Suella Braverman’s future as home secretary appears to be in doubt after Downing Street said it had not cleared an incendiary article in which she accused the Met police of bias.
A spokesperson for the prime minister said the matter was being investigated but that the piece in the Times had not been agreed, in what would appear to be a breach of the ministerial code.
“The content was not agreed by No 10,” the spokesperson said. “We are looking into what happened in this instance around the op-ed. We will update if appropriate.”
The ministerial code states that the policy content and timing of all major press releases, interviews and appearances should be cleared by No 10 “to ensure the effective coordination of cabinet business”.
It is understood the article was sent to Downing Street but that major changes that had been sought were not made.
The Downing Street spokesperson said the prime minister retained confidence in the home secretary.
Asked whether Rishi Sunak agreed that the police were guilty of “double standards”, the spokesperson said: “The prime minister continues to believe the police will operate without fear or favour.”
Braverman has been accused of “encouraging extremists” and undermining thousands of serving police officers after claiming far-right protesters were treated more harshly than pro-Palestinian supporters.
Nickie Aiken, the Tory deputy chair and MP for the central London constituency that includes the Cenotaph, said Braverman’s comments were dangerous.
“The police should never be involved in politics and politicians should never get involved in policing operations. The police must police without fear or favour and it is a very dangerous precedent to state otherwise,” she said.
“This protest should not be stopped unless there is credible intelligence that the police decide means it needs to be stopped. It has to be the police’s choice. These protests should not be stopped by political whim.”
Neil Basu, formerly Britain’s most senior counter-terrorism officer, who retired as an assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police last year, said Braverman had given licence to the far right and should be sacked.
“I think it heightens the risk to police officers and it heightens the risk to the public. Because people who are turning up now, are turning up with the licence of the home secretary,” he said.
Labour, the Scottish National party and the Lib Dems also called for the home secretary to be sacked.
Senior Tories appeared to back away from supporting Braverman, with only two backbench colleagues supporting her criticisms of the police in an urgent Commons question. Earlier, a cabinet colleague also declined to offer support for Braverman’s comments.
The decision by the Met police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, on Tuesday that there were insufficient grounds to ban a pro-Palestine march on Armistice Day had prompted the home secretary’s claims.
She said in an article in the Times published on Wednesday evening that unnamed police chiefs appeared to care more about avoiding “flak” than ensuring public safety. “Unfortunately, there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters,” she wrote.
Aides close to Braverman have claimed No 10 signed off the article.
The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, claimed that Braverman was “out of control” and stoking division.
Asking the urgent question, the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told MPs: “We have seen her words this morning, attempting to rip up the operational independence of the police, attacking their impartiality in the crudest and most partisan of ways, deliberately undermining respect for the police at a sensitive time when they have an important job to do.
“Does this government still believe in the operational independence of the police, and how can it do so while this home secretary is in post, and did the prime minister and No 10 agree to the content of this article?
“Because either the prime minister has endorsed this or he’s too weak to sack her.”
Chris Philp, the policing minister, who responded because Braverman was with a relative in hospital, said “the government resolutely backs the question of operational independence”. Asked if the article had been approved by Downing Street, he said: “I’m afraid I don’t have any visibility on that at all.”
The SNP’s Chris Stephens told the Commons that a former assistant commissioner said the home secretary was on the verge of behaving unconstitutionally, adding: “Does this not mean and represent that the home secretary is unfit for office and should be sacked today?”
Labour’s Chris Bryant said the benches behind Philp were nearly empty and that only two backbenchers – Theresa Villiers and Michael Ellis – had spoken in support of Braverman’s criticisms.
Braverman’s article has caused widespread anger and confusion in Northern Ireland after she wrote that the marches were not “merely a cry for help for Gaza”, but an “assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland”.
Jamie Bryson, a prominent loyalist commentator and politician, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter: “Braverman should have been clearer what she meant & what comparisons she was making.
“The totally clumsy way she has written this makes it appear she is including the rich cultural marching band tradition.”
The Social Democratic and Labour party leader, Colum Eastwood, called for the removal of Braverman from her position as he called the comments “aggressive ignorance”.
“It’s honestly like reading a pound shop Enoch Powell piece,” he said.
“The comments comparing the proposed Armistice Day protests against the appalling bombardment of civilians in Gaza with the marching tradition in Northern Ireland are an exercise in what can only be described as aggressive ignorance; ignorance of the conditions faced by the civilian population in Gaza, ignorance of the role of the Met police, ignorance of the complex history and traditions of marching and protest in Northern Ireland,” he wrote.
A source close to the home secretary said the comment was a reference to the activities of “dissident republicans”.
Speaking on Thursday morning, the transport secretary, Mark Harper, suggested he did not agree the police were biased.
“I think all police forces are focused on upholding the law without fear or favour,” he said. “That’s what they do.”
Asked whether he agreed with the home secretary’s wider point, he said: “I’m not going to indulge in textual analysis of her article,” adding that the police were “focusing very hard on making sure that we don’t see any disturbance and disorder” at remembrance events this weekend.
Sadiq Khan, who, as the mayor of London, has a role alongside the home secretary in appointing and overseeing the role of the Met police commissioner, said Braverman’s comments made it more likely that the far right would seek to clash with the march on Saturday.
“Are we really saying the politicians, whether it’s the home secretary, or myself, or the prime minister, should be telling the police which protests to allow and disallow? What’s next? Telling the police who to investigate, who to arrest? We should be really careful.”
On Tuesday, defying days of heavy political pressure, Rowley said there were insufficient grounds for him to ban Saturday’s pro-Palestine march under section 13 of the 1986 Public Order Act.
The last group to have a ban imposed upon one of its planned marches was the far-right English Defence League.
Additional reporting by Kiran Stacey
