Andrew Tettenborn

Last night’s abrupt order from the European Court of Human Rights that led to the grounding of the first Rwanda deportation flight delighted progressives everywhere. They will of course say – rather in the fashion of twentieth-century home secretaries calmly refusing to reprieve a condemned murderer – that the law is merely taking its course, and that we should be proud that the rule of law has been upheld. This sounds comforting. It is also wrong-headed. The Rwanda debacle in fact raises very serious questions about the legitimacy of the Strasbourg judges and their interference with national administrations. To remind you of the background, concerted lawfare in the English courts failed to block the flight.

Conservatives in Wales are jumpy. Seeing Boris’s name as poisonous on the doorstep, a number of them have suggested disaffiliating from the national party and forming their own Welsh Conservatives as the party of the right west of Offa’s Dyke. Some in the central party in London are, perhaps unsurprisingly, aghast: one unnamed Tory MP has referred apocalyptically to the Balkanisation of the Conservatives. At least one very vociferously unionist Senedd member, James Evans, is also furious. They should not be worried. Why? Because the break-up of the Tory party is actually rather a forward-looking idea, beneficial in the long term to Conservatism. CCHQ should welcome this plan with open arms. For one thing, the union issue is a red herring.

Boris Johnson insists that his victory in last night's confidence vote means he will be able to 'draw a line under issues our opponents want to talk about'. But what the result actually shows, as Boris undoubtedly knows, is that even some of those who backed him in the vote now want him gone. Why? Shortly after the debacle, Matthew Parris in the Times hit the nail on the head. One minister had, he wrote, let the cat out of the bag when he (or she) confided to him: 'He’s appalling: he’s got to go' before trooping in to vote against the no-confidence motion with gritted teeth.

Should MPs be allowed second jobs? In the wake of last year's Owen Paterson scandal, in which it was revealed the Tory MP had breached lobbying rules, there was a clamour to clamp down on Parliamentarians’ outside income. The Commons Standards Committee toyed with the idea of placing some restriction on the time MPs could spend on extra-Parliamentary employment, or on the amounts they earned from it. But now the Committee has decided against taking action. Voters will be unhappy, but this is a decision that should be welcomed. Why? Because outside work by politicians is not a distraction to be avoided, as some more puritanical MPs have it. More often it's something that usefully informs debate and Committee work.

Amnesty International and Stonewall are no strangers to criticising the government. This week they've been at it again: blasting Dominic Raab's plans to make adjustments to the Human Rights Act by replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. But they are wrong to attack an approach that most Brits will realise is perfectly sensible. Raab’s plan, which was set out in the Queen's Speech yesterday, is simple. Britain will remain in the European Convention on Human Rights when it comes to international matters, but when interpreting domestic laws, it will change its emphasis slightly.

Priti Patel’s reforms to the rights of asylum seekers have predictably scandalised the House of Lords. Befitting what is now effectively a club for patricians and liberals who hate Boris Johnson, it duly sent her Nationality and Borders Bill back badly mauled. The Commons excised these amendments in short order; today, the Lords will be asked to restore them. But will it do what it's supposed to? This is a dangerous moment for the government – not least because Shami Chakrabarti's proposed amendment could torpedo the whole project. This is because the most sweetly reasonable change her fix is trying to make is also the most potentially catastrophic.

Since the Ukraine conflict erupted, the EU has had a great deal to say about its sympathy for Ukraine as a brother European state. But if you look closely it has not actually done a great deal to derail Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Even the grisly discoveries at Bucha has wrought little change. Not surprisingly, the patience of some Europeans is now wearing thin. It's true that after the grim findings in recent days in newly-liberated Ukrainian towns, the EU did announce further sanctions. But for all the fanfare they were small beer. A few more banks were boycotted; the ageing Russian merchant marine was excluded from EU ports; and bars were put on imports of oil and coal.

Sometimes old grievances are best laid to rest. That was certainly the view of Tony Blair when his government issued nearly 200 ‘comfort letters’ to Irish nationalist gunmen in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement. But a decision by the Northern Ireland High Court on Wednesday will upend that principle, setting back years of compromise and reconciliation. For some time it has been all but impossible to prosecute IRA men for murders committed during the Troubles. British security forces, however, remain vulnerable, although most are now in their seventies and long retired.

Did Boris Johnson fail to put his money where his mouth is when it came to hitting Russia with sanctions? The Prime Minister's critics think so: they argue that the targeting of five Russian banks and three oligarchs as a response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine was too little, too late. These cries came not only from Labour, and from the Green party's Caroline Lucas (who scandalously accused the PM, without a shred of evidence, of wanting to appease would-be Tory donors), but from his own side. Tory backbencher Iain Duncan-Smith demanded a more general blacklisting of Russian banks and plutocrats, while his party colleague Nickie Aiken went so far as to suggest forcibly expelling oligarchs’ children from English fee-paying schools.

Nadhim Zahawi’s recent reminder to schools to keep their teaching politically neutral seems like common sense. The Education Secretary pointed to existing laws to show that while uncritical promotion of BLM ideology or climate activism to children wasn't acceptable, controversial matters could still be taught with proper balance. But there were still predictable howls of protest from the usual quarters.  Hope not Hate accused the government of obsessing about 'culture wars'. Amnesty International complained of a sinister chilling effect on classroom speech on current affairs and children’s loss of 'safe spaces'.

On Wednesday, in a decision that ought to get a good deal more attention than it will, our Supreme Court said that it was unacceptable that the press should be allowed to tell us that someone is being investigated by the police. It confirmed that someone in that position, an international businessman being investigated over alleged serious irregularities and frauds, had rightly been awarded a five-figure sum in damages from Bloomberg when it entirely truthfully pointed out that fact. Known only as ZXC, the man, said their Lordships, had a reasonable expectation of keeping disreputable matters like that quiet, even if they became known.