Tag: United Kingdom

  • Week-in-Review: Suella Braverman isn’t as strong politically as she thinks she is

    When future scholars take to writing the history of Rishi Sunak’s premiership perhaps they should begin with this week: a King’s Speech spurned, spiralling intra-party antagonism and, at the centre of the controversy — as ever — Suella Braverman.

    The home secretary, of course, occupies a central place in the still-unfurling Sunak story. During the fast-tracked October 2022 leadership contest, the Home Office was essentially surrendered to Braverman by the PM-to-be. At a time of heightened political psychodrama, Braverman and Sunak’s much-purported “pact” was an act of relative elegance. Conservative MPs were fumbling for a prime minister to fill the gap left by the Trussite interregnum; but here were two former opponents agreeing to put their differences aside in favour of mutually assured career development. Home Office keys to Braverman, No 10 to Sunak — “Granita pact”-esque. 

    Whether Braverman’s support was sufficient or necessary in Sunak’s successfull bid to burst the bring back Boris bubble is moot. But her appointment as home secretary sent important signals to the right-wing of the Conservative Party that Sunak would, in fact, pursue a “big tent” mode of governance — despite his support deriving mainly (and incongruously, as I have suggested before) from “one nation” MPs. Historians, then — less interested in the content of controversial Times op-eds than they are in the political environment in which they are created — will locate in this fateful episode the seeds of Sunak’s present tumult. 

    For any junior partner of a pre-ascension “deal”, the immediate windfall tends to be the creation of a personal fiefdom in government — with the rising minister reigning tyrannical in the desired department. Thus, Braverman, literally empowered by Sunak, sees fit to act essentially as secondus inter pares in government — freelancing at Nat Con, in Washington and in her Times article.

    In this way, the real story here is far bigger than Braverman, a conclusion I’m sure posterity’s judgment will vindicate. Rather, it’s about Rishi Sunak’s ailing authority after a year of failing to revive his party’s dire polling prospects. It underlines that as we approach a general election, Conservative discipline is getting worse, not better; for as we edge closer to a national poll, so too do we creep inexorably closer to a potential post-Sunak leadership contest. 

    But let’s hone in on the home secretary: what does she stand to gain from the outbreak of disharmony in Conservative ranks? On the surface, she seems to want to scorch her party before she leads it.

    Perhaps tellingly, Braverman’s loyal advocates have today assumed defensive formations. Miriam Cates cautions: “At this very serious time for our country, do we really think that the public are interested in who cleared what article or do they want to see leadership from our politicians?”.

    Danny Kruger comes in: “Terrorist sympathisers are marching thru [sic] London calling for the destruction of the Jewish state while the police stand by — but hey let’s all focus on which version of an article was cleared by No 10. Can the media possibly please focus on the things that actually matter?”. (Notably, several other Braverman acolytes have shared similar Tweets, or issued analogous briefings to friendly journalists. The level of coordination would suggest that, (1), Braverman’s support base remains loyal and organised and, (2), they are worried about the future of their ideological standard-bearer).

    For their part, Kruger and Cates are co-chairs of the “New Conservatives”, a faction which — together with the rump European Research Group — provides a rough outline of the extent of Braverman’s support in the party. It is usually suggested that Braverman’s loyal support in the Conservative parliamentary party amounts to 40 or so MPs. In this way, while such individuals might be organisationally savvy, loud and backed by powerful media voices, is such a backbone of support enough for Braverman to emerge strengthened by a cabinet exit?

    On top of this, the past few days have also exposed the level discord in the Conservative Party when it comes to the controversial home secretary. Ultimately, for every Miriam Cates or Danny Kruger, there are rather more Sir Bob Neills — the justice select committee chair who yesterday described the home secretary’s position as “untenable”.

    And do not forget also: consecutive cabinet ministers in Alex Chalk, Claire Coutinho, Steve Barclay and, most recently, chancellor Jeremy Hunt have all refused to clearly back the home secretary over the last week. One unnamed cabinet minister even told the Times: “[Braverman] has been a totally useless minister and is now making the mistake of believing her own publicity. She is toast”. 

    When it comes to Conservative leadership contests, winning the support of senior colleagues is significant: Kemi Badenoch was bolstered by the patronage of Michael Gove in the summer 2022 leadership contest, for instance. As far as Braverman is concerned, is Sir John Hayes’ consummate support — devout though it is — really enough?

    How might the Conservative Party figure factionally after an election?

    This analysis begs a few other questions — including the matter of whether the ideological dynamics of the Conservative Party will alter, and shift rightwards, in the outcome of defeat in 2024. That is unlikely, according to new data from Survation and Royal Holloway; in fact, there seems to be no correlation between the size of an MP’s majority and their estimated position on left-right economic issues. 

    But here’s another pertinent point: the Conservative right’s political power and potency is borne of media-conspicuous, outspoken individuals — while the party’s one nation clique is strong on account of its sheer numerical weight. 

    This would suggest that a potential electoral pruning in 2024 (or 2025) bodes ill for Braverman’s long-term political prospects. Kruger, who boasts a 23,993 majority in Devizes will be safe; but I count few other New Conservatives who look set to survive an election defeat — even on a swing someway short of that currently forecast by the polls. The rump ERG will, all other things being equal, remain — but many of Braverman’s most prominent media supporters will be lost. 

    Competition on the Conservative right

    On top of this, the prevailing view is that — in orchestrating her own downfall — Braverman will emerge stronger in her party, with a readily deployable betrayal narrative, ready for a future leadership contest. But is the still-home secretary really the far-and-away frontrunner for the mantle of right-wing candidate in a future leadership contest?

    Of course, the home secretary’s most obvious competition for this is Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, who like Braverman is understood to be enduringly ambitious. Her performance at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference, an international gathering of conservatives, showed she has far from given up the fight for the right — in spite of upsetting ERGers on the Retained EU Law Act.

    Meanwhile, Miriam Cates is another viewed as a rising star on the Conservative right, and her loyalty to Braverman could be tested if she continues to be touted as a potential leadership candidate. And if Cates’ majority of 7,210 doesn’t survive the next election, step up Danny Kruger — considered to be something of a party right intellectual and former political secretary to Boris Johnson. 

    Personalities aside, the key point here is that Braverman is going to emerge from her current travails with serious political baggage. A saintly martyr needs both a devout hagiographer as well as a mass following to transmit their story to posterity; Braverman seems to have the former — but does she have the latter? Indeed, a betrayal narrative might be concocted by her most ardent advocates; but the incessant briefing from critics yesterday and today shows she has alienated some powerful, very senior colleagues with her recent antics.  

    What do the Conservative membership think?

    Another point worth raising is the question of how Conservative members will view Braverman’s recent manoeuvring. The Conservative membership is a frequently caricatured collective — and, in at least one sense, such curiosity is justified: they produced prime minister Liz Truss against the better instincts of their parliamentary representatives. 

    So step up Conservative Home’s “cabinet league table”, which samples the tastes of party members on all cabinet-attending Tories once a month. This collective consciousness of the Conservative Party is viewed as offering crucial hints as to its future ideological direction. And this week it noted that Suella Braverman had a 43.5 net satisfaction rating, down four points from the previous month — despite (or maybe because) of her criticism of multiculturalism, and conference performance. Ahead of her were veterans minister Johnny Mercer, leader of the House Penny Mordaunt, Badenoch and, topping the table, foreign secretary James Cleverly. 

    Where next for Suella Braverman?

    In the end, it is clear Braverman now has several enemies in the Conservative parliamentary party — rather more than she did at the beginning of this week. Her continued presence in the headlines may in time expose that she is a more isolated figure than her media conspicuousness justifies. 

    Importantly, the relevance of these points is not conditional on whether Sunak sacks or saves Braverman. But that both the home secretary and the media are potentially overstating the still-home secretary’s political power might mean that if Sunak does sack her, the consequent intra-party feuding could, perhaps, be contained. 

    Step back, and the reason for this all round overestimation is a consequence of, (1), the fact that Sunak saw fit to empower her in October 2022 and, (2), the enduring quietude of the sleeping giant that is the Conservative one nation faction. Now, if those factors are both about to change, expect the mood music around the controversialist-in-chief Braverman to change, too. 

    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

  • Former home secretary Priti Patel says it is vital to respect ‘operational independence’ of the police

    Dame Priti Patel told the Covid inquiry yesterday that it is vital to respect the “operational independence” of the police.

    Patel, who served as home secretary from 2019 to 2022, said that throughout the pandemic she felt the need to remind her cabinet colleagues “of the role of policing”.

    She said that “as politicians” it is vital to respect the operational independence of the police. 

    “We as politicians are not there to dictate directly to the police as to when to arrest people and enforce the law”, she told the inquiry. 

    The comments will likely be interpreted as coded criticism of her successor as home secretary, Suella Braverman.

    Braverman has been accused of undermining serving police officers after claiming far-right protesters have been treated more harshly than pro-Palestinian supporters.

    In an article for the Times, Braverman accused the force of applying a “double standard” to its policing of protests.

    She claimed aggressive right-wing protesters were “rightly met with a stern response”, while “pro-Palestinian mobs” were “largely ignored”.

    The article also said that the marches were not “merely a cry for help for Gaza”, but an “assertion of primacy by certain groups of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland”.

    Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley had said there were insufficient grounds for him to ban Saturday’s pro-Palestine march under section 13 of the 1986 Public Order Act.

    Nickie Aiken, the Conservative Party deputy chair and MP for the constituency that includes the Cenotaph, criticised Braverman’s comments.

    “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.

    Priti Patel has previously criticised her successor over her comments on multiculturalism. She has said that Braverman‘s claim that “multiculturalism has failed” may have been made “to get attention”.

    She told Sky News that the UK should be “proud” of the “dynamic communities” in the UK, and making such interventions were “not a substitute for delivery” on government policies.

    The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has claimed that Braverman was “out of control” and stoking division.

    In an urgent question to the House of Commons yesterday, 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.”

    Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has said: “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.”

    Source

  • Minister refuses to confirm PM has confidence in Suella Braverman, points to ongoing ‘internal process’

    A minister repeatedly refused to confirm this morning that the prime minister has confidence in the home secretary.

    It comes after Downing Street yesterday insisted that the PM has “full confidence” in Suella Braverman.

    Asked this morning to confirm if this was still the line, Robert Halfon said that Downing Street is “looking internally” into how the article, which was highly critical of the Metropolitan Police, was published.

    According to reports, Number 10 asked for changes to the controversial Times op-ed. But they were not made.

    In the article, Braverman accused the Metropolitan Police of bias and “playing favourites” with pro-Palestinian protesters in London.

    Halfon told Sky News: “The prime minister‘s focus is ensuring that the remembrance service goes ahead peacefully. That has to be the priority.”

    He repeatedly refused to say if Rishi Sunak maintains confidence in Suella Braverman.

    “There is an internal process going on in Downing Street to look at why that article is published”, he said.

    He also said that it is “absolutely essential” that the operational independence of the Met Police is protected.

    Among the Conservative MPs backing Suella Braverman this morning is Miriam Cates. “I think the home secretary has a view that is very mainstream in the rest of the UK”, she told the BBC.

    She said she would “completely disagree” that Braverman was making matters worse with her commentary.

    The deputy chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderon has also defended Suella Braverman this morning.

    He said the home secretary is “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 language used by every day people. Labour MPs would know this if they got out more”.

    However, Nickie Aiken, the Conservative Party deputy chair and MP for the constituency that includes the Cenotaph, criticised Braverman’s comments.

    “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.

    Source

  • Pro Bono Week: Retired lawyers encouraged to offer free legal support

    Evokes spirit of NHS during the pandemic


    The National Pro Bono Centre (NPBC) has announced a new scheme to encourage retired lawyers to undertake pro bono work.

    The project, championed by representatives from Advocate and LawWorks, aims to draw on the experience of the NHS during the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw retired medics step back up to the plate to provide essential support.

    Assisting energised retirees in finding the right post is a “one-stop-shop for information, guidance and opportunities”, which will allow lawyers to find positions best suited to their interests, skills and schedules.

    Successful pro bono work conducted by former lawyers include a barrister securing compensation and 12 weeks paid holiday for a client whose employer had denied him the right to paid annual leave, and a solicitor advising a same-sex couple in their successful claim against their employer and landlord after they were evicted for rejecting his sexual advances.

    Robert Bourns, NPBC trustee and board chair of the Law Society of England and Wales, said:

    “I welcome the launch of this fantastic new initiative amid an increasing need for pro bono legal support to ensure the most vulnerable in our society have access to justice when they need it. I urge colleagues across the legal profession to explore the option to continue to offer pro bono legal help in their retirement.”

    In a callback to the 60s and 70s, Mary Dobson Smith, executive Lead at the National Pro Bono Centre, further roused the pro bono troops by “[calling] on the Captain Mainwarings of today to come forward as part of a new ‘Home Guard’ for pro bono”.

    The announcement comes of Pro Bono Week, a special seven-day event that recognises and promotes the voluntary work of lawyers.

    The 2024 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    The post Pro Bono Week: Retired lawyers encouraged to offer free legal support appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source

  • UK GDP flatlines as chancellor pledges to get economy ‘growing healthily again’

    The UK economy flatlined in the third quarter of 2023, according to new numbers published by the Office for National Statistics this morning.

    The ONS said there had been no growth in the three months from July to September.

    It does mean the UK will avoid a recession this year, which is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

    ONS director of economic statistics Darren Morgan said: “The economy is estimated to have shown no growth in the third quarter. Services dropped a little with falls in health, management consultancy and commercial property rentals. These were partially offset by growth in engineering, car sales and machinery leasing.

    “In the month of September the economy grew slightly, with increases in film production, health and education. This growth was partially offset by falls in retail and computer programming.”

    The ONS said services fell by 0.1 per cent, construction grew by 0.1 per cent and production was flat at 0.0 per cent, as the UK economy appeared to remain stagnant.

    The 0.0 per cent growth comes following an increase of 0.2 in the previous quarter.

    Responding to the latest ONS data, Jeremy Hunt said: “High inflation is the single greatest barrier to economic growth.

    “The best way to sustainably grow our economy right now is stick to our plan and knock inflation on its head.

    “The autumn statement will focus on how we get the economy growing healthily again by unlocking investment, getting people back into work and reforming our public services so we can deliver the growth our country needs.”

    He added: “The British economy is much more resilient than many people predicted.”

    Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “These figures are further evidence that the economy is not working under the Conservatives and working people are worse off.”

    Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said: “The economy narrowly avoided contracting in Q3, and we continue to think that it can maintain this resilient performance in Q4.

    “We continue to think that the chances of a recession look low.”

    TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “Working people are paying the price for Tory failure.

    “Today’s dismal growth figures – with household, government and business spending all falling – is yet more evidence of their economic mismanagement.

    “The outlook is bleak. The UK is teetering on brink of recession with unemployment rising and no real green shoots on the horizon.

    “We can’t go on like this. Jobs and livelihoods are on the line.

    “We need a serious plan for jumpstarting our stagnant economy. That means a proper industrial strategy and investment in green infrastructure and public services.

    “And this means a change of government.”

    James Smith, Research Director at the Resolution Foundation, said: “The UK economy has stagnated again in recent months, driven in part by the rapid rise in interest rates since late 2021. There is a real risk that the UK could fall into recession for the fourth time in 15 years.

    “Britain is a stagnation nation that has struggled to secure sustained economic growth since the financial crisis. Addressing this is the central task we face as a country, and must be at the heart of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement in 10 days’ time.”

    Source

  • Suspension for prosecuting barrister who pursued ‘romantic interest’ in defendant 

    Misused personal contact info


    An experienced barrister has been suspended from practice for 26 months after he was found to have pursued a “romantic interest” in a defendant he was prosecuting.

    An independent tribunal found that Drew St’Clair, called to the bar in 2001, acted in a way which was “likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession”.

    In November 2021, St’Clair used personal contact information that he was given access to whilst prosecuting a criminal case for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), according to a statement by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) covering the decision. This was done, it said, to “pursue his romantic interest in the defendant in those proceedings”.

    St’Clair was aware that this defendant was “likely to be vulnerable as a victim of domestic abuse,” the regulator added.

    Commenting on the order, a BSB spokesperson said:

    “The tribunal found that Mr St’Clair violated a clear professional boundary and abused his position of power in relation to a vulnerable individual. This type of conduct is manifestly incompatible with the high standards expected of the bar by those experiencing the justice system and the wider public and the tribunal’s order to suspend Mr St’Clair reflects the seriousness of such behaviour”.

    The tribunal’s decision is open to appeal.

    The post Suspension for prosecuting barrister who pursued ‘romantic interest’ in defendant  appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source

  • Christine Jardine: ‘Division is feeding the sickness of antisemitism — MPs must unite to tackle it’

    One morning, not too long ago I visited a school in north London where, when the alarm went off, the children showed me what I should do.

    “Hide under the desk” they said, “that is the alarm to tell us there is an intruder in the school.”

    My heart broke for these primary school youngsters already aware that, simply by birth, they were already surrounded by those who would harm them.

    I was a guest at one of the capital’s Jewish schools as part of a visit organised by the Community Security Trust to introduce me to the sort of antisemitism which was already on the rise in our cities.

    As well as explaining the alarm, the children told myself and other visiting MPs stories of the abuse they had faced on their way to school, in the park playing with their siblings or in one terrifying instance of having their car attacked at traffic lights because a pedestrian spotted their keppah, or cap.

    And all of this was before the horrifying events of 7th October, and the ensuing conflict in Israel and Gaza, which has led to a significant escalation of antisemitism across the country.

    Between that date and 23rd October, The Community Security Trust has recorded at least 600 antisemitic incidents in the UK.

    That is the highest number of incidents they have ever recorded in a 17 day period, and a frightening 687% from the same period last year.

    The anecdotal evidence is just as disturbing. Some Jewish children have been advised not to wear their blazers on the way to and from school, for fear of antisemitic attacks.

    Posters of Israeli hostages have been defaced with Hitler moustaches. Antisemitic online “pile-ons” have become far too commonplace. There are reports of an increase in incidents on our University campuses.

    All of this has created significant fear in British Jewish communities.

    That is why this week I wrote to equalities minister Kemi Badenoch to call for a cross party meeting to address how we can tackle this growing sickness.

    I am confident the minister shares my belief that there is no place for bigotry or hatred in our country, as do others across politics.

    If we are to stamp out antisemitism I believe that we must do it together, build on the cross-party consensus which emerged in October and not allow party politics to intervene.

    Division is what has fed this evil and we must not allow division to undermine our attempts to tackle it.

    Instead we should look to the spirit in which, each year, parliament comes together to debate Holocaust Memorial Day to reflect both respect for those who lost their lives and determination that it should never happen again.

    In the current difficult climate we now must demonstrate that we are as good as our word. Those children in that school in North London, and in others across the country, deserve no less.

    Source

  • A&O suffers cyber attack

    Impacts small number of storage servers, says firm


    Magic Circle law firm Allen & Overy (A&O) has been targeted by hackers.

    A spokesperson for the global outfit confirmed it had “experienced a data incident impacting a small number of storage servers”.

    Hacking group Lockbit targeted the firm with ransomware, according to post on social media platform X. The post, dated 8 November, claims the group will publish data from the firm on 28 November.

    The A&O spokesperson said:

    “Investigations to date have confirmed that data in our core systems, including our email and document management system, has not been affected. The firm continues to operate normally with some disruption arising from steps taken to contain the incident. Our technical response team, working alongside an independent cybersecurity adviser, took immediate action to isolate and contain the incident.”

    They continued: “Detailed cyber forensic work continues to investigate and remediate the incident. As a matter of priority, we are assessing exactly what data has been impacted, and we are informing affected clients. We appreciate that this is an important matter for our clients, and we take this very seriously. Keeping our clients’ data safe, secure, and confidential is an absolute priority.”

    A&O isn’t the first major law firm to be targeted in this way. In 2017, Legal Cheek reported that hackers had taken DLA Piper‘s computer systems and phones offline using malicious software.

    The 2024 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    The post A&O suffers cyber attack appeared first on Legal Cheek.



    Source

  • The game Suella Braverman is playing

    It seems not even the regal opulence of a King’s Speech — the first delivered by a male monarch for more than 70 years — can stem the PM’s political travails. The “Speech from the Throne” was supposed to combat the perception that the Conservatives are tired and tailspinning into opposition. The event, subject as it was to wall-to-wall coverage in the media, is the epitome of incumbency advantage in British politics. But for Rishi Sunak, such set-pieces — like the Conservative Party‘s annual conference last month — serve merely to highlight his enduring political woes.

    Indeed, it was telling that when the House returned at 2.30 pm on Tuesday, Labour leader Keir Starmer was rather less interested in the substance of the King’s Speech, than he was in prising open the gap between the prime minister and Suella Braverman. He succeeded. 

    With Starmer brandishing barb after barb, the frontbench pairing’s demeanour sharply diverged. Rishi Sunak tilted his head back and, in a moment of fleeting existentialism, darted his gaze to the commons ceiling. There was an attempt at a wry smile, but it faded; his head soon stilled after an abortive shake.

    Braverman, conversely, remained stern, soaking in the spotlight as cries of “shame!” and “sack her!” crescendoed. “Without a serious home secretary there cannot be serious government and he cannot be a serious prime minister”, Starmer concluded. Sunak, optimistic by nature and political necessity, was visibly stung. (See the images laced throughout this article).

    Exhibit A

    Here’s why: the preceding Saturday Suella Braverman had sent a tweet appearing to confirm a Financial Times scoop that a measure to curb charities handing out tents to rough sleepers was slated for the King’s Speech. The home secretary’s thread suggested that using tents is a “lifestyle choice” for some rough sleepers, many of whom come “from abroad”. 

    After all, the proposal did not appear in the King’s speech (maybe it was never going to, or perhaps Braverman had overly toxified the proposal with her rhetorical framing). Whatever the case, consecutive cabinet ministers — charged with manning what should have been triumphant media rounds — were forced to respond. Bar none, they refused to repeat Braverman’s remarks. And, at the despatch box on Tuesday, Rishi Sunak himself refused the opportunity to defend his home secretary from Starmer‘s slights. 

    But it gets worse for the prime minister — because the proposed tent crackdown is but one of a few firestorms Braverman seems intent on stoking right now. 

    Over the past few weeks, the home secretary has consistently called pro-Palestinian demonstrations “hate marches”, going some distance further than the prime minister, whose condemnation is rather more coded. Nor does the home secretary show any intention of bridging the rhetorical chasm between her and her boss. In a Times article published last night, she doubled down, describing accusing the Metropolitan Police of a “double standard” in how it responds to protests by different groups. The demos by the “pro-Palestinian mobs”, she explained, amounted to “an assertion of primacy by certain groups — particularly Islamists — of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland”.

    Exhibit B

    There’s more: last month, at Conservative Party conference in Manchester, she warned that a “hurricane” of migrants was heading for the UK. It followed a speech she gave in Washington DC only a few days prior, in which she lampooned the “misguided dogma” of multiculturalism; labelled the UN’s refugee convention “absurd”, arguing it conjures into existence 780 million refugees across the world; and, in a coup de grâce, insisted it is too easy for LGBTQ+ refugees to seek asylum.

    These comments, of course, led to a whole host of senior Conservatives attempting to put distance between themselves and the home secretary. It mirrored, almost exactly, the fallout from Braverman’s frustrated tent crackdown

    In fact, along these lines, the home secretary’s sabre-rattling interventions have acquired something of a cyclical feel. 

    By way of a summary: first, Braverman seizes on a specific area of her broad brief, usually a politically salient area as the news agenda decrees; she then identifies the government line; and, finally, consciously undertakes to step beyond it with some trailed policy proposal or statement. 

    What happens next is no longer up to her: a media firestorm ensues, cabinet ministers are called on to condemn it, Labour grandstand and collective responsibility is strained. Consequently, Sunak tries to down play the dissonance between his home secretary’s position and his own; but by then a narrative has long-taken hold. The prime minister is reduced to a mere spectator. 

    In this way, Braverman’s interventions are not concocted because they are viewed as substantive contributions to political discourse or policy-making. Her pitch to a small room of right-wing Washington wonks in September was never going to convince the rest of the world to ditch its obligations to the 1951 UN refugee convention. And Met police chief Sir Mark Rowley has said he does not have the legal right to ban the Pro-Palestine protest set for Saturday. But, for the home secretary and her supporters, the more their opponents howl, the more virtuous the quest becomes. The confected rage merely hardens the Conservative right’s collective resolve.

    Did it really have to be this way?

    It is important to note at this point that Braverman and Sunak’s relationship wasn’t always like this. Indeed, the home secretary has recently amped up her right-wing posturing, in a move that reflects her evolving assumptions about the government in which she serves — and how they relate to Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party’s future. 

    Of course, the policy area Braverman oversees with the most enduring political salience is illegal migration. On this, she has remained closely tied to the prime minister; in fact, Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats” — supplemented by tough talk, new tough rules, and hard-headed bullishness — has arguably constrained the home secretary’s room for manoeuvre. Tellingly, Suella Braverman hardly featured in “small boats” week: no stunning intervention on the ECHR, no coded critique of her own government’s policy — near-total silence. 

    Exhibit C

    Compare and contrast this to the contributions of immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who navigated the Illegal Migration Act through its trickiest parliamentary stages and, during “small boats” week, helmed the most delicate media assignments. Nor has Jenrick, contrary to media preconceptions, shied away from the discursive elements of his brief. In April, he told a Policy Exchange event that migration threatened to “cannibalise” British compassion. It seemed Sunak (to whom Jenrick is fiercely loyal) had decided the best way to silence Braverman was to simply agree with her — or even to outbid her discursively on her own terms.

    Right now, therefore, the home secretary seems to be following her most obvious political incentive and fighting back. After a period of relative quietude — an opportunity to collect and reflect on her options with intra-party allies perhaps — she has amped up her posturing, assuming positions that Sunak and other cabinet ministers cannot themselves reasonably adopt. This is the game Suella Braverman is playing.

    And it comes at a time when the race to become the standard bearer of her party right is intensifying. At Conservative Party conference, Kemi Badenoch undertook to woo party activists, laying out her own political stall. And, last week, the business and trade secretary proved the star attraction at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, a self-styled “international community” for small “c” conservatives. 

    This all underlines that, as an election approaches, Conservative Party discipline is getting worse, not better. For as we edge towards a national poll, so too do we creep inexorably closer to a potential post-Sunak leadership contest. And thus Badenoch and Braverman move and shake.

    Exhibit D

    For Rishi Sunak, it underlines the apparent political absurdity of continuing to lay political traps for Keir Starmer, in a bid to stoke Labour division on energy for instance, while your own cabinet colleagues posture and grandstand. The Labour leader, as his performance on Tuesday showed, is seeking to exploit Conservative division. 

    Of course, for Suella Braverman, her decision to amp up her political posturing underlines her enduring ambition. Still, her status as Conservative leader-in-wait is also far from secure. 

    As the past few weeks have shown, she has several enemies in the Conservative parliamentary party; and her continued presence in the headlines may in time expose that she is a more isolated figure than her media conspicuousness justifies. 

    In fact, beyond 40-or-so supportive MPs, among whom her prime patron Sir John Hayes features first and foremost, Braverman is viewed as divisive in Conservative circles. A saintly martyr needs both a devout hagiographer and a mass following to transmit their story to posterity; Braverman seems to have the former — but whether she has the latter is far from clear. 

    It means if Sunak does decide to sack his home secretary, the consequent intra-party feuding could, perhaps, be contained. And it is an option the prime minister will surely be weighing up — especially as news breaks that No 10 did not clear Braverman’s recent Times op-ed.

    But beyond these smaller considerations is the bigger dilemma of how Rishi Sunak can make progress politically while his top team is divided against itself. What is certain is that amid all the blue-on-blue scuffling, the King’s Speech opportunity has been squandered. 

    Exhibit E

    And so Sunak heads into the Autumn Statement on 22 November (the final third of his relaunch, after party conference and the King’s Speech), in desperate need of some quiet in the Conservative Party. 

    He won’t get it. 

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



    Source

  • Suella Braverman says Pro-Palestine ‘hate marches’ are ‘disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster’

    Suella Braverman has attacked policing “double standards” after the head of the Metropolitan police gave the go-ahead for a pro-Palestine march on Saturday, Armistice Day.

    In an article for the Times, she described the protests as an unchallenged “assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland.

    “Also disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster are the reports that some of Saturday’s march group organisers have links to terrorist groups, including Hamas”, she added. 

    The comments come after Rishi Sunak conceded that the pro-Palestine march will go ahead, however he insisted Scotland Yard’s decision is kept under “constant review”.

    The PM called in Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark Rowley for an emergency meeting about the march yesterday.

    Sir Mark has said the law would only allow him to ban the march in “extreme cases”.

    In the Times, Braverman also claimed “there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters”, before claiming some current police officers have also complained about a “double standard”.

    She said: “Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law?”.

    Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael accused the home secretary of using her platform to appeal to her party right. “The home secretary’s desire to stoke divisions and ramp up tensions in this way is irresponsible and dangerous.”

    London mayor Sadiq Khan said Braverman’s latest comments accusing the police of bias were “inaccurate, inflammatory and irresponsible”.

    Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Suella Braverman is out of control”, adding: “No other home secretary of any party would ever do this.”

    She said the home secretary’s article “is a highly irresponsible, dangerous attempt to undermine respect for police at a sensitive time, to rip up operational independence & to inflame community tensions”.

    Source