Vicious critics hate Patel for having grit to fix asylum crisis
IT WAS ONE of the most electric moments of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. In October 1981, as her ratings plummeted and her Government ran into severe trouble over rising unemployment, spending cuts, inner city riots and turmoil in Northern Ireland, she told her critics at the annual Tory conference that there would be no U-turn on policy. “You turn if you want to; the Lady’s not for turning.” With those words, she confirmed that she was a leader of unusual resolution
This week, the House of Commons provided the setting for another stirring display of toughness by a senior female politician, as the Home Secretary Priti Patel valiantly defended her controversial new plan to send some illegal migrants to the African republic of Rwanda, particularly those who have reached Britain by the criminal trafficking route across the Channel. Her statement was somewhat overshadowed in the news coverage by the continuing row over Partygate, centred on the Prime Minister’s apology to the House, but Patel’s performance at the Despatch Box was formidable, combining eloquent selfconfidence with a mastery of the details of her innovative partnership with Rwanda.
At one stage she tussled with the former Prime Minister Theresa May, who announced in her usual patronising way that she would not support the Rwandan scheme. It was not hard to see who emerged the stronger from this clash.
DESPITE her current pose as the wise elder stateswoman, May was one of the worst Prime Ministers of modern Britain, a ditherer and an appeaser whose woeful lack of leadership almost brought Jeremy Corbyn to power, whereas Patel is bravely trying to solve the most difficult immigration problem of our times in the teeth of hysterical, bullying opposition.
Indeed, it is the level of vitriol thrown at her which makes Patel’s stance so impressive. Both in the chamber and on social media, the attacks on her often had an unhinged quality. On Tuesday, just as she addressed MPs, one of the hashtags trending on Twitter was “Priti Evil”. She was variously described as “a poisonous ghoul”, “an evil piece of work” and “one of the most contemptible people this country has ever seen”.A frothing contributor said that “she has a seat reserved in hell”. That savage verdict echoes the extraordinary claim by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the scheme was “against the judgment of God”.
But there are several layers of hypocrisy to all this vicious abuse and moral denunciations. First, for all the preening selfrighteousness of Patel’s opponents, there is nothing humane about the current shambolic asylum system. On the contrary, it not only encourages perilous journeys across the busiest sea lane in the world but also sustains the vile trade in people smuggling. Moreover, the acceptance of an illegal immigration route is profoundly unfair on those migrants who patiently abide by the law and follow the correct procedures. An anarchic broken system is the opposite of compassionate, it excludes the vulnerable and allows bullies to triumph.
ON ANOTHER level, Patel’s detractors indulge in the very behaviour that they claim to despise. Brimming with moral superiority, they wail about intolerance and hate, yet those qualities shine through their demented hostility to Patel. Their attitude often seems to mix misogyny with racial prejudice. It is as if the Home Secretary is loathed because, in her belief in national pride, strong borders, tough policing and the free market, she does not fulfil the classic Left-wing stereotype of the female ethnic minority politician.
Never playing the victim, she is submissive to neither the state nor socialism. That partly explains why Labour is so enraged at her. In June 2020 a group of Labour MPs led by Naz Shah wrote to her to complain that she was exploiting her heritage “to gaslight other minorities”. Her response was robust, saying she would not be “silenced” by Labour MPs “who continue to dismiss the contributions of those who don’t conform to their view of how ethnic minorities should behave”.
As the daughter of Ugandan refugees who came here in the 1970s, Patel has fought her way to the top through hard work, talent and fortitude. She will need all her robustness now as she battles for her daring policy.
Patel has already encountered her share of obstructionism and non-cooperation in a department famously described as “not fit for purpose”. But she’s still there, and this week she has shown she has the determination to fulfil her vision of a more effective asylum system.
‘Patel has fought her way to the top through talent and fortitude’