Afternoon summary
The Metropolitan police has said that it will have up to 1,850 officers on duty this weekend, from the Met and other forces, to police the remembrance weekend events and the pro-Palestinian march taking place tomorrow. (See 3.30pm.)
Updated
The Daily Mirror splash is worth including before we wrap up. It has been praised by David Davis, the former Brexit secretary.
I don't often praise the @DailyMirror, but today people should look at their front page.
— David Davis (@DavidDavisMP) November 10, 2023
They have got the issue of the day exactly right. pic.twitter.com/FpHxNadRdi
Met says it will have up to 1,850 officers on duty in London to police Remembrance weekend
The Metropolitan police have issued details of how they will police events in the capital on Armistice Day (tomorrow) and Remembrance Sunday. In a news release it says up to 1,850 officers from the Met and other forces will be on duty, covering the events at the Cenotaph and the march organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign tomorrow.
The Met says:
We know the cumulative impact [that] continued protest, increasing tensions, and rising hate crimes are having across London and the fear and anxiety our Jewish communities in particular are feeling. They have a right to feel safe in their city, knowing know they can travel across London without feeling afraid of intimidation or harassment.
Recognising the concern across London, the scale of the policing operation in place represents a doubling of the number of officers on duty for the weekend’s events. On Saturday 1,850 will be on duty and 1,375 on Sunday.
We’ll be using an extensive set of powers to prevent any disruption whatsoever to remembrance events, policing the demonstration as it passes through parts of the capital, while protecting our communities from those intent on inciting hate, violence and disorder.
The powers we’ve put in place enable us to more quickly and robustly identify and arrest those seeking to use these events to commit crime or cause disorder.
Updated
A reader asks:
If Braverman is not sacked and especially if SC rules in her favour on Wednesday, wouldn’t that mean that Sunak has conceded that he cannot challenge her and she therefore would have the whip-hand going forward. Is there any precedence for this? I cannot remember a situation where the PM is effectively less powerful than one of his own ministers.
You’re right in the sense that it would suggest that Rishi Sunak was powerless to move Suella Braverman. But you are wrong to say this would be unprecedented.
People assume that prime ministers are very powerful and can do almost whatever they want. But they are not, and all PMs have found that, once they are in office, they are constrained by a vast range of factors: what Whitehall can actually do, what the law will allow, what parliament will pass, what the media will tolerate etc etc etc.
For these purposes, the relevant factor is – what Sunak’s MPs will put up with. All three of his predecessors were forced out following a revolt by the parliamenary party, and Sunak has to work out whether he can sack Braverman without triggering a leadership contest. (I think he probably can, but it is not a certainty.)
Most prime ministers, at one point or another, find themselves in this situation. Liz Truss had to make Jeremy Hunt chancellor, and once he took office it was clear that he was running the government, not her. When Theresa May was PM, at one point cabinet ministers defied the whip on a Brexit vote, but she could not sack them because she was in too weak a position. The best example in modern times is probably Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Towards the end of their time in office, Blair found working with Brown impossible and he considered demoting him, or getting rid of him altogether. But he couldn’t, because Brown’s standing in the party was so high.
Steve Richards is the person who has written about this best, in his book The Prime Ministers. I used the term “weak”, but Richards argues persuasively that this is misleading, because it implies PMs are constrained by a character trait, when actually it’s circumstance. Here he is on Theresa May:
May was often described as ‘weak’. The term is close to useless in casting light on a leader, but as far as it means anything, it points us in the wrong direction here. Politically she was in a much weaker position, but as a personality she remained the most stubborn prime minister to occupy No 10 for many decades – arguably more so than Margaret Thatcher.
A reader asks:
Are you aware of any poling/research which indicates whether the Tory MPs likely to survive the next election are from the extreme right or the centre right? What will the diminished parliamentary party look like and will it reflect the political orientation of its members?
I’m aware of two bits of research looking at this.
In May, in this article for the Conversation, the academics Tim Bale and David Jeffery looked at what the composition of the parliamentary Conservative party might be like under three election scenarios: a hung parliament, a Labour majority and a Labour landslide. Ideologically, the party would not change massively, but “red wall” Tories will mostly vanish in all circumstances, and even under the best outcome there will be a cull of MPs representing seats in the north. Bale and Jeffery write:
Whoever is in charge, our numbers suggest that, in the event of a heavy defeat, the Tories – represented as they would be by MPs who would be still more southern, more NIMBYish, more Oxbridge than they already are – could find it more difficult than ever to argue that they truly are a One Nation party.
And this chart, from James Blagden from Onward, a Tory thinktank, implies those MPs with big majorities (who are likely to keep their seats) are no more leftwing or rightwing than those with small majorities.
If the Conservative Party loses the next election, will it become more right-wing?
— James Blagden (@jim_blagden) November 8, 2023
Possibly not
There's no correlation between the size of an MP's majority and their estimated position on left-right economic issues pic.twitter.com/BJDtnJvIRg
If the Conservative Party loses the next election, will it become more right-wing?
— James Blagden (@jim_blagden) November 8, 2023
Possibly not
There's no correlation between the size of an MP's majority and their estimated position on left-right economic issues pic.twitter.com/BJDtnJvIRg
As for whether Tory MPs after the next election will share the view of Conservative party members, probably not. As this paper shows, Tory MPs tend to be more rightwing than party members on economic issues, but more liberal than members on social issues.
Tim Loughton, the Conservative MP and former minister, has told the News Agents podcast that Suella Braverman is “not making it easy” for Rishi Sunak to keep her in post. Asked if Braverman’s position was now untenable, he replied:
She’s not making it easy, I have to say. And this needs to come to a head, it’s doing quite a lot of damage. We cannot have senior members of the cabinet, on the face of it, defying No 10 and plying her own agenda. And some of the comments she has made have been unhelpful. And many of us are getting emails from constituents to that effect as well, so it needs to stop.
Loughton said he thought Braverman was wrong to describe the pro-Palestinian demonstrations as “hate marches” because, he said, “whether or not we agree with most of those people there, I think most of those people have genuine concerns”. He also said that her anti-police comments had undermined the credibility of the police, which would make it harder for them to police the march on Saturday.
Asked what the consensus view was among Tory MPs, Loughton said:
The consensus opinion is one of exasperation, that we have got a huge challenge. We are in a very perilous position in the polls, we’ve had some bad byelections, and an election is probably less than a year away now. The way you lose elections is to be divided and constantly internally looking and internally fighting. The public hates that and doesn’t want to see that. And so, when you have particular individuals, high-profile individuals, ministers and others, who appear to be singing from a different song sheet, that is really not helpful.
Updated
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.
How popular is Suella Braverman with the British public?
— Keiran Pedley (@keiranpedley) November 9, 2023
16% favourable
51% unfavourable
Source: @IpsosUK 1,055 interviews.
Fieldwork October 27-30th
More: https://t.co/wAdFSeN78p pic.twitter.com/08wkwBGfgf
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?
A reader asks:
If Braverman is sacked who is likely to replace her?
The Times this morning is tipping Oliver Dowden. In its main write-through it says:
Oliver Dowden was in No 10 on Thursday to discuss Braverman’s future. He is being tipped as a “safe pair of hands” who could replace Braverman and be a more “loyal” home secretary. He would remain deputy prime minister if he was given the role.
Other names being suggested are Mark Harper, the transport secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, although one minister pointed out that any three of those people would leave the top four offices of state without a woman.
Sir Bob Neill, chair of the Commons justice committee, told LBC’s Tonight with Andrew Marr yesterday that Braverman should go and that Jenrick should get the job instead. Neill said:
[Braverman] has a very able minister of state in Robert Jenrick. He is well capable of taking up the matters in the short term.
Another suggestion is Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary. He has been in cabinet level jobs for more than a decade (with a gap, after he was sacked by Theresa May), but he has never held one of the “great offices of state” (PM, chancellor, home secretary, foreign secretary), and it is said he would like to add one to his CV. This is from HuffPost’s Kevin Schofield.
One rumour is that Gove wants one of the great offices of state before the Tories lose power, with Home Secretary or Chancellor his preferred options.
— Kevin Schofield (@KevinASchofield) November 9, 2023
Told that he politely savaged both Hunt and Braverman at a recent Cabinet meeting. https://t.co/MgJWq0uhhu
Here is some more from what was said at the No 10 lobby briefing this morning about Suella Braverman.
The No 10 spokesperson would not say whether Rishi Sunak and Braverman have spoken within the past 24 hours.
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.
Updated
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.
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.
— Stewart Jackson 🇮🇱🇬🇧🇺🇦 (@BrexitStewart) November 10, 2023
Suella Braverman's fate remains in balance as No 10 says internal inquiry into unauthorised article still ongoing
Downing Street is still playing for time. The morning lobby briefing has just finished, and all the No 10 spokesperson would say about Suella Braverman’s fate was that the internal inquiry into what happened with her Times article is still ongoing.
The spokesperson would not even call this an “investigation”. Instead she said it was an “internal process”. That seemed to be a steer that no formal inquiry is under way into whether or not Braverman broke the ministerial code.
The spokesperson would not give any further details of what this “internal process” involves (“we are not providing running commentary”) and would not say how long it would take. But there was nothing she said that implied that a decision will come today.
Asked if the PM still had full confidence in the home secretary, the spokesperson replied: “Yes.” But this sounded more like a formality than a declaration that Sunak holds Braverman in high regard. No 10 almost always says the PM has full confidence in a minister still serving in government, and so the phrase can mean no more than that the minister in question has not yet been sacked.
Updated
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.
Updated
What Tory papers are saying about Braverman
The Daily Mail’s editorial this morning makes for much happier reading for Suella Braverman than the Telegraph’s (see 11.25am). It says Rishi Sunak should not sack her.
Mrs Braverman simply articulated what every dog on the street already knew: that infected by wokery, our police forces have increasingly abandoned the neutrality they once jealously guarded …
The reason Mrs Braverman has provoked such wild opposition is that she is criticising a shibboleth of many of our institutions – that of toxic identity politics.
Scenting blood, the Home Secretary’s enemies have urged Rishi Sunak to sack her. That would be harsh on a politician who has simply injected common sense into the policing debate. He should resist.
But the Sun is a bit more critical. In its editoral, it says that Braverman was right about the police – but that in going public with her views the home secretary has ignited a row that has helped Labour. It says:
There is a suspicion they no longer police “without fear or favour”. That they go easier on more fashionable causes.
But pointing that out is the job of campaigners and commentators, not Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
She is in charge. She has the power to read police chiefs the riot act. Instead she hit out in The Times, giving the impression she has no control of events.
That, plus the squabble it has ignited with No10, have been a gift for Labour and its broadcast media friends.
They are now able to sideline their party’s own deep splits over Gaza...
And pretend Ms Braverman’s bluntness is the cause of our unrest, not the terrifying anti-Semitism spewing from the Left.
This is an echo of the “Connie the commentator” critique made by George Osborne yesterday. (See 10.06am.)
Updated
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”
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”
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) November 10, 2023
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.
Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA
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
The UK economy flatlined between July and September, compared with the previous three months, as the impact of high interest rates and inflation weighed on consumers and businesses, Phillip Inman reports.
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.
Updated
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 commentator. 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.
Updated
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.
Updated
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.
MAIL: Come for Suella and you come for us all #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/QTjZAniLqq
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) November 9, 2023
And here is an extract from the story by Jason Groves, Clarie Ellicott 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 👇👇
— Lee Anderson MP (@LeeAndersonMP_) November 10, 2023
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
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.
Updated
