Suella Braverman’s fate remains unclear as No 10 says internal inquiry ongoing – UK politics live | Politics

A reader asks:

If Suella Braverman resigns, what effect do you think that will have on Sunak’s government? Will it look hypocritical to sack her (if he does it on the basis of the ministerial code), having re-hired her after breaking it?

If Rishi Sunak does sack Suella Braverman, Labour and others may argue that this shows he was wrong to appoint her in the first place. But that is not the sort of argument that will shift the way Sunak is perceived. Generally, when politicians reverse a bad decision, as long as the new decision is better than the old one, they tend to get some credit for doing what people want.

Braverman is not popular with voters, and so it is hard to see what the government will miss if Sunak gets rid of her. While her views might be popular with core Tory voters, she has not managed to persuade the public that the government is tackling small boats, or crime, effectively. There is no real evidence she has been an asset electorally.

But in party management terms, the argument is different. Some rightwing Tory MPs, and papers, are very supportive, and it is possible or likely they would react very angrily if Braverman were to be sacked. This could provide Sunak with an opportunity if he can show voters that is is able and willing to face down rebels in his party. But if he can’t, and if the party were to descend into civil war, then getting rid of her could cause even more trouble.

A reader asks:

Do you think Suella Braverman should be classed as an extreme right wing politician ? She has the same views as Marine Le Pen on most subjects (so it isnt simply right wing “populism”. Why is the British Establishment so afraid to (identify) right wing extremism in its politicians?

Yes, to some extent I do. I made that argument here on the blog, in a snap analysis after Braverman’s speech to the party conference. I made a similar point yesterday.

Some caution is undertandable. For many journalists and readers/viewers, the terms far/hard/extreme right/left do not have precise definitions, and so using them in reports might not contribute to understanding. Instead it could just look like adding a ‘this person’s a baddie’ label, which is not conducive to good reporting.

But politicial scientists do use these terms in meaningful ways. In my blog post after the Tory conference I mentioned a Guardian story about far-right parties in Europe in which the academics were quoted as saying they had thought hard about whether or not the Conservative party should be categorised as far-right.

One of the academics who has studied this most closely is Cas Mudde and in his book The Far Right Today he argues that the far right divides into two categories: the extreme right which “rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule”; and the radical right, which “accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law and separtion of powers”.

Using these definitions, Braverman is obviously not “extreme right”. But, given the contempt she has repeatedly shown for certain liberal democratic norms, there is a strong case for saying her politics put her in “radical right” territory.

Partly that is to do with attitude to the rule of law. It is perfectly possible to argue for withdrawal from the European convention on human rights without being far right/left. But, as attorney general and home secretary, Braverman has been contemptuous of lawyers, and much more enthusiastic about testing how far the limits of the law (particularly international law) can be pushed than her predecessors. Her comments about migrants have appalled people concerned about minority rights. And, on separation of powers, the current row about the Met shows her wanting to extend the powers of the executive, at least in relation to policing, further than they’ve gone before.

That doesn’t mean she’s Donald Trump, or 100% far right. But she is definitely heading in that direction.

Who might replace Braverman as home secretary?

Here is some more from what was said at the No 10 lobby briefing this morning about Suella Braverman.

• The spokesperson said the government was working closely with the police and others “to ensure that Remembrance events this weekend are protected from disruption and that people, veterans and those gathering to mark Remembrance feel safe and similarly that those in the Jewish community and indeed Muslim communities do not face intimidation or harassment”.

• The spokesperson claimed that Sunak and Braverman work closely together. In an interview this morning Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, said he had a “productive relationship” with Braverman. Asked if the Sunak/Braverman relationship was also productive, the spokespeson replied:

Yes, they work very closely as they have been on protests and preparations for the weekend, tackling small boats and on the legislation set out in the king’s speech to make our streets safer.

Stewart Jackson, the prominent Brexiter and former MP who is now a Tory peer, has issued a statement supporting Suella Braverman. He implies rightwingers in the party will get their revenge on ministers who have not defended her.

To my friends in the Cabinet. Your silence and refusal to support Suella Braverman is being noticed by the electorate, within @conservatives and beyond. Difficult times require honesty, integrity, leadership and candour.

Suella Braverman’s fate remains in balance as No 10 says internal inquiry into unauthorised article still ongoing

Gavin Barwell, who was Theresa May’s chief of staff and how is now a Tory peer, told Times Radio this morning that he thought Suella Braverman would be sacked. He explained:

She’s also making the job of all of her colleagues trying to get re-elected in a year’s time more difficult. She is personally on a mission, as far as I can see, to re-toxify the Conservative brand.

And it’s not so much the issues that she talks about. If you take the example, before this latest article … about the demonstrations, when she talked about people living on the streets being a lifestyle choice.

Now, I expect that many of your listeners would agree with her that we don’t want tent cities on our streets and we have a concern about aggressive begging. But nobody that I know thinks that the people that are on our streets are there because they want to be there. Most of them have got highly complex problems. Not just a housing problem, but mental health and addiction issues. And they deserve our sympathy and our support and government intervention to try and help get them off the streets, not labelling them as people that are somehow choosing to behave in this way.

So all of these interventions she makes are making Rishi Sunak’s job, and the job of every single Conservative candidate elected at the next election, more difficult.

So for both those reasons, if you’re a Conservative, she’s not helping. And more importantly, for those of your listeners that aren’t Conservatives, she’s making the job of the police at this most difficult time, even harder.

What Tory papers are saying about Braverman

Suella Braverman may have been happy with the Daily Mail splash this morning (see 9.08am), but she won’t be so happy with the Daily Telegraph’s editorial. It says many people will agree with her claim that the police have been soft on pro-Palestinian demonstrations. But it goes on:

But Mrs Braverman holds one of the great offices of state and occupies a complex position in the constitutional settlement. Hers is obviously a political role, given that she is an MP and a member of the Cabinet, but it includes certain statutory responsibilities and functions.

Her newspaper article effectively criticising Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, for not requesting a ban on Saturday’s pro-Palestine march, cut across operational decisions which have always been off-limits to politicians for good reason.

We do not want to live in a country in which ministers can direct officers to arrest particular individuals, or involve themselves directly in police decisions. If Mrs Braverman had wanted Saturday’s march proscribed, she could have brought forward an emergency Bill to do so.

According to Sky’s Beth Rigby, some ministers think No 10 would be wrong to wait until the middle of next week before deciding Suella Braverman’s fate.

Senior minister: “We can’t continue like this” “No 10 may want to wait & see what happens at w/end & & poss wait for Supreme Court on Weds (Rwanda decision) But relationship with police is v damaged. Credibility generally is low. Delay makes the govt look weak unfortunately”

According to a report in the Times, Suella Braverman did agree to change some aspects of the article she wrote criticising the Metropolitan police at the request of Downing Street – but she also left in other aspects it wanted removed. The Times says:

The home secretary’s aides submitted a draft of the article to No 10 on Wednesday. Officials came back that evening with a series of amendments, toning down some of the most incendiary claims.

Braverman accepted some of the amendments, including removing a warning to the police not to take a “soft touch” approach at the Armistice Day protest, along with claims that there was “ample evidence” that senior police officers were biased. She also removed a direct reference to Sunak at No 10’s request. But she rejected further changes, including suggestions that she remove the comparison to rallies in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

The paper also says Rishi Sunak will delay any decision about her fate until after Wednesday, when the supreme court will say whether or not the Rwanda deportation policy is legal. It reports:

One minister familiar with No 10’s thinking said that Sunak’s team would wait until after the Supreme Court publishes its judgment. They said: “The bigger problem is the fact that we’ve got the Rwanda ruling next Wednesday. Surely people will want that to be finished before moving forward. You’d want to know the outcome of that before deciding what kind of home secretary you want going forward.”

Suella Braverman was seen leaving her home at around 10.15am, PA Media reports. She did not stop to speak to reporters at the scene.

Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, has described Suella Braverman as an “incredibly nasty and vindictive politician”. Speaking on BBC’s Good Morning Scotland this morning, he said Braverman had been trying to direct the police. He went on:

There’s a big difference between scrutiny and seeking to give direction to the police.

Direction which, as I understand it … would break the law. This is a very dangerous moment and the home secretary really needs to go.

He also said his view of Braverman was well known.

My own view on Suella Braverman is well known.

I think she’s an incredibly nasty and vindictive politician, someone who attacks the most marginalised in society on a daily basis.

UK economy flatlines in third quarter amid high interest rates

Nigel Farage, the former leader of Ukip and the Brexit party, also defended Suella Braverman on GB News last night. He said:

I am absolutely certain that the centre of gravity on this in this country is actually right behind the home secretary.

Now there are rumours swirling tonight around the bars and pubs in Westminster that a rapid reshuffle is on the way and that maybe Suella Braverman is on the way out.

I like very much what Suella Braverman has to say, my disappointment is she never actually delivers any of it.

Farage said he agreed with Braverman about the police being biased against rightwing protesters and in favour of groups like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and as evidence of that he cited the fact that some English Defence League marches proposed in east London were banned more than a decade ago.

Suella Braverman seems to have GB News onside. Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, one of several Tory MPs paid to work as a presenter on the channel (Lee Anderson is another – see 9.08am), backed her when he was on the channel last night, saying:

The home secretary has said what many people are thinking and the calls to sack her seem to be disproportionate because whether she’s broken the ministerial code or not is something of a moot point … she was talking about her own departmental area where she has direct responsibility.

But Rees-Mogg’s endorsement was not unconditional. He said Braverman should be acting, not commentating.

People expect the government to act not just commentate. At the moment the government seems to be unsure where it’s going and this is leaving a vacuum that the police are unable to fill.

This echoes something that George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor, said on his Political Currency podcast yesterday. Osborne is at the opposite end of the Tory spectrum from Braverman and Rees-Mogg, and he suggested Rishi Sunak should sack the home secretary. But, quoting the election strategist Lynton Crosby, he said it was wrong for Braverman to act like a commenatory. Osborne explained:

The home secretary is actually becoming a commentator when she should be acting as the home secretary.

There’s a thing Lynton Crosby the Tory strategist used to say to David Cameron and me, ‘don’t be Connie the commentator!’ That was the Australian phrase they used.

He says you’re not the commentator on the situation, you’re the prime minister, you’re the chancellor, in this case, Suella Braverman is the home secretary.

She’s got real decisions to make about how to support the police in their policing of demonstrations. She’s got powers to override the police and ban demonstrations. She should be exuding all the authority of her office, rather than being yet another newspaper commentator, who is in some senses, demonstrating her powerlessness.

The Conservative MP Miriam Cates defended Suella Braverman on the Today programme this morning. She rejected claims that the home secretary was inflaming tensions and she said Braverman’s claims about the police being biased in favour of leftwing protest groups like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign were perfectly reasonable. She said:

I think the home secretary has a view that is very mainstream in the rest of the UK.

Cates is co-chair of a Tory group launched this year called the New Conservatives. Her co-chair is Danny Kruger, who was also on the Today programme, yesterday, defending Braverman. The group wants lower taxes, less immigration, and socially conservative, “pro-family” policies. It is not clear how powerful it is – only 14 supporters are listed on its website – but it has been getting a lot of positive coverage in Tory papers like the Daily Telegraph who love this stuff. Given the interventions of Cates and Kruger, it also looks as though it might function as Braverman’s campaign base in a Tory leadership contest.

Braverman might also get the backing of the European Research Group, the once-mighty pro-Brexit faction that she chaired at one point. But the ERG is much more marginal than it used to be. On the issues that matter now in Tory politics, the group is not united, and Brexiters are less keen to talk about the subject than they once were.

It has become normal for ministers giving interviews in recent weeks to start by failing to endorse something said by Suella Braverman, and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, and Rob Halfon, the skills minister, were both at it this morning.

Asked about Braverman’s most recent comments in the Times, Hunt said:

As many other cabinet ministers have said, the words that she used are not words that I myself would have used.

But I have a productive relationship with her as a colleague and I have always given her the money that she needs to fund police, bring down crime and to fund the immigration and asylum system.

Asked if he would have been allowed to defy No 10 in the way Braverman did, Hunt went on:

The prime minister has said that he has full confidence in her. And I have nothing further to add.

And Halfon, asked if he agreed with Braverman’s anti-Met comments, told LBC:

I think the home secretary has a unique way of expressing herself.

Asked if he would have published an article without No 10 approval, he replied:

No I wouldn’t. Everything I do in terms of articles and speeches must be signed off by No 10.

Suella Braverman’s allies mount fightback on home secretary’s behalf