Tag: United Kingdom

The Supreme Court will hand down its Rwanda judgment on Wednesday morning. The legal verdict is impossible to predict, though some argue that the decision taking less time than anticipated – one month rather than two – makes it more likely the Court of Appeal decision against the Rwanda scheme is being upheld. That would be legally less complex than remaking it.

The judges could uphold the Court of Appeal verdict that, while such a scheme could be lawful with a “safe third country”, Rwanda’s asylum system was too flawed for it to be considered safe. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could overturn that decision – and find the scheme lawful, in line with the earlier High Court ruling that accepted the Home Secretary’s authority to trust assurances of future improvements from the Rwandan government.

Whatever the court decides, the immediate arguments will depend on the politics of asylum as much as the law itself. And the political stakes are high, for a PM who has argued that Rwanda is how he will meet his pledge to ‘stop the boats’.

If the government loses

If the government loses this case, it is unlikely that Britain will deport any asylum seekers to Rwanda before the General Election. Yet the government may challenge that assumption. If the headline “COURT DEFEAT LEAVES GOVERNMENT RWANDA PLAN IN TATTERS” is unattractive, a well-briefed, sympathetic newspaper may be willing to run “I CAN RESCUE RWANDA PLAN, SAYS DEFIANT PM” to declare that a fightback is already underway. Such a rescue plan could have a number of elements.

Asylum politics is often about political theatre – so the government could issue new notices of their intent to remove people to Rwanda under the new Illegal Migration Act, targeting very recent and future arrivals across the Channel. They could even announce a date when the government would like to send a plane – though in reality this would likely trigger new, drawn-out legal proceedings.

The government could also rewrite its agreement with Rwanda as a treaty, attempting to address safety concerns. This would then need approval in parliament, but would be much less likely to be challenged in the courts.

The domestic political argument may also focus sharply on whether the UK should leave the European Court of Human Rights.  Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman had made little secret of the fact that she continued to disagree with government policy over the ECHR. But this week’s reshuffle sends a strong signal that the Prime Minister does not agree.  Instead, Rishi Sunak may send Foreign Secretary David Cameron abroad to try to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s participation, exploring what can be done within the UK’s membership – but few would expect it to yield any rapid results before the General Election.

While any of these approaches is arguable, none of them have a realistic prospect of beating the election clock. With the government currently struggling in its bid for re-election, and the opposition pledged to scrap the scheme, it may never do so.

One major implication of a government defeat is that it is difficult to see how the government could trigger the legal duties its new Illegal Migration Act places on the Home Secretary to refuse and remove asylum seekers, given the lack of any realistic plan for the vast majority. So the government will have little alternative but to admit most of those who have crossed the Channel this year.

What might happen if the government wins the case?

The Government will hope the Supreme Court declares the Rwanda scheme lawful.  It would almost certainly then announce the date of the first flight – perhaps in January – as its headline message.

It may then have the chance to put to the test its theory that the Rwanda scheme could “stop the boats” by deterring people from crossing the Channel.

Most experts are sceptical about this – and not just those opposed to the Rwanda scheme in principle. Supporters of the scheme have also argued that the logic of a deterrence effect depends on the scale of deportations possible.

The Rwandan government has said that its expectations in making the deal were of taking around 300 people a year. Home Office modelling is understood to be of a similar scale.  So getting Rwanda up and running would address only one per cent of the Channel Crossings of the last year.

When Rwanda was first announced, Downing Street briefed that “tens of thousands” could be sent to Africa within weeks. Even last month, a government briefing to The Times suggested the government might deport 4,000 people to Africa before the General Election, if the Supreme Court verdict was favourable.

But no serious observer outside government has seen a total over 1,000 deportations within 9-12 months as achievable in practice.  Legal processes in the UK and Rwanda, the capacity of Rwanda to make asylum decisions, and accommodation in Rwanda all restrict numbers. But the lack of UK detention capacity is among the most significant limits on any rapid expansion of the scheme in the next 12 months. The number of potential deportations before the General Election will surely end up being closer to 40 than 4000.

Some in government hope the “optics” of seeing even one or two planes take off could slash the crossings dramatically. But nothing in the Home Office’s own evidence-gathering about what influences decision supports such hopes.

The government may try to make the Rwanda scheme workable – by moving the goalposts. It could restrict the scheme to those arriving after the Supreme Court decision itself. With fewer crossings in December, January and February, this may mean that Rwanda’s asylum system is not immediately overwhelmed.

But even if it wins, the Home Office expects to have to admit into the UK asylum system everybody who already arrived this year – breaking twenty thousand times Rishi Sunak’s impossible promise in his March 7th speech that nobody who arrived from that day onwards would ever get to stay.

If the Supreme Court rules in the government’s favour on Wednesday, the Prime Minister will enjoy his moment of victory – but may then find that a yet bigger challenge lies ahead.

Source

In his wide-ranging reshuffle yesterday, prime minister Rishi Sunak sacked Suella Braverman over the phone. Read the former home secretary’s response in full below:

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave Government. While disappointing, this is for the best.

It has been my privilege to serve as Home Secretary and deliver on what the British people have sent us to Westminster to do. I want to thank all of those civil servants, police, Border Force officers and security professionals with whom I have worked and whose dedication to public safety is exemplary.

I am proud of what we achieved together: delivering on our manifesto pledge to recruit 20,000 new police officers and enacting new laws such as the Public Order Act 2023 and the National Security Act 2023. I also led a programme of reform: on anti-social behaviour, police dismissals and standards, reasonable lines of enquiry, grooming gangs, knife crime, non-crime hate incidents and rape and serious sexual offences. And I am proud of the strategic changes that I was delivering to Prevent, Contest, serious organised crime and fraud. I am sure that this work will continue with the new ministerial team.

As you know, I accepted your offer to serve as Home Secretary in October 2022 on certain conditions.

Despite you having been rejected by a majority of Party members during the summer leadership contest and thus having no personal mandate to be Prime Minister, I agreed to support you because of the firm assurances you gave me on key policy priorities. These were, among other things:

1. Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto through, inter alia, reforming the international students route and increasing salary thresholds on work visas;
2. Include specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, i.e. exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue;
3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable;
4. Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children.

This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you. It is generally agreed that my support was a pivotal factor in winning the leadership contest and thus enabling you to become Prime Minister.

For a year, as Home Secretary I have sent numerous letters to you on the key subjects contained in our agreement, made requests to discuss them with you and your team, and put forward proposals on how we might deliver these goals. I worked up the legal advice, policy detail and action to take on these issues. This was often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest.

You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so. Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises.

These are not just pet interests of mine. They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory. They are what people voted for in the 2016 Brexit Referendum.

Our deal was no mere promise over dinner, to be discarded when convenient and denied when challenged.

I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR. the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect.

Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats.

At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.

If we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must he prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one. Worse than this, your magical thinking – believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion – has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’. I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. I received no reply from you.

I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite for doing what is necessary, and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people.

If, on the other hand, we win in the Supreme Court, because of the compromises that you insisted on in the Illegal Migration Act, the Government will struggle to deliver our Rwanda partnership in the way that the public expects. The Act is far from secure against legal challenge. People will not be removed as swiftly as I originally proposed. The average claimant will be entitled to months of process, challenge, and appeal. Your insistence that Rule 39 indications are binding in international law – against the views of leading lawyers, as set out in the House of Lords – will leave us vulnerable to being thwarted yet again by the Strasbourg Court.

Another cause for disappointment – and the context for my recent article in The Times – has been your failure to rise to the challenge posed by the increasingly vicious antisemitism and extremism displayed on our streets since Hamas’s terrorist atrocities of 7th October.

I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches and help stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion. Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalisation and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years. I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs. Rather than fully acknowledge the severity of this threat, your team disagreed with me for weeks that the law needed changing.

As on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. In doing so, you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else.

In October of last year you were given an opportunity to lead our country. It is a privilege to serve and one we should not take for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good.

It is not about occupying the office as an end in itself.

Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time. You need to change course urgently.

I may not have always found the right words, but I have always striven to give voice to the quiet majority that supported us in 2019. I have endeavoured to be honest and true to the people who put us in these privileged positions.

I will, of course, continue to support the Government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda.

Sincerely,

Suella Braverman

Source

This weekend’s events show that the far right is in resurgence – and the blame is at the government’s door.

On Saturday, over 2000 far-right activists and football hooligans descended on central London, described by the Metropolitan police as ‘intent on confrontation”, they pushed through police lines, throwing missiles at emergency services workers, all whilst shouting “there ain’t no black in the Union Jack” and “Allah is a paedo”.

Myself and the HOPE not hate team were on the ground, following and infiltrating far-right groups, tracking their every move. Despite Suella Braverman’s attempts to pull the focus onto Pro-Palestine demonstrators – we identified the risk of far right violence days before and reported our findings to the Met Police and counter-terrorism.

Just 10 days earlier, these far-right groups weren’t enraged by the conflict between Israel and Palestine. But a series of events quickly mobilised them in a way we have never seen before.

Right-wing commentator Douglas Murray helped sow the seeds further in a tweet that read: “They plan to defame our war-dead and desecrate the Cenotaph itself. This is the tipping point. If such a march goes ahead then the people of Britain must come out and stop these barbarians.”

On Monday, Tommy Robinson was reinstated to X giving him the perfect platform to share his hateful message. In both videos and in emails to supporters he urged all British men to come into London to make a stand.

By Thursday, the Daily Mail had run a front page planting the idea that the Cenotaph was under threat and then-home secretary Suella Braverman had branded the Pro Palestine demonstration as a “hate march”.

Unfortunately, the far right appeared to answer that call.

Suddenly, thousands of people were joining football hooligan Whatsapp groups with messages exchanged about buying weapons including crossbows and declaration of war.

These football hooligans in no way tried to hide their identities, leaving voice notes talking of murder and sharing films of young girls from Yorkshire singing racist chants. Even as an antifascist with 30 years experience following and infiltrating groups like these – I was shocked by the open and violent racism shared in these chat groups.

But the reality is — when politicians and the media are throwing round the accusations they are — the far right will feel emboldened and were intent on trouble.

Our team witnessed groups in balaclavas arriving from 9am clearly gearing up a fight. By 3pm, a group of far right activists were confronting pro-Palestine demonstrators whilst screaming  “there ain’t no black in the Union Jack” and “Allah is a paedo” and throwing punches and missiles.

HOPE not hate have reported over 1500 people to the police for membership of these hateful Whatsapp groups and much of the content shared in these groups will lead to arrests and prosecutions under the Terrorism Act.

Suella Braverman might be out of a job but the government’s shift to the radical right has long been confirmed; it has emboldened the far right to come back onto the streets in the numbers last seen in 2013. Rishi Sunak’s reshuffle might be an attempt to bring the Conservative Party back to the centre but the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Source

What do you do, as a prime minister, when one of your cabinet ministers goes rogue? What happens if a senior colleague — and a potential future leadership challenger with a strong party following at that — appears to spurn their responsibility to act as a cabinet collective with an article unsubtly critiquing the government’s stated position?

Well, that’s the position Gordon Brown found himself in in 2008, when foreign secretary David Miliband penned an article for the Guardian, suggesting a “radical new phase” of government is needed. The article came as discussions rumbled on in some quarters of the parliamentary Labour Party about whether to dislodge Brown from No 10. Miliband, naturally, was touted as a potential successor. 

Now, the situation Rishi Sunak found himself in with Suella Braverman’s Times article is, of course, not entirely analogous; the home secretary was accused of stoking tension ahead of a day of protests and, even, of inspiring antipathy against police — whom she represents in government. (The article, moreover, was not signed off by No 10; although one wonders whether Miliband’s 2008 treatise was). 

But compare and contrast the response. In a scenario like that presented to Sunak by Braverman — nothing less than an intra-party crisis as siren calls to “back” or “sack” her competed in the media and across WhatsApp groups — a prime minister either seizes on, or shirks, the moment. For Rishi Sunak, as we saw in his reshuffle yesterday, he consciously wanted to be seen as exacting and authoritative — stamping in his mark on the party in a way he has not done to this point. In theory, this was the prime minister turning a crisis into an opportunity — as a good leader should. 

There are, of course, drawbacks to the path taken. Exuding power and authoritativeness is one thing; but, as Liz Truss discovered, vaulting allies at the direct expense of opponents can create myriad party-management problems. The PM, like his failed forebear, may merely be willing his power into existence; fiddling the levers of his office could simply serve to mask a painful truth: his authority in the Conservative Party is ailing. 

In this way, sacking a Suella Braverman or a David Miliband remains risky, both in the short- and long-term. One reading suggests Sunak has given his ex-home secretary exactly what she wants: he has conferred upon her her desired martyr status, and offered her a route out of government before her leadership prospects go the way of Priti Patel’s circa 2022. 

What is more, Braverman seems to have the perfect opportunity to write her own hagiography — as a frustrated and foiled home secretary — with her response to the Rwanda plan supreme court ruling tomorrow. 

If the court blocks the government’s flagship deportation scheme, Braverman could follow the lead of her party-right backers — figures in the Common Sense and New Conservatives caucuses — and call on the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

The move would pave the way for a series of stinging commons contributions all the way up to the general election and, more pertinently, a potential post-Sunak Conservative leadership contest. The Daily Mail and the Telegraph would surely fall in behind and a new phase of Conservative infighting would follow. How could Sunak maintain the visage of unity under those circumstances? Lord Cameron’s loyal diplomacy will be politically meaningless against this backdrop. 

And lo, Braverman’s narrative — to be repeated by her devout supporters — will flow: as home secretary, I exercised crucial soft power on “small boats”, slowly, and to much resistance, working my colleagues to the right on illegal migration. Viewed in full, the unhappy but at times productive alliance between myself and my betrayers yielded significant movement for our favoured cause. In fact, my Illegal Migration Act means that arrivals on “small boats” will be detained within the first 28 days without bail or judicial review. My Act places a legal duty on the government to deport almost anyone who arrives “irregularly” in the UK. On top of this, during the Act’s committee stage, I ensured the Conservative Party right was appeased by acquiescing to an amendment on ignoring ECHR interim injunctions.

Then the narrative will pivot to the future: in the wake of my sacking and the maligned moderating Rishuffle, it is time to escalate the Conservative Party’s attacks on the ECHR. Having been the champion of “stopping the boats” in government, I will now lead on the backbenches. 

How this spiel figures in reality is not really the point (Robert Jenrick was the real face of the Illegal Migration Act) — rather, it is intended to corral and rally the Conservative right. But there is a problem, because Braverman is now a mere backbencher without the trappings of high office. In time, the ex-home secretary may discover that she’s a rather more isolated figure in the Conservative Party than she has hitherto calculated.

Sky News’ John Craig reports that when the New Conservatives met to discuss the reshuffle on Monday evening, there were only 20 MPs present — 12 in the room and 8 on Zoom. It is hardly an amassing battalion of committed culture warriors. And, according to a pre-reshuffle report in the Times, Downing Street and the whips’ office have estimated Braverman’s core supporters at between six and a dozen, including Lee Anderson and Miriam Cates.

On top of this, it is reported that a drinks reception held by members of the Common Sense Group, chaired by Sir John Hayes and which backs Braverman, earlier this month was attended by only seven MPs.

It points to a conclusion I have forwarded repeatedly over the past week: Braverman needed her cabinet role. It was telling that in the hours before her sacking, Braverman’s core clique of supporters led by prime patron Sir John were reported by the Telegraph to be penning a letter to the prime minister insisting he sticks by her. Hayes told the paper that Braverman and Sunak must “collaborate” on small boats. 

Of course, Braverman does retain power on the backbenches — if only on account of her outspoken supporters. But, in recent days, the majority of the Conservative Party has appeared to move against her, with incessant critical briefings to journalists. Against this backdrop, can we be surprised that Sunak appears to have embraced his party’s moderate faction? The party right has decided, incongruously, that Sunak is not one of them; why would the PM seek to woo the unwooable, individuals like Dame Andrea Jenkyns who long ago decided Sunak was an antagonistic pretender?

On top of this, the right-wing cause is not merely Braverman’s to monopolise. The appointment of Esther McVey as a de facto minister for “common sense” is a classic sop to the Sunak’s sceptics and arguably shows the government will be embracing culture war tropes in earnest. 

So saintly martyr Suella Braverman may have a “cause” per se — but it is, (1), not widely popular in her party and, (2), not just the reserve of her own core backbench clique. Thus, after a long period in government which has resulted in two unbecoming government exits, now will be the true test of the home secretary’s political skill. Withholding a resignation letter until it is at its most politically potent is one thing — but can she find a path forward?

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

The new Conservative Party chairman has issued a call for unity this morning as yesterday’s reshuffle continues to face criticism from MPs from the party right. 

Richard Holden, who replaced Greg Hands as chairman at Rishi Sunak’s cabinet reshuffle yesterday, was questioned this morning about the PM’s apparent pivot to the centre ground and the consequent consternation that has caused. 

Yesterday evening, backbench Conservative MP Dame Andrea Jenkyns submitted a no confidence letter in the prime minister. “Enough is enough… It is time for Rishi Sunak to go…”, she wrote on X (formerly Twitter) as she shared her no-confidence letter.

Holden told BBC Breakfast this morning: “I’m somebody from the right of the Conservative Party as well — I want to see us being that broad church.

“There will always be people who are disappointed they’ve not been promoted or recognised in some way, but I think we need to concentrate as a party, and as a government, on the issues that really affect the people of the country. 

“That’s what I’m out there campaigning for every single day”, he added.

Holden also claimed that the return of David Cameron to the political front line demonstrated how “strong and united” his party is.

He said the move was a “shock to everybody”, but described it as a “really welcome surprise”.

Holden told Times Radio: “A bit like everybody else I was sat watching the telly and then I saw David Cameron emerge and I was watching, I think it was Sky or something… and there was that sort of 10 second gap when nobody quite believed it really.

“I think it was quite a shock to everybody. Traditionally in politics things are difficult to keep quiet but this one was a real shock to everybody and a really welcome surprise as well to have somebody with that much experience returning to the front line of British politics, showing just what a strong and united party we are across the country.”

George Osborne, who was Lord Cameron’s chancellor when he was prime minister, said his former boss could not resist the “sound of the trumpet” calling him back to Westminster.

He also said he believed a bit of the former PM “died inside” when he quit the commons in 2016.

Osborne told his Political Currency podcast that there is a “strong element of public service in David”.

He added: “That has always been part of his DNA. And I always thought when he left the House of Commons, which was not his original plan, he wanted to stay as an MP, I think he wanted to sort of serve out his time on this planet as the MP for Witney. And then he decided he shouldn’t do that, and he couldn’t do that.

Conversely, Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, has said the appointment of David Cameron contributes to a “profound sense” of the UK “moving backwards”.

He told Sky News: “I think it contributes to a quite profound sense that the country is moving backwards at this moment in time. I think the reshuffle just adds to that sense.”

Burnham also pointed to comments made by Mr Cameron just a few weeks ago, which said the decision to scrap HS2 was the wrong one.

“You just have a sense that there’s no clarity in government about what they’re trying to do. I wish him well, I worked with him a few years ago and I don’t harbour anyone any ill will. I do feel that it’s a backwards looking move from the prime minister”, he said.

Source

Former cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg has called Esther McVey’s appointment to the cabinet as a minister without portfolio “tokenistic”.

It was reported by the Sun newspaper yesterday that McVey would return to the cabinet as Rishi Sunak‘s de facto “common sense tsar”.

Downing Street later confirmed the appointment.

McVey has previously served as the secretary of state for work and pensions, as well as a series of other more junior government roles. 

Reacting to the news yesterday, former business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said: “I think what’s happened in the Cabinet Office is very strange – that an extremely experienced capable minister, who was doing excellent work in terms of making government more efficient and run properly in the form of [former paymaster general] Jeremy Quin gets moved out to create a tokenistic post. 

“I think that’s very strange”.

He told Channel 4 News: “What is a ‘tsar for wokedom’? What does it mean? I don’t believe in tokenistic phrases for government posts. … We got this in the Blair years where we started talking about government departments in nice to do language. And I’ve always thought this is flim flam”.

He also asked: “What is her role? Explain her role in one sentence?”.

McVey’s appointment came as part of a wide-reaching reshuffle conducted by the prime minister yesterday, in which home secretary Suella Braverman — viewed as a standard-bearer for the right of the party — was sacked.

She had penned a controversial Times op-ed in which she questioned whether the police were biased towards pro-Palestinian protestors — what she termed “hate marches”. 

McVey is also associated with the right of the party and, in 2018, she resigned in protest at Theresa May’s proposed Brexit deal.

She stood briefly in the 2019 Conservative leadership election, and at her launch event boasted a photo of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher. 

In 2012, she founded the Conservative pressure group and parliamentary caucus the “Blue Collar Conservatives” which has aimed to “champion working people and develop a conservative agenda to benefit the voters and communities most neglected by Labour”.

In 2022, she stood down as chair to be replaced by fellow Conservative MP Lee Anderson.

She also hosts a show on GB News with her husband and fellow Conservative MP Philip Davies. 

Also as part of yesterday’s reshuffle, former foreign secretary James Cleverly was announced as the person to replace Suella Braverman in the Home Office.

Replacing Cleverly as foreign secretary was former prime minister David Cameron, now Lord Cameron. He stunned SW1 when he arrived on Downing Street just before 9 am.

Meanwhile, Richard Holden replaced Greg Hands as the chairman of the Conservative Party and Steve Barclay has been demoted to environment secretary.

Therese Coffey, who had served as the head of DEFRA since October 2022, left government.

Replacing Steve Barclay as health secretary was Victoria Atkins, who previously served as financial secretary the Treasury.

Laura Trott was promoted to the role of Chief Secretary to the Treasury, replacing John Glen.

Source

Sir John Hayes, chairman on the Common Sense group of right-wing Conservative MPs, has urged the prime minister and Suella Braverman to “collaborate” on stopping the boats, as Rishi Sunak faces pressure to sack his home secretary.

It comes as The Telegraph reports that the Commons Sense Group are preparing to make a direct appeal to Rishi Sunak to urge him to resist pressure on his home secretary.

There has been speculation Sunak will carry out a cabinet reshuffle, with the goal of moving Braverman out of her home secretary post, either before or after the Supreme Court ruling on the Rwanda deportations policy.

The ruling will take place on Wednesday in what will be a pivotal moment in the government’s bid to “stop the boats”.

Speaking to The Telegraph ahead of his group’s letter, Sir John Hayes said: There’s no one better than Suella Braverman to help Rishi Sunak deliver what he has made a defining policy for him and the Government”. 

The former minister added: “I am sure they will collaborate to do so”.

Last week, Braverman was said by No 10 to have defied Downing Street by ignoring its requested edits to a newspaper article in The Times. 

In the article, she accused the Met of “playing favourites” towards Left-wing protesters

On Sunday, Grant Shapps became the latest Cabinet minister to distance himself from the home secretary.

“As others in cabinet have said, I wouldn’t use that set of words myself”, he told the BBC.

And asked on Sky News if Braverman would still be in her job next weekend, Shapps said that “a week is a long time in politics, and I never make predictions these things.”

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper told Times Radio that her opposite number had “inflamed tensions” with her remarks and called for her to be sacked.

“The problem with what Suella Braverman did is she inflamed tensions and she launched this unprecedented attack on the police in the run up to a difficult weekend, and she made their job harder”, she said.

Source

Police escorted Michael Gove out of Victoria railway station in London on Saturday after he was mobbed by protesters. It came moments after a sit-in protest for Palestine ended.

Footage shared on social media showed Gove surrounded by a large group of police as they sought to keep demonstrators away from him.

Flag-waving protesters crowding him could be heard chanting “shame on you” as officers called on them to “get back”.

The levelling up, housing and communities minister tweeted his thanks to police for their “exemplary work” on Saturday. 

Gove said: “I’m very grateful for so many kind messages in the last 24 hours. I’d like to thank the police for their exemplary work getting me home safely yesterday”.

Thousands of demonstrators marched in London on Armistice Day, calling for an Israel-Gaza ceasefire. Organisers have said that the march could be one of the biggest in British history.

300,000 pro-Palestine protesters are said to have attended the march.

The rally had been the backdrop to a political row over home secretary’s Suella Braverman criticism of it as a “hate march”.

In the article, which the prime minister’s official spokesman confirmed was published without being signed off, she claimed: “They are an assertion of primacy by certain groups — particularly Islamists — of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland”.

She also criticised the police for showing double standards and favouring “the left” in refusing to ban the march.

The march passed off peacefully on Saturday, but at least 92 counter-protesters have been arrested as far-right groups clashed with police.

Expressing sympathy with Michael Gove, London mayor Sadiq Khan described attempts to intimidate politicians as “unacceptable”.

Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, said: “It’s not ‘bizarre’ for Michael Gove to use a major tube/train station. He should be able to travel in peace like everyone else.

“Those acting in this fashion damage their cause and, along with those displaying abhorrent antisemitism among the rally today, must be condemned.”

Conservative MP Sir Michael Fabricant described the protesters as a “hateful mob”.

Baroness Foster, the former DUP leader, said: “This is so disgraceful. Sending solidarity to [Michael Gove] and all those who seek to go about their private business on a Saturday afternoon but who are intimidated by thugs.”

Source