Rishi Sunak has been dealt a fresh blow to his authority after a raft of Tory rebels voted for amendments to his flagship Rwanda policy.
A total of 60 Tories voted in favour of changes proposed by Conservative veteran Sir Bill Cash.
However, the amendment, seeking to ensure UK and international law cannot be used to block a person being removed to Rwanda, was rejected by a majority of 461.
MPs also voted on an amendment from former immigration Robert Jenrick, which sought to make it more difficult for individuals to make claims against their deportation.
But the Commons again rejected it by 525 votes to 61 votes, among them 59 Tories – including tellers.
The rebellion gives an indication of the scale of unease within the Conservative Party during an election year.
Below is a full list of the Conservatives who voted for Sir Bill’s amendment:
Adam Afriyie – Windsor Lee Anderson – Ashfield Sarah Atherton – Wrexham Sir Jake Berry – Rossendale and Darwen Bob Blackman – Harrow East Ben Bradley – Mansfield Suella Braverman – Fareham Jack Brereton – Stoke-on-Trent South Paul Bristow – Peterborough Sir Bill Cash – Stone Miriam Cates – Penistone and Stocksbridge Rehman Chishti – Gillingham and Rainham Sir Christopher Chope – Christchurch Sir Simon Clarke – Middlesborough South and East Cleveland Brendan Clarke-Smith – Bassetlaw Philip Davies – Shipley Sarah Dines – Derbyshire Dales Richard Drax – South Dorset Sir James Duddridge – Rochford and Southend East Sir Iain Duncan Smith – Chingford and Woodford Green Michael Fabricant – Lichfield Nick Fletcher – Don Valley Kevin Foster – Torbay Mark Francois – Rayleigh and Wickford Chris Green – Bolton West James Grundy – Leigh Jonathan Gullis – Stoke-on-Trent North Sir John Hayes – South Holland and the Deepings Darren Henry – Broxtowe Philip Hollobone – Kettering Adam Holloway – Gravesham Eddie Hughes – Walsall North Tom Hunt – Ipswich Robert Jenrick – Newark Caroline Johnson – Sleaford and North Hykeham David Jones – Clwyd West Danny Kruger – Devizes Andrew Lewer – Northampton South Marco Longhi – Dudley North Jonathan Lord – Woking Craig Mackinlay – South Thanet Karl McCartney – Lincoln Robin Millar – Aberconwy Anne Marie Morris – Newton Abbot Jill Mortimer – Hartlepool Wendy Morton – Aldridge-Brownhills Lia Nici – Great Grimsby Neil O’Brien – Harborough Dr Matthew Offord – Hendon Tom Randall – Gedling John Redwood – Wokingham Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg – North East Somerset Laurence Robertson – Tewksbury Gary Sambrook – Birmingham, Northfield Greg Smith – Buckingham Henry Smith – Crawley Jane Stevenson – Wolverhampton North East Sir Desmond Swayne – New Forest West Liz Truss – South West Norfolk Sir Bill Wiggin – North Herefordshire
Advertisement
Below is a full list of the Conservatives who voted for Mr Jenrick’s amendment:
Adam Afriyie – Windsor Lee Anderson – Ashfield Sarah Atherton – Wrexham Sir Jake Berry – Rossendale and Darwen Bob Blackman – Harrow East Ben Bradley – Mansfield Suella Braverman – Fareham Jack Brereton – Stoke-on-Trent South Paul Bristow – Peterborough Sir Bill Cash – Stone Miriam Cates – Penistone and Stocksbridge Sir Christopher Chope – Christchurch Sir Simon Clarke – Middlesborough South and East Cleveland Brendan Clarke-Smith – Bassetlaw Philip Davies – Shipley Sarah Dines – Derbyshire Dales Richard Drax – South Dorset Sir James Duddridge – Rochford and Southend East Sir Iain Duncan Smith – Chingford and Woodford Green Michael Fabricant – Lichfield Nick Fletcher – Don Valley Mark Francois – Rayleigh and Wickford Chris Green – Bolton West James Grundy – Leigh Jonathan Gullis – Stoke-on-Trent North Sir John Hayes – South Holland and the Deepings Darren Henry – Broxtowe Philip Hollobone – Kettering Adam Holloway – Gravesham Eddie Hughes – Walsall North Tom Hunt – Ipswich Robert Jenrick – Newark Caroline Johnson – Sleaford and North Hykeham David Jones – Clwyd West Danny Kruger – Devizes Sir Edward Leigh – Gainsborough Andrew Lewer – Northampton South Marco Longhi – Dudley North Craig Mackinlay – South Thanet Karl McCartney – Lincoln Robin Millar – Aberconwy Nigel Mills – Amber Valley Anne Marie Morris – Newton Abbot Jill Mortimer – Hartlepool Lia Nici – Great Grimsby Neil O’Brien – Harborough Dr Matthew Offord – Hendon Tom Randall – Gedling Sir John Redwood – Wokingham Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg – North East Somerset Laurence Robertson – Tewksbury Gary Sambrook – Birmingham, Northfield Greg Smith – Buckingham Henry Smith – Crawley Jane Stevenson – Wolverhampton North East Sir Desmond Swayne – New Forest West Liz Truss – South West Norfolk Sir Bill Wiggin – North Herefordshire
Opinion by: James Strudwick, executive director, Starknet Foundation
The outlook surrounding the use of new technologies has shifted in Washington. Tesla CEO and presidential adviser Elon Musk’s proposition to incorporate blockchain technology into the US Treasury has placed blockchain and its use for state finances at the forefront of the global debate. According to Musk, much of this drive is rooted in the concern over the unsustainability of current government spending. With its immutable ledgers and transparent audit trails, blockchain is waiting in the wind, offering a potential solution to managing vast public finances.
Musk advocates for a unified information system that can track real-time payments, credentials and government resources, spurring a debate within the fintech community about the pros and cons of introducing such a tool at the government level. The idea is compelling, as the description on the blockchain tin effectively promises accountability, traceability and streamlined operations. The shift here, namely to a blockchain-powered government infrastructure, presents several challenges that may prove to be beyond what the new administration has expected thus far.
Blockchain as state appendage
A concern for stakeholders orbiting the blockchain world revolves around the sheer scale of government operations. Every day, the US government handles thousands of transactions across various departments. The feasibility of Musk’s vision is put into question simply as a result of its own complexity. The provable security that blockchain technology must offer while handling millions of daily transactions without buckling under the load to succeed at this scale is enormous.
A proposed solution by Musk is a hybrid model that uses “Validium” zero-knowledge rollups. The speed and efficiency of modern ZK-rollups, which can handle hundreds of millions of transactions daily, have the potential to make sure each citizen’s share of government transactions is intact and verifiable. The technology’s rapidly evolving nature, scaling to handle even higher transaction volumes in the coming years, indicates that this could be achievable.
Unfortunately, this in itself comes with its own hurdles, particularly when integrating public services, which tend to operate in silos.
The human question
The great irony here is that Musk’s declarations of government inefficiency as a reason for the ongoing shakeups could be one of the biggest reasons not to go ahead with the plan. The real obstacle here is not so much technological as it is deeply, irrevocably human. The transition from archaic legacy systems to the more modern infrastructure of blockchain requires not just software updates but an entire reprogramming of the workforce. Government employees embedded in bureaucracy are used to outdated systems, and retraining them will be no small task.
Moreover, current government databases are a labyrinth of poorly documented, indecipherable data. Extracting and migrating this data to a blockchain infrastructure is itself a task that may require serious investment. For all its elegance, blockchain wasn’t built to contend with such inefficiency. Despite its potential for handling complex, distributed environments, the difficulties present in the system itself could make the transition more complicated than the hassle is worth.
Balancing transparency and confidentiality
Transparency of federal spending is also a factor worth highlighting. The innate strength of blockchain and its much-lauded appeal is its strength. It permits citizens to track how public funds are allocated and spent. Musk’s premise could foster a so-far unseen level of accountability, which makes transactions, every delegation of power and every resource distribution visible to the public in real-time.
The problem is that sensitive government data, classified information or personal identification could be dangerously exposed on a public blockchain. Musk’s response is to try to tether sensitive data to private channels in the blockchain and ensure that only individuals with the appropriate authorization or from specific departments can access confidential information. Theoretically, this addresses the security concern while allowing blockchain’s public verifiability.
Musk’s offer could lead to a more efficient, accountable system. The social drive behind this is the longstanding criticism of wasted spending and resource misallocation. There is also a possibility of strengthening democratic processes by holding public officials more accountable. A decentralized authority has the broader impact of empowering citizens through real-time access.
There is a forward-thinking aspect to the vision. It raises a profound question. Technology could address human governance challenges, but we run the risk of a fundamental shift in how we understand privacy and accountable authority. As we question the nature of governance, it warrants careful consideration of the role of blockchain and what it could ultimately mean for the future of society as a whole.
Opinion by: James Strudwick, executive director, Starknet Foundation.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Sir Keir Starmer has said the government has been preparing “for all eventualities” ahead of Donald Trump announcing global tariffs later on Wednesday.
The US president is set to announce details of fresh tariffs on imports into the US after he said all countries will be targeted in his bid to “rebalance” trade agreements.
Mr Trump is expected to announce 20% tariffs on most US imports on what he has called “Liberation Day”.
However, he admitted it is likely “there will be tariffs” as negotiators had not managed to fend them off in time.
At PMQs, Sir Keir rejected jumping into a trade war with the US, saying: “That cannot be the first response of the United Kingdom.”
The impact of potential retaliatory tariffs from the EU on Northern Ireland was also raised, with DUP MP Gavin Robinson reminding the prime minister not to forget the unique trade situation in Northern Ireland.
He said while exports from Northern Ireland are UK exports, imports to the country could be hit by tariffs imposed by the EU as it shares a border with the European bloc.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:20
PM holding fire on Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs
The Belfast East MP asked whether government trade teams are attempting to exempt Northern Ireland from any EU action.
Sir Keir reacted by saying what is needed is to be “calm and pragmatic”.
He added the business secretary had spoken to the Northern Ireland government on Wednesday morning, “because this is a serious issue and we need to work together to resolve the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland”.
Last week, Mr Trump said he was open to carving out deals with countries seeking to avoid US tariffs, but those agreements would be negotiated after 2 April.
He previously said he “may give a lot of countries breaks, but it’s reciprocal”, adding: “We might be even nicer than that.”
More than 400 Gurdwaras and Sikh organisations are calling on Sir Keir Starmer to launch an inquiry he promised into potential British involvement in the Golden Temple Massacre.
The groups have signed a letter that was sent to the prime minister urging him to follow through on a commitment made in 2022.
The calls relate to questions around what part the UK and British special forces played in the 1984 killings, in which hundreds of Sikhs died after the Indian military entered the temple complex where separatists had sought refuge.
In 2014, the UK government accidentally revealed Margaret Thatcher was aware of the Indian state’s intention to raid the temple and in the months before the raid, a British SAS officer provided advice to the Indian government.
A subsequent investigation commissioned by David Cameron found that a single officer provided advice – and there was “no evidence of UK government involvement in the operation itself”.
However, this investigation was criticised as a cover-up due to its limited scope and quick timeframe.
More on India
Related Topics:
In 2022, Sir Keir wrote to all Gurdwaras and Sikh organisations, saying: “A future Labour government will open an independent inquiry into Britain’s military role in the Indian army’s 1984 raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar. It is important that we are open, transparent and above reproach in understanding any role the UK may have played in such events.
“This is something I know is important to our Sikh communities here and throughout the world.”
However, an announcement on the inquiry is yet to materialise.
In the letter sent to the prime minister by the Sikh Federation, seen by Sky News, Sir Keir is told: “If what is eventually proposed by a Labour government fails to deliver the ‘truth’ as promised by you this will have massive political ramifications for the Sikh community’s support for Labour in future elections for many generations.”
The federation says an inquiry “must” be announced by 31 May.
Image: Sikh campaigners want Starmer to keep his word. Pic: PA
In a letter to Labour MPs, the Sikh Federation also called on them to put pressure on the government to start an inquiry.
The organisation also said it had heard “extremely worrying rumours” that the Foreign, Commonwealth And Development Office has been under pressure from the Indian government to “avoid or limit” an independent inquiry.
It added: “Civil servants are understood to be advising that a public inquiry is expensive and could damage relations with India.”
The UK is currently trying to negotiate a new trade agreement with India in the wake of Brexit. Attempts by the Conservative government failed due to a difference in position over visas.
There is a campaign among some in the Sikh community for an independent nation to be established – known as Khalistan – out of parts of the Punjab region in northern India.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.