Ex-Tory minister says Afghan resettlement scheme was ‘most hapless display of ineptitude' he saw in government
Date: 2025-07-16T07:09:49.000Z
Title: Dan Sabbagh
Content: Good morning. Normally when ministers make announcements in the House of Commons, we know at least some of the detail already because they been well trailed in advance. Yesterday was a rare example of a ministerial statement being used to reveal something utterly surprising and genuinely new (at least to anyone who had not seen the stories that dropped just 30 minutes earlier, when reporting restrictions were lifted). And this was a story about the murky operation of the Deep State. Here is our overnight story, by and Emine Sinmaz.
Today attention is focusing on who is to blame. And two former Tory ministers are having their say in rival articles in the Daily Telegraph.
Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary when the leak happened, has used his article to defend going to court to stop the inadvertent release of names being reported. He said:
I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up.
I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out.
Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.
Wallace has also been on the Today programme this morning, and he insisted he was not to blame for the injunction being a superinjunction. He said:
When we applied in August 2023, when I was secretary of state, we didn't apply for superinjunction. We applied for a four-month injunction, a normal injunction.
Wallace said it was the court that converted this into a superinjunction (meaning not just that the leak could not be reported, but the very existence of an injunction gagging the media could also not be reported). Wallace claimed he did not know why.
In his article Wallace largely defends the decisions taken by the previous government, but Johnny Mercer, who was veterans ministers in the same government (but not in the MoD – he worked out of the Cabinet Office), is very critical of the way the whole Afghan resettlement programme was handled. In his Telegraph article he said:
Whilst there will no doubt be a rush to blame the individual who sent it (I know who he is), it would be entirely unfair and wrong to do so. Because I can honestly say this whole farcical process has been the most hapless display of ineptitude by successive ministers and officials that I saw in my time in government, of which this poor individual was just the end of the line …
The MoD has tried at every turn to cut off those from Afghan special forces units from coming to the UK, for reasons I cannot fathom.
They also lied to themselves about doing it. The UK's director of Special Forces told me personally that he was offended and angry by my suggestion that his organisation was blocking the Triples.
Certain MoD ministers had a criminal lack of professional curiosity as to why the Triples [members of the Afghan special forces] were being rejected when there were so many subject matter experts who said they clearly should be eligible.
They even tried for a long time to say that Afghan special forces were not eligible.
Mercer said the UK ended up letting the wrong people in.
And the net result of this spectacular cluster is that we've let into this country thousands with little or tenuous links to the UK, and still some Afghan special forces we set up the bloody schemes for, remain trapped in Afghanistan, Pakistan or worse, Iran.
I feel furious, sad and bitter about the whole thing, and do as much as I can to get through each day not thinking about Afghanistan.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Liz Kendall, work and pensions secretary, gives evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee.
10am: David Lammy, foreign secretary, gives evidence to the Commons international development committee.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
Noon: The Home Office is publishing a report by David Anderson KC into the Prevent programme.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if you put 'Andrew' in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump is telling the truths Europe's leaders won't
The most important skill in European politics is the ability to pretend that all is well. In London, Paris, Berlin and a dozen other capitals, the order of the day is continuing the series of polite lies that exculpate a generation of politicians from bearing responsibility for their failures. Things that intrude on this bubble – videos of protests circulating online, the views of the electorate, writers who draw attention to the catastrophic consequences of a toxic combination of welfarism and open borders – are censored, ignored or threatened with legal action. Donald Trump's occasional forays into European affairs have much the same effect on the political class as a stick of dynamite chucked into a lake does on fish. His comments are followed by floundering, gasping, and goggle-eyed outrage. They are not met with actual rebuttal. With Europe engaged in a project of total self-delusion, it has fallen to the American president to tell us the truths we are unwilling to tell ourselves. For all Mr Trump's failings, he is rarely accused of being insufficiently blunt. And on Europe, he has a regrettable tendency to be correct. While our politicians wring their hands over vast numbers of economic migrants abusing an outdated asylum system, attempting to square the circle of an open borders approach to migration, generous welfare states, and hopelessly outdated laws and treaties, Mr Trump is free to state what he sees: 'You better get your act together or you're not going to have Europe anymore.' It is a view that will resonate with voters across the continent. The great weakening of Europe's borders has been unfolding for a decade now, since German chancellor Angela Merkel crumpled when confronted with a crying child and attempted to reshape her country around the slogan 'wir schaffen das': 'we can do this'. Political will, however, was not sufficient to change reality on its own. The cultural costs have not been negligible. Nor have the economic consequences, particularly alongside other flawed policies. The costs of net zero continue to mount, with politicians seemingly eager to dismantle Europe's industrial base in a fit of moral fervour. When Mr Trump tells Sir Keir Starmer that Britain should go against this consensus and drill for the oil in the North Sea, or objects to the 'detrimental' effect of windfarms on the 'beauty of Scotland', he is articulating the views of millions of British voters. That they are unpopular in Westminster means that these criticisms are frequently ignored or overruled. It does not mean that they are untrue. Indeed, it is often the truth of Mr Trump's statements that triggers the most furious backlash against them. When he says Europeans risk 'losing their wonderful right to freedom of speech', or his vice-president J D Vance criticises 'digital censorship ', the criticisms sting because they are clearly correct, and all the more so contrasted against attempts to rebut them. When the French mission to the UN asserted that 'in Europe, one is free to speak, not free to spread illegal content' – a statement that would have been just as true of the Soviet Union – the official State Department account responded by pointing out the only true effect was to protect Europe's 'leaders from their own people'. It is hard to disagree with this sentiment. It is difficult, too, to disagree with Trump's blunt statement that recognising a Palestinian state 'doesn't matter '. French president Emmanuel Macron has declared that France will join Spain and Ireland in this policy. As Mr Trump says, however, it is a statement that 'doesn't carry weight', and is 'not going to change anything'. In this, it is a perfect summary of Europe's travails. Political leaders who have squandered the legacies they were handed still behave as if the world hangs upon their word, even as events overtake them. Gesture policies like state recognition are thrown out without any thought as to their actual effect or practicality. What does it mean to recognise a Palestinian state in an area controlled by Hamas? How is this policy meant to assist in quelling the fanatical opposition amongst Palestinian elites to any Jewish state in the Middle East, or for that matter the presence of any other minority? In what sense is rewarding Hamas's butchering and raping of Israeli civilians meant to have any effect other than prolonging this bloody conflict? Mr Trump is not always right. His protectionist trade policy is a catastrophic misstep. He was similarly disastrously wrong on Ukraine, and it is by good fortune rather than design that his ham-fisted attempts to force Kyiv into a terrible deal failed. There, Europe's leaders were for once in the right. The difference is that Mr Trump appears to have realised the error of his ways, and shifted his policies accordingly. To date, this has only once occurred in the other direction. It is clearly for the good that Europe is coming round to Mr Trump's views on defence, with Nato pledging to raise defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP after pressure from the White House, implicitly affirming the truth of his statement that the continent had been 'freeloading'. This was not cheap but it was necessary. We must now hope that similar reversals will follow in other fields, before irreparable damage is done.
The Sun
24 minutes ago
- The Sun
Charming English town is getting new £42million train station that will reopen key link shut for over 60 years
A RURAL English town has been given the green light for a new £42million train station that will reopen a vital link. After more than 60 years without a railway station, Cullompton has been granted funding by the Department of Transport and HM Treasury. 2 2 The announcement is set to turbo-charge the economy of the Devon town and provide desperately needed transport links for locals and visitors. The funding will also help to support plans for a new station in Wellington. Cullompton station first opened in 1844 and closed in 1964. The reopening will be key to enabling the Culm Garden Village development, which will create around 5,000 homes. The new station will also be next to the motorway services at Junction 28 of the M5. Councillor Jacqi Hodgson, Devon County Council Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Biodiversity, said: 'Further investment in rail infrastructure in Devon is always welcome and this railway station for Cullompton is key to the town's economic growth and will help reduce carbon emissions in the county. "People need improved public transport options if they're going to be encouraged to change their travel habits. "Hopefully Cullompton could follow the success of Okehampton Station and the re-opening of the Dartmoor Line, which is a great example of what can be achieved given the necessary funding from government.' In April, a delegation of 30 people from the region travelled to London to hand-deliver powerful letters of support to rail minister Lord Hendy. Backed by a cross-party group of South West MPs and Wellington Town Council, the letters stressed how restoring rail links to both Okehampton and nearby Wellington could unlock major economic, social and environmental benefits. Lord Hendy said: 'The stations would contribute to sustainable development, connecting new residential areas with regional employment, education and healthcare opportunities. "The case for taking a combined approach presents significantly higher value for money compared with a stand-alone project in either area.' He added: 'Reopening Cullompton and Wellington stations would be a strategic investment aligning with the Government's goals to drive economic growth, reduce environmental impact and improve social mobility.' Economic growth Gideon Amos, who also backed the scheme, said: 'For the cost of around £42 million, £180 million of economic growth would go into the region — which I know the Government would want to see. 'Frankly, there is no other rail project in the south-west that is ready to go and could be built and completed in the next two years, as the project is so far advanced. 'In fact, had it not been for the review in July last year, the spades would be in the ground and the platforms under construction, because the contract was about to be let and the detailed design was almost finished.' And Labour MP Simon Lightwood added in the Commons: 'The strategic objectives are clear. "Enhancing public transport connectivity will support growth and productivity in Exeter, Taunton and Bridgwater, while also reducing road congestion, car dependency and carbon emissions. ' He continued: 'The stations would contribute to sustainable development, connecting new residential areas with regional employment, education and healthcare opportunities." This comes as satellite images of a new £15million train station at Okehampton were revealed. The station, which will be the newest addition to the Dartmoor Line, connecting West Devon, Torridge and North Cornwall with Exeter and beyond, will also benefit education and leisure services in the region. GWR Regional Growth Manager David Whiteway said the project would provide "valuable support for the community and local economies". Satellite images show the rapid development of the £15million scheme, which is being funded by the Department for Transport with contributions from Devon County Council and West Devon Borough Council. Since work began in January, major progress has been made to create the new station on the edge of Okehampton, two minutes from the A30. In March, 300 metres of the single-line track was moved 90cm north to allow a new platform to be built alongside it.
The Sun
24 minutes ago
- The Sun
Our political party system is shattering and Britain could soon become ungovernable
Days before the 2015 General Election, then Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted: 'Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband.' Given the decade since: six Prime Ministers, four elections, Brexit gridlock, a pandemic, a cost-of-living crisis, partygate and the mini-budget, many rightly wonder: if that was stability, how bad could chaos have been? 3 But at the time, Cameron's pitch worked, partly because many Brits feared Labour might end up governing in a three-party combo with the Lib Dems and SNP, with the late former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond calling the shots. Unlike our neighbours on the Continent, we aren't used to coalitions and dislike the idea of smaller parties potentially holding the Government to ransom. Fast forward to 2025 and it looks like Brits might have to get used to coalitions. Our political map has been reshaped. Fewer than half the public now describe themselves as strong supporters of any one party. The days of being 'a Labour family' or voting for 'anything with a blue rosette' are over. Voters are now far more promiscuous, shopping around to see what they like best. 3 As recently as 2017, the two main parties took over 80 per cent of the vote. That plummeted to 57 per cent in last year's election, a post-war low and our polling suggests it's fallen further still since - just 43 per cent now say they'd vote Labour or Tory. Instead, voters are turning to new emerging parties on the right and left. Last year's General Election was the first time post-war that more than three parties each won over ten per cent of the vote, and more than four won over five per cent. Why is this happening? More in Common's latest report Shattered Britain delves into what's behind our growing fragmentation. Simply put - it finds the old dividing lines of left and right no longer cut it. New political fault lines are emerging. These include whether we can fix a country many feel is broken by improving our institutions or, as 38 per cent think, we need to 'burn them all down'; whether the answers to our problems are common sense or complex; whether diversity strengthens or erodes British identity; and crucially whether we trust mainstream news or prefer independent voices online. Just as our politics is fragmenting, so too is where we get our information with a knock on effect on politics, reducing the stranglehold the big two parties have in communicating with the public. 3 None of these divides map neatly onto our existing political landscape and our First Past the Post system is struggling to cope as these new fault lines scatter Britons votes across multiple parties. More in Common's latest MRP - a model for projecting what the next Parliament might look like, helps to show how this might all play out: it suggests an election tomorrow could deliver a political map we've never seen before. Reform UK would come first on 290 seats, Labour trailing on 126, Tories barely third on 81, the Liberal Democrats snapping at their heels on 73. With 325 seats needed for a majority, the likeliest outcome would be a Reform UK–Tory coalition. But how comfortable would the Conservatives be as junior partners to Farage's Party, given the bad blood between them? Even those headline numbers hide more turbulence beneath the surface. Nearly 100 seats could be won on under 30 per cent of the vote and small shifts could flip many of them. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, voting for the first time at the next election, will make up just two to three per cent of the electorate, but in tight races, that could make all the difference. With only a modest Labour recovery from midterm blues and a Reform dip, we could end up with the only viable option being a five-party coalition: Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru. How's that for a stable Government? And that's before factoring in Jeremy Corbyn's newly announced party, which our polling suggests could take 10 per cent of the vote, further muddying our electoral waters. At this stage it's fair to ask will the next Parliament be ungovernable? Maybe, but we've been here before. In 2019, the Brexit Party was topping the polls, the Lib Dems surged, and the two main parties were barely registering a third of the vote. Come election day, Boris Johnson won a stonking majority. In the early 1980s, the SDP–Liberal Alliance looked set to reshape politics, only to fall back. Still, as Britain drifts into uncharted political waters and the two main parties continue to struggle, it might be wise to use our summer holidays on the Continent to pick up a few tips on coalition-building from our European neighbours. THE UK used to be known worldwide for its stable, two party political system. The choice was binary: Tory or Labour. Elections nearly always delivered a majority government. But all that could be about to change. Old party allegiances have shattered. Our political system has become fragmented. Nigel Farage and his Reform Party have redrawn the political map and decimated the Tory vote. On the Left, Labour are being challenged by the rise of the Greens and creation of Jeremy Corbyn's far-left party. But that begs the question: is Britain about to become ungovernable? We are not used to Coalition governments - but all the evidence suggests we are about to get one. Pollsters say the most likely outcome is a Reform Tory Coalition. But can we really imagine Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch in bed together - after they have spent five years at each other's throats? The alternative is a rainbow coalition of Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, and Plaid Cymru. That's a dizzying mix. I doubt a government stuffed with so many different political personalities and policies would last five minutes - let alone five years. The result would surely be another snap election and yet more political turmoil? The next general election is still four years away and much can happen in that time. One thing is clear - voters are desperate for Britain to break out of its current quagmire. They want politicians who can actually get things done and aren't held to hostage by their backbenchers. It's why they gave Boris Johnson a majority to get Brexit done - and took it off him again when the Tories sank into civil war. It's why they handed Keir Starmer a landslide - then sent his poll ratings tumbling when he failed to come up with a big package of reforms. If the polls stay the same then it looks like Britain is heading for more political turbulence and a coalition. But who knows? Voters may decide to gamble big and hand Nigel Farage a majority next time. I wouldn't bet against it.
