It took Rishi Sunak hours of agonising until he finally made the call that Dominic Raab could not stay in his job. Even then, it was Raab himself who went public first with his resignation – and a belligerent letter defending himself against the report’s findings of bullying.
So what was playing on the prime minister’s mind in the hours before the sacking, could he have avoided getting to this point – and what does the whole sorry saga tell us about Sunak?
His hesitation over Raab was a far cry from his swift and brutal decision in January to sack Nadhim Zahawi as Conservative party chair over his tax affairs, after that row was examined by his independent ethics adviser.
But there was a key difference between Zahawi and Raab – personal loyalty.
When Sunak resigned as chancellor from Boris Johnson’s government, Zahawi had swooped in to take his place. Zahawi then mounted his own ill-fated party leadership campaign, before backing Liz Truss when it became clear she was the favourite. And as Truss imploded, Zahawi endorsed the return of Johnson.
Zahawi became party chair under Sunak but the prime minister owed him nothing.
In contrast, Sunak made the justice secretary his deputy prime minister after Raab backed him to the hilt over the summer leadership campaign, at the expense of his own career under Truss. Raab was prepared to be Sunak’s attack dog and his actions in the leadership campaign led to him being sacked from the cabinet by Truss.
But the pair go back a long way. When bullying claims first emerged against Raab as long ago as 2018 from his former diary secretary – always denied – it was Sunak, then a little-known junior minister, who put out supportive quotes defending Raab, saying he was a “great colleague, supportive and collegiate” and “I have tremendous respect for him”.
Zahawi had few fans left in the party but Sunak was not facing internal Tory party pressure to sack Raab – quite the opposite. A campaign has been mounting in recent weeks in the rightwing press to suggest the complainants could not handle a minister’s robust style. Raab was defended by his former boss David Davis and former ministerial colleagues Helen Grant and James Duddridge.
A large number, possibly a majority, of Tory MPs are sceptical of the Whitehall complaints, but far fewer were prepared to stick their neck on the line to demand that Raab stayed.
One moment from recent history looms large. Johnson suffered serious reputational damage when Priti Patel was found to have bullied her permanent secretary at the Home Office and Johnson refused to sack her, instead messaging Tory WhatsApp groups to “form a square around the Prittster”.
Sunak promised on his first day in No 10 that his government, in contrast to that of his two immediate predecessors, would have “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”.
And the spotlight may now fall on what Sunak knew – and when – about Raab’s reputation in Whitehall, given he made the same errors in appointing Gavin Williamson to the cabinet who was then also forced out last year following allegations of bullying.
It is hard to fathom how Raab’s reputation could have escaped Sunak’s attention. When he was Brexit secretary, the Observer reported that a document outlining a “serious expression of concern” was dispatched to the Cabinet Office by a prominent official in the Brexit department in 2018.
Raab was also warned about his behaviour towards officials during his time as foreign secretary by the department’s top civil servant at the time, Simon McDonald, who then informally reported his concerns to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team.
Antonia Romeo, the Ministry of Justice permanent secretary, is said to have spoken to Raab when he was reappointed to the department to warn him that he must treat staff professionally and with respect amid unhappiness about his return.
The Times also reported that officials had highlighted what were called “issues” with Raab in his previous ministerial roles before Sunak gave him his current job.
Sunak religiously stuck to the line that he was “not aware of any formal complaints about him”. At prime minister’s questions in February, the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, asked whether the PM was “the only person completely unaware” of the allegations.
However, it is not just a question of internal party perception but whether Sunak’s reputation among voters as a prime minister with more integrity than his predecessors could have survived protecting Raab.
The public mood was clear – 72% said Raab should resign if he was found to have bullied civil servants, according to a poll from Savanta. And a significant number of voters already believed Sunak must have been aware of Raab’s reputation, about 44% according to Savanta, including a third of Tory voters.
Far from it being dismissed as a millennial “snowflake” issue, 78% said it was important to investigate allegations of bullying in Westminster.
Chris Hopkins, the political research director at Savanta, said that although it was unlikely to have had the direct implications on the PM’s reputation that the scandals surrounding Owen Paterson or Chris Pincher had on Johnson, it would still cause potential damage.
“It could draw into contention the prime minister’s assertion that his government and leadership is markedly different to those of his predecessors when it comes to scandal and sleaze.
“Sunak’s popularity rides on his ability to distance himself from the behaviour of Johnson and Truss, and inaction on Raab could [have led] the public to believe Sunak represents more of the same rather than the departure from the past he is pitching to voters.”
