Badenoch Rejects "Broken Britain" Claim After Jenrick Resignation
The senior Conservative minister argues that the
Introduction
Senior cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch has publicly stated that "Britain is not broken." She made this comment in response to the resignation of former immigration minister Robert Jenrick. Jenrick left his role over disagreements with the government's flagship immigration legislation.
The Context of Jenrick's Resignation
Robert Jenrick resigned from his position as Minister for Immigration on December 6, 2023. He stated that the government's proposed Rwanda asylum plan did not go far enough. Jenrick argued that stronger measures were needed to stop illegal migration. He warned of a "triple emergency" in the immigration system.
Badenoch's Public Response
In a media interview following the resignation, Kemi Badenoch addressed Jenrick's claims directly. She stated, "I don't think Britain is broken." Badenoch, the Business and Trade Secretary, argued that while the country faces challenges, the government has a clear plan. She defended the Prime Minister's approach to immigration.
The Core Policy Dispute
The disagreement centers on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The bill aims to legally designate Rwanda as a safe country to send asylum seekers. Jenrick and other critics on the right of the party wanted the bill to include powers to disregard all international law and human rights claims. The government's version allows for some limited judicial oversight.
Broader Conservative Party Divisions
Jenrick's resignation highlights a significant split within the ruling Conservative Party. A faction of MPs believes the government's policies on immigration are not sufficiently tough. Another faction is concerned about the UK's adherence to international law and its global reputation. This division creates a challenging parliamentary situation for the Prime Minister.
Political Implications for the Government
The resignation of a senior minister is a significant political event. It forces the government to defend its strategy from both the opposition and its own MPs. The Prime Minister now faces the task of uniting his party ahead of a general election, expected in 2024. Immigration is likely to be a major campaign issue.
Opposition and Public Reaction
The Labour Party and other opposition groups have seized on the resignation. They describe it as evidence of a chaotic and divided government. Some political analysts suggest the public may perceive the Conservatives as unable to manage a key issue they have long prioritized.
Badenoch's Positioning
Kemi Badenoch is often seen as a potential future leader of the Conservative Party. Her public defense of the Prime Minister's position is notable. It aligns her with the current leadership while allowing her to articulate a confident vision for the country. Her statement was aimed at reassuring both the public and party members.
The Road Ahead for the Rwanda Bill
The government will now proceed with passing its version of the Rwanda bill through Parliament. It will require the support of wary backbenchers. Further amendments or rebellions are possible during the legislative process. The success or failure of the bill is seen as a critical test of the Prime Minister's authority.
Conclusion
Kemi Badenoch's rejection of the "broken Britain" narrative is a direct attempt to counter the message sent by Robert Jenrick's resignation. The event exposes deep Conservative divisions over immigration policy. The government's immediate challenge is to navigate these divisions while convincing the public that its approach is both lawful and effective. The political fallout will continue as the Rwanda bill moves forward.
About the Creator
Saad
I’m Saad. I’m a passionate writer who loves exploring trending news topics, sharing insights, and keeping readers updated on what’s happening around the world.
Trump’s Actions May Be Illegal — But His Greed Might Be the Only Thing Holding Him Back
In American politics, few figures provoke as much controversy, outrage, and relentless fascination as Donald Trump. Years after entering the political arena, he remains a dominant force not only in elections and headlines, but also in courtrooms and public debate. Legal scholars, journalists, and watchdog groups have repeatedly argued that many of Trump’s actions — both during his presidency and after — crossed clear legal and ethical lines. From election interference claims to allegations of abusing executive power, mishandling classified information, and entangling public office with private business interests, the accusations against Trump are neither isolated nor trivial. They form a pattern that critics say reveals a leader willing to push, bend, or outright ignore the law when it suits him. And yet, paradoxically, Trump has not gone as far as many of his harshest critics once feared. The reason may not be respect for democratic norms or fear of legal accountability — but something far more personal: his own greed. This is not a defense of Trump’s conduct. Rather, it is an attempt to understand a reality that even some of his opponents quietly acknowledge. Trump’s obsession with personal wealth, brand image, and financial survival may sometimes limit how far he is willing to go, even when legality appears optional. A Pattern of Questionable Legality Trump’s political career has been accompanied by an almost constant cloud of legal scrutiny. Investigations have examined campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, business fraud, election interference, and misuse of power. Unlike many politicians who rely on subtlety or plausible deniability, Trump often operates in full public view, openly testing the boundaries of what he can get away with. His response to legal challenges is also strikingly consistent. He rarely engages with the substance of allegations. Instead, he frames investigations as politically motivated “witch hunts” and portrays prosecutors, judges, and journalists as enemies of the people. This narrative has proven effective with his base, many of whom see legal accountability not as justice, but as persecution. The brazenness of this strategy has led critics to argue that Trump believes himself above the law. And yet, despite his rhetoric, he has repeatedly stopped short of actions that would create immediate, irreversible consequences. The question is why. The Central Role of Money and Brand To understand Trump’s restraint, one must understand how he sees himself. Trump has never primarily viewed himself as a public servant or ideological leader. His core identity is that of a businessman and brand. Trump’s wealth — or at least the perception of it — is central to his political power. His properties, licensing deals, fundraising apparatus, and media presence all depend on the image of success. Politics, for Trump, has never been separate from profit. It is another platform for monetization and self-promotion. Unlike leaders driven by ideology, nationalism, or historical legacy, Trump’s decisions often reflect a simple cost-benefit calculation. Actions that threaten his brand value, fundraising ability, or business empire are approached with caution. Actions that energize supporters without endangering his financial interests are embraced enthusiastically. This explains a recurring pattern: Trump escalates rhetorically, but hesitates operationally. He may use inflammatory language, encourage outrage, or flirt with extreme ideas, but often stops short of moves that would directly and permanently damage his wealth. Greed as a Limiting Force Greed is typically viewed as a corrupting influence, and in many ways, it is. But in Trump’s case, it also functions as a brake. Absolute power, while tempting, carries real risks — sanctions, asset seizures, international isolation, and loss of market confidence. Trump may dismiss institutions publicly, but he understands markets instinctively. He knows investors flee chaos, lenders demand predictability, and brands collapse under prolonged legal uncertainty. Even when he attacks courts or regulators in speeches, his actual behavior often reveals caution: delays, negotiations, settlements, and procedural maneuvering rather than outright defiance. This suggests that Trump’s greatest fear is not prison, but bankruptcy. Having faced financial collapse multiple times in the past, he appears determined never to experience it again. His greed does not eliminate risk-taking, but it shapes where he draws the line. Why This Is Not Reassuring It would be a profound mistake to find comfort in the idea that greed will protect democracy. Self-interest is not a moral safeguard; it is an unreliable and fragile one. Trump’s restraint is situational, not principled. When personal profit and political power align, the danger increases dramatically. Relying on greed rather than law also sets a dangerous precedent. Democracy should not depend on whether a powerful individual calculates that illegal actions are “bad for business.” That logic leaves institutions vulnerable to leaders with fewer assets to lose, greater tolerance for chaos, or ideological motivations stronger than personal wealth. In Trump’s case, the line is not legality — it is profitability. The Legal System Still Matters Despite its flaws and delays, the legal system has not been irrelevant in Trump’s story. Courts have imposed fines, restricted business practices, and upheld investigations despite intense political pressure. These outcomes matter, not just symbolically, but financially. Every legal loss chips away at Trump’s carefully constructed image as a “winner,” an image that underpins his fundraising and influence. Ironically, his obsession with money also makes him vulnerable. Legal accountability threatens the very thing he values most. A Calculated Balance Trump operates within a narrow corridor: push boundaries enough to energize supporters, but not so far that financial consequences become catastrophic. This balancing act explains why aggressive speeches are often followed by procedural stalling, appeals, and strategic retreats. It also explains why Trump attacks institutions rhetorically while continuing to rely on them practically. Banks, courts, and markets are not enemies he can afford to lose entirely. Conclusion Donald Trump’s legacy will likely be defined by how often he tested the limits of the law — and how inconsistently those limits restrained him. Yet one constant remains unmistakable: his devotion to personal profit. That devotion may sometimes hold him in check — not because he respects democracy, but because he values his wealth. Democracy deserves stronger guardians than greed. But for now, it remains an uncomfortable part of the equation in understanding Trump’s behavior and the risks he poses to American political life.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in The Swamp
Miss Persephone's Manual to a Seemingly Ordinary Life
Miss Persephone was found at the dining table, her blue eyes swollen, her tears arriving and retreating like the tides of the ocean. Earlier that day, her family had visited her in the retirement home where she had lived for eight years. It was her eightieth birthday.
By Imola Tóth3 days ago in Fiction
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.