[ad_1]
Suella Braverman’s allies mount fightback on home secretary’s behalf
Good morning. Since about 11.35am yesterday, when Downing Street decided to break the habit of a lifetime and give a direct answer to an awkward question, it has been clear that Suella Braverman’s future as home secretary is on the line. Rishi Sunak is mulling over what to do about the fact that she published an article in the Times accusing the Metropolitan police of bias without No 10 approval. Arguably this was a breach of the ministerial code, and undoubtedly this was a provocative challenge to Sunak’s authority. Braverman is a repeat offender in this regard, and many in the party are urging Sunak to sack her.
But since then not a lot has happened. Sunak is not a man for hasty decisions, and if there is a formal investigation into whether she broke the ministerial code, that might take a few days to complete. Braverman was in hospital yesterday with a relative having an operation, and that might hold things up a bit too. There are also two events in the diary that strengthen the case for delay.
Armistice Day is tomorrow, and it would be easier to sack Braverman if the pro-Palestinian march passed off peacefully, vindicating the police and making it easier to say Braverman was scaremongering.
And on Wednesday next week the supreme court will rule on whether the Rwanda deportation policy is legal. If the government loses, it will need a plan B, and Sunak is not enthusiastic about the one Braverman will propose: leaving the European convention on human rights. If the government wins, that will amount to arguably the biggest policy victory of Sunak’s premiership. Even Tory MPs critical of Braverman may give her some credit.
All this is a roundabout way of saying, while it is not impossible that Braverman could be sacked today, it seems unlikely.
Although the story has not moved on a lot since yesterday morning, one development worth noting is that Braverman’s allies are mounting a fightback on her behalf. In Conservative politics the views of Tory papers count a lot (the same is not really true of leftish papers in Labour politics) and the Daily Mail splash headline could not have been better for Braverman if she had written it herself.
And here is an extract from the story by Jason Groves, Clarie Ellcott and David Barrett.
One MP ally of the Home Secretary said: ‘There was an operation by the whips to stoke anger against Suella.
‘But a large group of MPs on the Right pushed back. The message was simple: ‘Don’t try it, she speaks for us. So if you come for her, you come for us’.’
Another said Mr Sunak ‘owes her big time’ for supporting him after Liz Truss resigned last year – a move that helped persuade Boris Johnson to abandon a potential comeback.
‘Without Suella it would have been Boris, not Rishi,’ the source said. ‘He owes her big time and although he might want to forget it, we haven’t. If he tries to sack her it will end very badly for him.’
And this is what Lee Anderson, a deputy chair of the Conservative party, has been tweeting this morning. He is placing loyalty to Braverman ahead of loyalty to Sunak who appointed him to his party post.
@SuellaBraverman MP has NOT
Described Hamas or Hezbollah as friends.
Not took the knee on Whitehall whilst BLM riot.
These were the actions of MPs within the Labour Party, the same party who want her sacked.
But Suella is guilty.
Guilty of saying what most of us are thinking and saying. Thank goodness we have a Home Secretary who refuses to be cancelled.
She is using everyday language used by everyday people. Labour MPs would know this if they got out more.
@SuellaBraverman MP has NOT 👇👇
Described Hamas or Hezbollah as friends.
Not took the knee on Whitehall whilst BLM riot.
These were the actions of MPs within the Labour Party, the same party who want her sacked.
But Suella is guilty.
Guilty of saying what most of us are… pic.twitter.com/70paBZCGO3
— Lee Anderson MP (@LeeAndersonMP_) November 10, 2023
We are getting a lobby briefing from No 10 at 11.30am. Otherwise, the diary looks quite empty. If I can find any other politics to cover, it will be here, but I expect the focus will mostly be on Braverman.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often 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 in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Key events
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 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
Good morning. Since about 11.35am yesterday, when Downing Street decided to break the habit of a lifetime and give a direct answer to an awkward question, it has been clear that Suella Braverman’s future as home secretary is on the line. Rishi Sunak is mulling over what to do about the fact that she published an article in the Times accusing the Metropolitan police of bias without No 10 approval. Arguably this was a breach of the ministerial code, and undoubtedly this was a provocative challenge to Sunak’s authority. Braverman is a repeat offender in this regard, and many in the party are urging Sunak to sack her.
But since then not a lot has happened. Sunak is not a man for hasty decisions, and if there is a formal investigation into whether she broke the ministerial code, that might take a few days to complete. Braverman was in hospital yesterday with a relative having an operation, and that might hold things up a bit too. There are also two events in the diary that strengthen the case for delay.
Armistice Day is tomorrow, and it would be easier to sack Braverman if the pro-Palestinian march passed off peacefully, vindicating the police and making it easier to say Braverman was scaremongering.
And on Wednesday next week the supreme court will rule on whether the Rwanda deportation policy is legal. If the government loses, it will need a plan B, and Sunak is not enthusiastic about the one Braverman will propose: leaving the European convention on human rights. If the government wins, that will amount to arguably the biggest policy victory of Sunak’s premiership. Even Tory MPs critical of Braverman may give her some credit.
All this is a roundabout way of saying, while it is not impossible that Braverman could be sacked today, it seems unlikely.
Although the story has not moved on a lot since yesterday morning, one development worth noting is that Braverman’s allies are mounting a fightback on her behalf. In Conservative politics the views of Tory papers count a lot (the same is not really true of leftish papers in Labour politics) and the Daily Mail splash headline could not have been better for Braverman if she had written it herself.
And here is an extract from the story by Jason Groves, Clarie Ellcott and David Barrett.
One MP ally of the Home Secretary said: ‘There was an operation by the whips to stoke anger against Suella.
‘But a large group of MPs on the Right pushed back. The message was simple: ‘Don’t try it, she speaks for us. So if you come for her, you come for us’.’
Another said Mr Sunak ‘owes her big time’ for supporting him after Liz Truss resigned last year – a move that helped persuade Boris Johnson to abandon a potential comeback.
‘Without Suella it would have been Boris, not Rishi,’ the source said. ‘He owes her big time and although he might want to forget it, we haven’t. If he tries to sack her it will end very badly for him.’
And this is what Lee Anderson, a deputy chair of the Conservative party, has been tweeting this morning. He is placing loyalty to Braverman ahead of loyalty to Sunak who appointed him to his party post.
@SuellaBraverman MP has NOT
Described Hamas or Hezbollah as friends.
Not took the knee on Whitehall whilst BLM riot.
These were the actions of MPs within the Labour Party, the same party who want her sacked.
But Suella is guilty.
Guilty of saying what most of us are thinking and saying. Thank goodness we have a Home Secretary who refuses to be cancelled.
She is using everyday language used by everyday people. Labour MPs would know this if they got out more.
@SuellaBraverman MP has NOT 👇👇
Described Hamas or Hezbollah as friends.
Not took the knee on Whitehall whilst BLM riot.
These were the actions of MPs within the Labour Party, the same party who want her sacked.
But Suella is guilty.
Guilty of saying what most of us are… pic.twitter.com/70paBZCGO3
— Lee Anderson MP (@LeeAndersonMP_) November 10, 2023
We are getting a lobby briefing from No 10 at 11.30am. Otherwise, the diary looks quite empty. If I can find any other politics to cover, it will be here, but I expect the focus will mostly be on Braverman.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often 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 in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
[ad_2]
Source link
