The Week magazine. Start your trial subscription today–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

5. The editorial board in The Telegraph

on Israel’s election

The age of Netanyahu is not yet over

“Against the odds, and with everyone expecting his Likud-led government to be trounced, the Right-wing coalition he leads has won the most seats. Rather than go backwards as many incumbents do – especially when they are facing trial on corruption charges – he won more seats than last time, boosted by recent diplomatic successes and a booming economy. It turns out that the age of Netanyahu is not over after all.”

Britain has banned Huawei from its 5G telecom network, reversing a decision made in January this year to allow the Chinese tech company to play a role in building the country’s super-fast wireless infrastructure.

Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden told the House of Commons that the decision would delay the 5G rollout by a year, adding that the cost of the delay, and restrictions announced against Huawei earlier in the year, would be up to £2bn.

Dowden added that US sanctions imposed on the company in May had “significantly changed” the landscape and that “the UK can no longer be confident it will be able to guarantee the security of future Huawei 5G equipment”.

CNN reports that operators such as BT and Vodafone have been given until 2027 to remove existing Huawei equipment from their 5G networks. The decision will be seen as “a big win for the Trump administration, which has been pushing allies to exclude Huawei from their 5G networks”, the broadcaster adds.

Huawei said the move was “bad news for anyone in the UK with a mobile phone” and said it may “move Britain into the digital slow lane, push up bills and deepen the digital divide”.

The benefits of using Huawei

Value for money

The overriding motive for using Huawei was financial. The Chinese company is the cheapest option, because Huawei supplies equipment for the UK’s existing 4G network, on which 5G will be partly based. Dropping the firm will necessitate ripping out existing tech, significantly increasing the costs involved.

Quicker connectivity sooner

Using Huawei would have ensured a speedy rollout of increased connectivity – one of Johnson’s stated priorities in government. The UK network’s infrastructure is geared up for Huawei 5G, whereas finding other alternatives and replacing existing Huawei technology will be time-consuming.

The risks of using Huawei

Espionage, back doors and sabotage

The US believes the main problem is that no major Chinese firm is truly independent of the state. American officials say using Huawei’s technology would be “madness” because China would almost certainly take the opportunity to embed software “back doors” to spy on UK communications – and perhaps even sabotage them.

Poor engineering

A secondary issue is whether Huawei’s systems are robust enough and could withstand attacks from other actors. BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera reports that while the UK security services have never found evidence of espionage in Huawei tech, they have been highly critical of the company’s engineering standards.

US might withhold intelligence

Washington has repeatedly warned that it might withhold intelligence information from the UK if Huawei is used in the 5G network. The US is Britain’s closest intelligence partner, with UK agencies relying on its security services to help keep track of hostile states and terror groups. However, according to Corera, the UK government believes the threat to cut intelligence-sharing ties is a bluff.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world - and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda - try The Week magazine. Start your trial subscription today –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Huawei may be only option

Britain already relies on Huawei technology in its 4G network and has done since BT (British Telecom) switched to using the firm’s equipment more than 15 years ago. Meanwhile, Western tech firms have failed to keep up in recent years, leaving Huawei dominant in the world market, says Corera.

Some analysts believe that using the firm for the UK’s 5G network would have cemented Huawei’s position as the global leader – and lead to a future in which the West is entirely reliant on China for its communications.

The UK’s national terror threat level has been downgraded from severe to substantial for the first time in five years, the home secretary revealed yesterday.

Announcing the decision by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) in a statement to parliament, Priti Patel emphasised that “substantial” continues to indicate a high level of threat and an attack might well occur “without further warning”.

Stating that the threat level is kept under “constant review”, she added that: “Government, police and intelligence agencies will continue to work tirelessly to address the threat posed by terrorism in all its forms.”

The country's threat level is determined by the JTAC, which is part of MI5. It makes its recommendations independently from the government. The BBC explains that “substantial” is the third of five ratings at which the threat level can stand.

The five ratings are:

Low - an attack is highly unlikely

Moderate - an attack is possible but not likely

Substantial - an attack is likely

Severe - an attack is highly likely

Critical - an attack is highly likely in the near future

The terror threat level was raised to “critical" in May 2017 after the Manchester Arena bombing. That attack killed 23 people and left more than 200 injured at an Ariana Grande concert.

The threat was later downgraded to "severe" where it has remained since September 2017.

The Head of Counter Terrorism Policing, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, said: “The reduction to ‘substantial’ indicates positive developments in reducing the threat from terrorism but still means an attack is likely.”

He added that Counter Terrorism Policing has “around 800” live counter-terror investigations nationally, adding: “So it is vital that we all maintain a high level of vigilance and continue to invest in strong protective security measures to deter future attacks.”

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world - and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda - try The Week magazine. Get your first six issues for £6–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

International Development Secretary Priti Patel and a pro-Israeli Conservative lobbyist held undisclosed meetings in Israel with a leading politician without informing UK officials, it has emerged.

Ministers, by convention, should tell the Foreign Office when they are conducting official business overseas, The Guardian reports.

According to the BBC, the revelation of the meetings - which took place over two days in August while Patel was on holiday in Israel - has left the British Consulate in Jerusalem feeling “blindsided” and “slightly bruised”.

Patel and Lord Polak, the honorary president of the lobby group Conservative Friends of Israel, met with Yair Lapid, the leader of one of Israel’s main political parties. They also made visits to several organisations where official departmental business was reportedly discussed, the BBC says.

“The fear among some Tory MPs is that Ms Patel also used the trip to discuss reducing her department’s support for Palestinian groups,” the BBC says. The Department for International Development is responsible for most of the £68m a year Britain uses to support the Palestinian territories.

The Daily Telegraph says Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knew about Patel’s foreign holiday and that she notified him of the meetings on her return. Patel insists the trip had nothing to do with foreign policy. Downing Street says she will not be investigated.

Polak told the BBC that he happened to be on holiday at the same time as Patel by chance, and that the meetings they held with Lapid were merely a case of friends chatting over coffee.

The Times has published the latest in a series of exposes on Britain's foreign aid spending, piling pressure on ministers over apparently poor oversight of the £12bn annual budget.

Today the paper cites claims from a senior consultant, who says the government has "dumped" billions of pounds into World Bank trust funds just to meet spending targets.

"Dfid dumps large sums into trust funds and accounts for it as spent against a given year’s UK aid budget," said James Morton, who has "carried out numerous evaluations for both the World Bank and Dfid", the UK's Department for International Development.

Morton has calculated that "at least £9bn has been channelled into 219 different funds" over the past five years. That's "more than any other country apart from the United States" – and Morton says some of this money "sits there for years".

The UK is one of only five countries to meet a commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of its economic output on foreign aid each year, equating to £12.2bn last year.

Of the total, around 40 per cent is spent via multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, received about £3.3bn last year.

The World Bank's own independent regulator criticised "ineffective" investment processes for these funds in a report in 2011.

One example of UK-backed World Bank trust funds given by the paper, but which falls outside of the figures above, is a project set up in 2004 to back small companies in Iraq.

The UK invested around £8m, but "more than a decade later half of the funds remain with the trust with no money having been paid out for at least five years". Dfid says that it received back the majority of its contribution in 2010 "after security in the country broke down".

Last week the Times revealed that consultancies were taking around £1bn a year of Britain's foreign aid budget – and it later reported that Dfid does "not hold information on how at least £274m of money given to the Strategic Climate Fund, a major World Bank trust fund, was spent".

International Development Secretary Priti Patel has written to foreign aid contractors to ask how money is being spent – and tenders for contract were suspended for two weeks.

Patel is set to face questions over transparency on foreign aid spending when she appears in front of a select committee of MPs later today.