From the moment Suella Braverman joined Rishi Sunak’s cabinet, she has been a cause of controversy. Sunak’s decision to appoint her as home secretary, just days after Liz Truss sacked her from the great office of state over an email breach, was read by the party as a sign that he needed her in order to get to No 10. Without Braverman’s endorsement during the second leadership contest of 2022, Sunak would have struggled to get the right of the party on board; it would, instead, have turned to Boris Johnson and aided his attempt at a comeback. Had Johnson had more support among MPs he could have chosen to stay in the race; the decision then would have gone to the party membership, and British politics could look very different to the way it does now.
This history means that since that endorsement, every scandal or row involving the home secretary is seen through the prism of Sunak’s strength or weakness. Did Braverman avoid investigation by the No 10 ethics adviser over a speeding ticket row because Sunak couldn’t risk it? Did her speech at a Washington DC thinktank on the “dogma of multiculturalism” come as a surprise to Downing Street? Is the home secretary freelancing on policy because she thinks she is unsackable? Not all of this is the case – but the fact such questions are so frequently asked points to the problem.
The events of the past week mean that Sunak is now in a situation where he cannot avoid these questions. After riling colleagues by suggesting that rough sleeping was for some a “lifestyle choice”, Braverman provoked No 10’s ire with an op-ed for the Times on police bias. As a Downing Street spokesperson made crystal clear, the piece was not signed off in full by No 10 – and some suggested edits were ignored. It caused particular annoyance in No 10 because it came soon after a productive meeting between Sunak and the Metropolitan police chief, Mark Rowley – thereby distracting from it and creating more tension.
Violence on Saturday from far-right protesters who were looking to confront the pro-Palestinian march has led the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, to blame Braverman – accusing her of stirring them up. While most Tory MPs don’t go that far, there is frustration that Braverman’s comments have left them vulnerable to such claims. Senior Tories argue that the home secretary should be focused on calming tensions rather than stoking division.
Having publicly outed Braverman as going against his orders, Sunak now finds himself in a no-win situation. If he keeps the home secretary in place, he will be accused of being weak – in office, but not in power. “They will have bottled it – again,” says a government aide. He will face anger from MPs across the party – including some of his own ministers, who feel Braverman has become a distraction. “The anti-Braverman sentiment is wider than ever before,” says a senior Tory.
It will encourage other ministers to go rogue, given that they will read it as a sign that they don’t need to be afraid of No 10. Meanwhile, the opposition parties will focus their attacks on the idea that Braverman is the one running the show. Already the defence secretary, Grant Shapps, has had to use the media round to defend Braverman from claims made by Labour politicians that her rhetoric on the marches fuelled the far-right protests.
But if Sunak does what many of his ministers expect and pushes Braverman out in a reshuffle as soon as next week, he risks a revolt on the right – and Braverman on the backbenches. Already Braverman’s defenders, such as Miriam Cates, are out on the airwaves sticking up for her.
While some Sunak supporters believe Braverman’s influence is exaggerated, it could be an incendiary time to risk a fight with the right. Next week, the supreme court will rule on the legality of the government’s Rwanda scheme. It was already going to be a crunch moment for the Conservatives, given a lot of MPs see progress on stopping the boats as the only plausible way to transform their electoral fortunes. Now the question MPs are asking is who will be the home secretary after the judgment lands. “It’s going to be a mental few days,” predicts a government aide.
If the scheme does not receive the green light, calls from the right of the party will grow once again for Sunak to commit to taking the UK out of the European convention on human rights. While he is not fully opposed to the idea, the prime minister is yet to be convinced it is necessary. If Braverman were free to speak on the backbenches, she could lead the calls for Sunak to do this. There are plenty of MPs on the right who think a stop-the-boats election is their best bet. “It would be like Brexit part 2,” says one.
It means that at a time when Tory morale is low, Braverman’s future risks stirring up a new round of civil war within the party. “There is a battle for the soul of the Conservative party,” says a member of the 2019 intake. “Between the conservatives and the liberals essentially, and she very much represents the conservative wing.” Potential successors to Braverman aren’t inspiring much hope. “If it is Grant [Shapps] or Oliver [Dowden] we may as well give up now,” says a member of government over the potential replacements.
Some argue that if Braverman is pushed out, it could be a masterstroke from her – as she has been actively trying to get sacked. This way – the argument goes – she can position herself for the post-defeat leadership contest as a change candidate untainted by government decisions (“if we go below 200 seats, the candidates who had nothing to do with the government will suddenly look very appealing,” says a Conservative old-timer).
While Braverman is willing to push the limits, her allies say this is wide of the mark, and that her focus lies in trying to shape government policy and strategy. She often says what she thinks without necessarily realising the full consequences. After all, if Braverman really wanted to get sacked, there are easier ways to do so.
Should she lose her job, she is unlikely to spend too much time licking her wounds. As a minister there from day one of the Sunak premiership, she knows where the bodies are buried and has plenty of views on the direction of the party.
Given that Braverman will pose a risk to Sunak in or out, he is back to a decision that his supporters have been asking themselves ever since she entered the Home Office. In the words of Lyndon B Johnson: is it better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out or outside the tent pissing in? We are about to find out.
Katy Balls is the Spectator’s political editor
