Connect with us

News

A week of Conservative miscalculations

Published

on

A week of Conservative miscalculations

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

This article is an on-site version of our Inside Politics newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter sent straight to your inbox every weekday

Good morning. A bruising few days for the government ends with the majority of Conservative MPs asking questions about some of their colleagues, many of them inappropriate to repeat in this family-friendly email. But the more PG-friendly questions matter for how the Conservative party will approach the year. Some more thoughts on what those questions are and what they tell us below.

Inside Politics is edited by Georgina Quach. Read the previous edition of the newsletter here. Please send gossip, thoughts and feedback to insidepolitics@ft.com

Advertisement

You change your mind, like an ERGer changes votes

As one Tory MP put it to me yesterday, the past three days of rebellion and resignation over amendments to the Rwanda bill have been, above all, a test of the Conservative party’s strategic intelligence. Sixty-four of them failed, with 63 MPs having voted against the government in the revolt that ultimately melted away at the bill’s third reading last night. But the big problem, in this person’s mind at least, was that the 64th failure is leading the party.

Now, this MP is one of Rishi Sunak’s longtime critics, but nonetheless, they drew attention to a question that the past three bruising days have brought back to the fore:

Just how bad are Rishi Sunak’s political instincts?

The government started 2024 with a public display of disunity and disarray, devoting much of the past week to talking about a policy area where they trail Labour and where a majority of voters do not think their mooted solutions will work. The big reason for this comes down to decisions Sunak made last year.

He chose to try to fix the government’s Rwanda scheme by legislating to disregard parts of the UK’s human rights framework while giving individuals the right to bring some claims against it. This has annoyed liberals and people concerned about the rule of law. Because it represents a real and perhaps insurmountable barrier to getting the Rwanda scheme working, it also provoked a rebellion on his party’s right.

There were alternatives. It is an open secret that James Cleverly, Sunak’s newish home secretary, wanted to take a different approach, by emphasising government initiatives that are actually working (such as the deal with Albania to return people seeking to come to the UK back to that country) and talking less about the Rwanda scheme. As George Parker, Lucy Fisher and Anna Gross note in their write-up on where these votes have left Rishi Sunak:

Advertisement

Allies of James Cleverly, the home secretary who previously described the Rwanda policy as “batshit”, wonder why the government is putting such a spotlight on a part of its migration strategy that is not working.

Certainly this has not been a good week for Sunak’s political judgments or anything like it. But given how Conservative rebels have behaved, it is hard to see that the approach of shifting the spotlight on the Albania deal rather than the Rwanda scheme would not have come with costs of its own.

The big lesson of this week is that the party is badly divided and many of its MPs do not wish for that division to be repaired any time soon.

Yes, the majority of Tory MPs still think (rightly) that changing leader has so many risks and essentially no upsides. The number of MPs who think that recent events have been well-handled by any of the party’s power brokers is not large but there is still no serious prospect that Sunak will be removed as leader this side of an election defeat.

But there is a minority that does want a leadership change. There is another minority that supports Sunak but does not realise that it is political insanity to undermine the calls of a leader you don’t want to change when you are at most 12 months away from an election.

Speaking of, another question worth noting is this:

Advertisement

What does this mean for James Cleverly’s hopes in the next Tory leadership election?

A question with a short answer this one: it’s not helpful! The problem for Conservative moderates is that Cleverly represents their best hope of recovering in opposition — he is more likely to defeat a candidate from the right than any of their other possible candidates. But the small boats issue has undermined every Conservative home secretary to take the role since Theresa May (with the partial exception of Suella Braverman) and that doesn’t look like it will change. Another, similar question:

What does this mean for Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman, et al?

Handily this has the same answer: it’s not good either! Back to our team’s piece:

Asked about the revolt by 60 Conservative MPs, who defied Sunak by trying to toughen it up, one former cabinet minister pulled an imaginary pistol from his pocket and took aim at his two feet.

Even among MPs who are ideologically closer to the Jenrick-Braverman approach to tackling the small boats issue, there are significant numbers who think that voting against the prime minister this week shows poor judgment, because there was never any prospect of changing the policy — all it did was damage the party’s standing.

It’s hard to predict exactly how the next Conservative leadership election will shape out because we don’t know what the electorate will be. Even if the Tory party does find a way to win, many people who are Conservative MPs now won’t be after the next election. But what we can say is that it is not a good time to be associated with the Rwanda scheme, whether because you are the home secretary Cleverly or one of its loudest opponents. That, of course, rebounds to the advantage of the business secretary Kemi Badenoch.

Now try this

The Holdovers, a delightful, bittersweet film set in a 1970s New England private school, is out on general release in the UK this weekend. Go see it if you can.

Advertisement

Top stories today

Tory rebels seek to block international law to push through Rwanda scheme © Banx

Recommended newsletters for you

One Must-Read — Remarkable journalism you won’t want to miss. Sign up here

FT Opinion — Insights and judgments from top commentators. Sign up here

News

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

Published

on

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.

The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.

Advertisement

After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.

Continue Reading

News

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

Published

on

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.

Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years. 

Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”

They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010. 

Advertisement

Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze. 

The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.

Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.

Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”

From left, Maurice Pierce, Forrest Welborn, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were exonerated in February 2026 after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the December 1991 killings of four teenage girls in an Austin, Texas, yogurt shop. 

Advertisement

CBS News/AP


Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003. 

Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife. 

Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.” 

Advertisement

“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.

For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.

In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”  

Continue Reading

News

The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center

Published

on

This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending