There may be trouble ahead -
The downfall of the Tory party.
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman has accused Rishi Sunak of “manifestly and repeatedly” failing to deliver on key policies.
In a scathing letter to the prime minister, Ms Braverman told him "your plan is not working".
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts.
BBC news
In a scathing letter to the prime minister, Ms Braverman told him "your plan is not working".
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts.
BBC news
Last edited:
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman has accused Rishi Sunak of repeatedly failing to deliver on key policies.
In a scathing letter to the prime minister, Mrs Braverman told him "your plan is not working".
She said Mr Sunak had betrayed his pledge to do "whatever it takes" to stop small boats crossing the Channel.
Mrs Braverman, a leading figure on the right of the party, was sacked as home secretary on Monday, kickstarting a major cabinet reshuffle.
In her letter, she told the prime minister he had "manifestly and repeatedly" failed to deliver on policy priorities.
"Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so," she wrote.
"Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises."
"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'."
She said she posed her own back-up plan but received no reply.
"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."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67420331
In a scathing letter to the prime minister, Mrs Braverman told him "your plan is not working".
She said Mr Sunak had betrayed his pledge to do "whatever it takes" to stop small boats crossing the Channel.
Mrs Braverman, a leading figure on the right of the party, was sacked as home secretary on Monday, kickstarting a major cabinet reshuffle.
In her letter, she told the prime minister he had "manifestly and repeatedly" failed to deliver on policy priorities.
"Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so," she wrote.
"Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises."
Possible court defeat
She also told the PM he will have "wasted a year" on the Illegal Migration Act, which deals with small boats, "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'."
She said she posed her own back-up plan but received no reply.
"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."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67420331
What was her back up plan I wonder, machine gun nests and flamethrowers on the beaches?
Well she certainly doesn't pull any punches -
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:
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 7 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
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:
- 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
- Include specific "notwithstanding clauses" into new legislation to stop the boats, ie exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Human Rights Act (HRA) and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue
- Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable
- 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.
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 7 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
I think she has well and truly tipped the apple cart on it's side. so Sunak brings in conmanmoron who ran away after the vote gawd help us, even the Germans are waking up to the fact open borders don't work but hey aunty beeb will carry on with the fake news, the house is now full of remainers as much as i hated Thatcher if she was still in power all this would have been sorted.
We may have x posted Rod (see letter above) the cart is on its side and the wheels have fallen off
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 273
Well at least there wouldn't have been a referendum
Agentgonzo
Landlord.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 3,763
Wow. What a tantrum.
Nowt like telling it like it is
Surely you jest?
You don't mind if I call you Shirley?
Claiming £25K expenses for a house when she was living with her parents?
Could have been worse, she could have been asleep on 300 quid a day 
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,227
- Reaction score
- 2,118
You have to remember, this is what the Tories wanted, per their 2015 manifesto :
"The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK"
But Braverman does not appear to have been serious about the Rwanda thing, it was just there to fool the gullible :
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/63942/david-allen-green-rwanda-asylum-supreme-courtThe government of the United Kingdom could have won the Supreme Court appeal on its Rwanda removals policy, but it effectively chose not to. The real failure here is that the government did not take policy-making or law-making seriously. The Rwanda policy was always meant for political and media consumption, rather than to make any actual difference....
It would not have been impossible for the MoU to have been converted into a treaty over the last year. A similar exercise was conducted 10 years ago when the then home secretary, Theresa May, was faced with the courts refusing to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan because evidence obtained through torture could be used against him. The United Kingdom negotiated a resolution with Jordan which meant such evidence could not be used. Qatada was then deported—not in spite of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), but in compliance with it....
A similar approach could have been adopted this time, but it was not. The reason can only be that it was never intended that this policy would actually be implemented. It was a policy for other purposes. It was a proposal which also failed even to have a plausible case for “value-for-money”, with the former home secretary Priti Patel having to issue a “ministerial direction” overruling an adverse assessment of the senior official of the Home Office....
Taking policy and law seriously means working with the structures and processes in place, not disregarding them and hoping that others will nod along when you blame others for your failure. This was not a policy that had to end in failure by rhttps://www.lbc.co.uk/news/tory-fury-after-supreme-court-rwanda-ruling/eason of law or human rights; it ended in failure because ministers never really took it seriously as a policy in the first place.
As for Lee Anderson coming out with "I think we should ignore the laws and send them straight back the same day" - whatever happened to the Tories being the party of law and order? You can't just ignore laws that are inconvenient to you, the man's a disgrace.
"The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK"
But Braverman does not appear to have been serious about the Rwanda thing, it was just there to fool the gullible :
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/63942/david-allen-green-rwanda-asylum-supreme-courtThe government of the United Kingdom could have won the Supreme Court appeal on its Rwanda removals policy, but it effectively chose not to. The real failure here is that the government did not take policy-making or law-making seriously. The Rwanda policy was always meant for political and media consumption, rather than to make any actual difference....
It would not have been impossible for the MoU to have been converted into a treaty over the last year. A similar exercise was conducted 10 years ago when the then home secretary, Theresa May, was faced with the courts refusing to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan because evidence obtained through torture could be used against him. The United Kingdom negotiated a resolution with Jordan which meant such evidence could not be used. Qatada was then deported—not in spite of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), but in compliance with it....
A similar approach could have been adopted this time, but it was not. The reason can only be that it was never intended that this policy would actually be implemented. It was a policy for other purposes. It was a proposal which also failed even to have a plausible case for “value-for-money”, with the former home secretary Priti Patel having to issue a “ministerial direction” overruling an adverse assessment of the senior official of the Home Office....
Taking policy and law seriously means working with the structures and processes in place, not disregarding them and hoping that others will nod along when you blame others for your failure. This was not a policy that had to end in failure by rhttps://www.lbc.co.uk/news/tory-fury-after-supreme-court-rwanda-ruling/eason of law or human rights; it ended in failure because ministers never really took it seriously as a policy in the first place.
As for Lee Anderson coming out with "I think we should ignore the laws and send them straight back the same day" - whatever happened to the Tories being the party of law and order? You can't just ignore laws that are inconvenient to you, the man's a disgrace.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 7,712
- Reaction score
- 10,319
Wow there may be a 1% tax cut in the budget which would be 11 pence an hour on minimum wage, don't spend it all at once.
And that only helps if you are working, chippy. Raising the tax threshold would be better. Or maybe the government wants to punish those who don't work and are self sufficient.
Ah well that's life politicians move the goalposts all the time. 
(If only seen to be doing something). Sometimes, just sometimes doing nothing is the least harmful option - not saying that's the case here mind.
And that only helps if you are working, chippy. Raising the tax threshold would be better. Or maybe the government wants to punish those who don't work and are self sufficient.
Call me an old cynic but this smacks of them finding Theresa Mays magic money tree and giving it a good shake just before a general election?
For most of us a 1% cut will be wiped out by the increase in gas and electricity prices when the next cold snap hits , i also have no doubt fuel prices will rise again.
Last edited:
Agentgonzo
Landlord.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 3,763
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67451422
In other news, the onset of winter is "highly likely" to result in colder temperatures.
Summary
- Sir Patrick Vallance says the Eat Out to Help Out scheme is "highly likely" to have increased Covid deaths in the UK
- Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, tells the Covid inquiry he was not consulted on Rishi Sunak's policy, which was aimed at supporting businesses
- Sunak has said in a witness statement that he does not recall any pushback from scientists over the scheme
- Earlier the inquiry heard a diary entry by Vallance describing Boris Johnson as a "weak and indecisive" prime minister
- Vallance said the comments were made in a "late-night moment of frustration" with government decision making
- The inquiry has also heard that Vallance described Johnson as "clearly bamboozled" by Covid science - but that he was not the only Western leader to struggle
- Johnson - who will give his own evidence - is also said by Vallance to have been "very sceptical" about long Covid, and briefly suggested the virus should be allowed to "rip" through the population
- Vallance has also criticised Matt Hancock - the health secretary at the time - alleging that he said things "too enthusiastically and too early... without having any evidence"
- The former chief scientific adviser has also said key policies were not introduced early enough - including lockdown measures
Similar threads
