Register for the View from Westminster email to receive professional analysis directly to your email.
Receive our complimentary email, “View from Westminster.”
Suella Braverman found her dismissal to be unconventional while also expressing disapproval towards Rishi Sunak’s absence of ethical guidance during the last four weeks.
During her initial interview after being requested to depart from her government position, the ex-home secretary stated that Mr. Sunak would be accountable for the resulting outcomes. Her exit has caused a growing division between the conservative and moderate factions within the party.
Last week, she mentioned her termination, which was a result of her writing an article for The Times where she accused the police of having “double standards” for permitting a pro-Palestine march on Armistice Day.
She told the Mail on Sunday that she had been given permission by Downing Street to write the article and that they had reviewed a rough draft. However, according to The Independent, the official spokesperson for Mr Sunak stated that No 10 did not endorse the final version.
Ms. Braverman stated that the situation was peculiar because on Wednesday, there was an agreement with No 10 that she would write an article for The Times. They had collaborated on a draft and shared versions with the team at No 10, leaving her feeling bewildered.
“Initially, they granted us permission. However, during the call, the stated reason for revoking it was his dissatisfaction with the op-ed published in The Times.”
She revealed that the prime minister had phoned to sack her as she was making her way into parliament at breakfast time on Monday, and that he had informed her the op ed “wasn’t the right thing to do”.
Ms. Braverman’s writing caused a strong backlash when she alleged that Scotland Yard was showing bias towards the Pro-Palestine rally. Despite Mr. Sunak’s spokesperson expressing his support for her, it was confirmed that the final version was not approved by No 10.
Braverman has recently made a harsh criticism of the Prime Minister.
Ms. Braverman confirmed her criticism of the Metropolitan Police during her interview, stating that Scotland Yard was showing leniency towards pro-Palestinian marches.
She expressed her belief that Met chiefs made a mistake by not taking action against chants promoting jihad. After seeking legal counsel from multiple experienced lawyers, it was made clear that chanting jihad in that specific situation was considered an arrestable offense. Therefore, she believes that they were wrong in their decision.
She advocated for the implementation of new legislation, stating that the marches in support of Palestine were jeopardizing unity within the community and going against British principles.
The prime minister had made weak and cautious remarks regarding this matter, and I believed that there was a chance for them to show moral guidance. However, I found their response to be severely lacking.
Ms. Braverman cautioned that the upcoming election may not go well if Mr. Sunak does not alter his course. She also restated her plea for the UK to break free from the constraints of human rights laws, which have hindered the government’s efforts to relocate migrants to Rwanda and caused the Supreme Court case to fail.
Ms. Braverman expressed her satisfaction with Mr. Sunak’s promise to introduce emergency legislation. However, she emphasized the importance of enacting substantial changes to the law, rather than just making minor adjustments. She also warned that failure to do so could result in delays in getting flights off the ground before the upcoming general election.
The former home secretary stated: “We must remove certain aspects of the Human Rights framework, such as the ECHR, the Human Rights Act, and other international laws that have hindered our ability to manage our borders.”
The previous government official also stated that she possesses a “copy” of an agreement she claims to have signed with Mr. Sunak, in return for her backing him to become the Prime Minister in October of last year. However, she has chosen not to make it public at this time.
The day following her termination, Ms. Braverman fiercely criticized the prime minister, claiming that he had reneged on covert agreements. She also asserted that he had relied on “wishful thinking” when approaching the Rwanda plan, and she had been consistently disregarded.
Following the release of her letter, the No. 10 office stated that they would not address specific accusations. However, a representative stated, “The prime minister prioritizes taking action over making promises… Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, he will persist in this effort.”
Source: independent.co.uk
