Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

No 10 still considering whether Braverman will face punishment for anti-Met police article – as it happened

Suella Braverman Police ​​Rishi Sunak Yvette Cooper David Lammy Sir Keir Starmer
Suella Braverman.
Suella Braverman. Photograph: Hannah McKay/Reuters

Johnson initially reluctant to criticise policing of Sarah Everard vigil because he thought it was just 'argy bargy', inquiry learns

Boris Johnson was reluctant to criticise the police for the way they broke up the vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common because he felt it was just “argy bargy”, the Covid inquiry learned today.

As PA Media reports, WhatsApp messages from March 2021 show Johnson felt he could not criticise police following the Sarah Everard vigil “when all I have seen is footage of some argy bargy without knowing what happened”.

The inquiry was first shown a message from Lord Frost, Brexit minister at the time, saying: “Police are in an impossible position in many ways because of the impossibility of enforcing current rules. We certainly should not throw them under the bus.” (See 3.25pm.)

Johnson eventually gave his thoughts on how to handle the fallout from the vigil, saying: “Unless anyone strongly disagrees, I think it should be Priti who tweets tonight.”

The then deputy director of communications Jack Doyle responded: “Agree. She tweeted in time for the ten o’clock news and I think we got the tone right.”

Johnson replied:

Feels odd to weigh in as PM and bash the cops when all I have seen is footage of some argy bargy without knowing what happened.

Think Starmer looks a bit opportunistic and anti-police.

But no doubt the female MPs feeling strongly.

Updated

Osborne claims Sunak has twice come 'very close' to sacking Braverman already, and suggests he should do so now

George Osborne, the former Conservative chancellor, has claimed that Rishi Sunak has already twice come close to sacking Suella Braverman over the past year. Osborne also argued Sunak would benefit if he were to finally get round to doing it now.

Osborne made the comments on Political Currency, the podcast he hosts with Ed Balls, which they recorded today. He said:

I know that Rishi Sunak has on a couple of occasions come very close to getting rid of Suella Braverman in reshuffles in the last year, and he hasn’t done so.

There’s an interesting question. The kind of classic political logic now would say: you can’t fire her, you’ll have a big Tory rebellion, she’s too powerful, you’re too weak at the moment to pull that off.

But there’s another way of looking at it, which is: you’re 20 points behind in the polls, your personal ratings aren’t great. How can you demonstrate strength? How can you demonstrate a gutsy approach? How can you be the change candidate that you say you want to be?

And if he fired her there would be a big row, there would be a lot of fireworks. But ultimately, prime ministers tend to win those encounters because the home secretary will suddenly become a backbencher. And then she’ll quickly lose her purchase – think of Priti Patel, she was home secretary. She went to the backbenches. Everyone said: ‘Oh my God, that’s gonna cause trouble’ and this is no disrespect to Priti, but she’s not as powerful a voice on the backbenches as she was as home secretary.

So you know, that could call Braverman’s bluff and assert authority, demonstrate that he’s the change candidate and then throw the challenge to Keir Starmer and say: “I’ve shown I’m tough. I’ve imposed discipline on my frontbench. When are you going to impose discipline on your frontbench?”

Updated

Rishi Sunak speaking to Shamil Thakrar, co-founder of Dishoom restaurants, during a reception with business leaders to celebrate Diwali in Downing Street today.
Rishi Sunak speaking to Shamil Thakrar, co-founder of Dishoom restaurants, during a reception with business leaders to celebrate Diwali in Downing Street today. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA

No 10 says it's not ready to give update on publication of Braverman article, and what sanction, if any, she might face

There is no update from No 10 this afternoon on what, if anything, it will do about Suella Braverman and her decision to publish an article criticising the Metropolitan police in the Times today without full Downing Street approval.

The afternoon lobby briefing has just finished, and the No 10 spokesperson said they were still looking into what happened. She did not give any details about the process and she was not able to give any steer as to when any “update” might appear.

She also ducked questions about whether No 10 accepts that Braverman definitely did break the ministerial code, as Labour says. (See 3.48pm.)

Updated

Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary who has just published a much-ridiculed book claiming that a shadowy Tory cabal called the “movement” was to blame for bringing down Boris Johnson, says the same network will also stop Suella Braverman ever becoming Tory leader.

If Rishi sacks Suella, she becomes a martyr for those on the right of the party.

The battle now is, who becomes leader of the opposition - who will lead whatever and whoever is left.

The people who lead the Conservative Party within No10 have been grooming Kemi for years. She’s very close to Dougie Smith and Munira. Cummings and Gove.

They won’t allow Suella to succeed. She will never get there.

Here are four Westminster journalists on the Suella Braverman situation.

From ITV’s Anushka Asthana

From HuffPost’s Kevin Schofield

From Politico’s Eleni Courea

From the Spectator’s Isabel Hardman

Labour challenges Sunak to say if Braverman will be punished for breaking ministerial code with Times article

Labour is challenging Rishi Sunak to confirm that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, will face punishment for breaking the ministerial code. The code says ministerial media interventions need approval from No 10, but Downing Street has said it did not clear the article. (See 11.57am.)

Pat McFadden, Labour’s national campaign coordinator, issued the challenge in an open letter to the PM.

The Prime Minister’s spokesperson has confirmed that the Home Secretary’s article was not cleared by No 10.

Article 8.2 of the Ministerial code says all such interventions have to be cleared.

Given it wasn’t cleared, what will he do now? My letter to the PM is below.

Updated

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign says Suella Braverman’s comments in her Times article show she is unfit for office. In a statement the PSC director, Ben Jamal, said:

The home secretary Suella Braverman’s comments are further evidence of her unfitness for office.

For weeks she has sought to delegitimise the call for a ceasefire in Gaza and the broad support for the rights of the Palestinian people by defaming those marching for peace as “hateful” and terrorist sympathisers. She has lied about the intentions of the 11 November march, suggesting it was intended to head to Whitehall to disrupt Remembrance Day commemorations, knowing full well that the route of the march was taking it away from central London.

Now she is seeking to pressure the police to ignore their responsibilities to act within the law and is threatening the right to peaceful protest.

Rishi Sunak bears responsibility for her being in office and for his own irresponsible remarks which have added to a climate of division and greenlit far-right activists seeking to disrupt people’s right to protest.

Hundreds of thousands of people will ignore these efforts at intimidation and march for peace and justice on 11 November.

Updated

As Ben Riley-Smith from the Telegraph points out, two Conservative party deputy chairs can’t agree on Suella Braverman. One of them, Nickie Aiken, says questioning the operational independence of the police is “very dangerous”, while the other, Lee Anderson, says Braverman was just saying “what most people are thinking”.

This is what Nickie Aiken, the MP for the central London constituency which includes the Cenotaph, told the Guardian:

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.

This protest should not be stopped unless there is credible intelligence that the police decide means it needs to be stopped. It has to be the police’s choice. These protests should not be stopped by political whim.

Updated

Aubrey Allegretti at the Times says Tory MPs are becoming “increasingly incensed” by what one is calling “Suellagate”.

Updated

Home Office thought Covid restrictions on outdoor gatherings were practically unenforceable, Patel tells inquiry

Priti Patel, the former home secretary, told the Covid inquiry that at one point during the pandemic her department believed that the restrictions on outside gatherings were unenforceable.

She was responding to a question from Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, who presented a WhatsApp message from Lord Frost, who at the time was a Brexit minister. Frost said the rules on outside gatherings were “close to unenforceable”.

Asked if there was also a view within the Home Office that the rules were “practically unenforceable”, Patel said: “Within the Home Office, yes.”

She said this was illustrated in particular by what happened when the police tried to break up a vigil on Clapham Common following the murder of Sarah Everard. Patel said she was dismayed by the way the police handled the incident.

WhatsApp message from Lord Frost
WhatsApp message from Lord Frost Photograph: Covid inquiry

Michael Matheson refuses to explain how he ran up £11,000 mobile bill using parliamentary iPad on holiday

Michael Matheson, the Scottish health secretary, has refused to answer reporters’ questions on how he ran up an £11,000 mobile bill while he was on a week’s holiday, but insisted he had no idea his usage would be so costly. (See 12.45pm.)

Challenged by reporters after first ministers’ questions, Matheson said the blame lay with parliament’s mobile providers but he refused to answer questions on what he had watched on the iPad or whether other family members used it. He said:

It’s been explained that it’s been caused by an outdated sim card that was in an iPad that I had for constituency purposes, it was a parliamentary iPad.

It hadn’t been replaced, I wasn’t aware that it hadn’t been replaced and the cost is as a result of that. And as the parliament has also stated very clearly, the network provider didn’t provide any information around the costs that had been incurred as well.

So, it was something that was unknown to me as well, and as the parliament have also confirmed, the parliamentary equipment was used for constituency and parliamentary purposes.

A spokesperson for Humza Yousaf, the first minister, confirmed later to reporters he (the spokesperson) had spoken to Matheson several times about it on Wednesday but had not asked him why the bill was so large or what he had watched.

Since the presiding officer had been asked to investigate and it was a parliamentary device, this was solely a matter for the Holyrood authorities, he said.

Updated

Boris Johnson argued for 'tougher enforcement and bigger fines' for Covid rulebreakers, inquiry hears

Back at the Covid inquiry Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, presented a memo from Boris Johnson, written in August 2020, in which he said the “overriding message” from a forthcoming announcement should be about “tougher enforcement and bigger fines”. Keith referred to the “crushing irony of this observation”.

Note from Boris Johnson in August 2020
Note from Boris Johnson in August 2020 Photograph: Covid inquiry

Updated

GB News’ Christopher Hope says government whips are contacting Tory MPs to ask what they think about Suella Braverman’s Times article.

Updated

At the Covid inquiry Priti Patel, the former home secretary, is being asked about the enforcement of coronavirus regulations. She said she spent a lot of time reminding colleagues of the “operational independence” of the police. She also said that politicians were “not there to dictate directly to the police as to when to arrest people, enforce the law”.

She did not directly refer to Suella Braverman, but she did not need to.

Although Patel and Braverman are both rightwing Brexiters, they are not allies, and Patel does not seem to be a big fan of her successor.

Updated

Patel tells Covid inquiry process by which Covid rules were drafted 'suboptimal at every single level'

At the Covid inquiry Hugo Keith KC asks why regulations were introduced at such short notice. (See 2.03pm.)

Q: The contents of regulations changed over time. But the process was flawed throughout.

Priti Patel says it was the Department of Health and Social Care that drafted the regulations.

Q: You were “an important beast in the jungle”. Didn’t you tell DHSC that they needed to give the police more time to look at the rules they would have to enforce?

“We did,” says Patel. She says the Home Office translated the regulations into guidance for the police. But the process was “suboptimal at every single level”, she says.

In future, there should be a “totally different system”, she says.

Updated

The latest YouGov polling for the Times has Labour 24 points ahead of the Conservatives, according to the Times’ Lara Spirit.

Priti Patel, the former home secretary, is currently giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. She started just before lunch and she told the inquiry that when the pandemic started there was no mechanism in place to stop the virus arriving through UK borders.

Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, asked Patel if she agreed:

There was a distinct absence of practical capability to be able to restrict the infection through the border and secondly there was no sophisticated or effective system already thought about, drawn up and ready to be put into place when the virus attacked.

And Patel replied:

I think that’s absolutely correct and, with that, no technical capability. At that stage the skills and capabilities simply weren’t there.

Priti Patel arriving for the Covid inquiry this morning.
Priti Patel arriving for the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA

The Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast contains a debate about what Suella Braverman is up to. Kiran Stacey has posted a link on X.

Police once got text of new Covid regulation just 16 minutes before it became law, inquiry told

Martin Hewitt, the former chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, was the main witness giving evidence to the Covid inquiry this morning. His testimony was a reminder that Suella Braverman is not the first politician to create problems for the police. Here are some of the main points from what Hewitt said:

  • Hewitt said in one case the police only received the text of a new regulation 16 minutes before they were legally obliged to enforce it. He said:

There was a regulation that was going to change at one minute past midnight and we received the regulations signed off by the secretary of state for health and social care [Matt Hancock] at 11.45 so we had precisely 16 minutes …

In that particular example where we had 16 minutes I had a conversation and was very clear with the home secretary at the time [Dame Priti Patel] that we would not be enforcing that regulation on that day and it was going to take us probably … 24/36 hours to actually get to a place where I was confident police officers out there knew what they needed to do.

  • Hewitt said it became “incredibly difficult” for people to keep following Covid rules because they changed so frequently. He said:

Once it started to change and then once it was really changing quite rapidly and you were getting tiers and you were getting localised, it became incredibly difficult for even a perfectly law-abiding and committed citizen to understand precisely what that meant for them in their own personal circumstances.

  • He said at times the police had conflicting obligations. He said:

There was a confusion around which of the competing legislations took priority.

It’s important for people to understand how that felt for police officers when we are in a pandemic where we are talking about the requirement for people to remain distanced, and then are being told to go and police a protest.

I used very strong words behind closed doors in discussion with the Home Office and the home secretary at the time in relation to the situation.

Updated

Paul Scully, the minister for London, has become the latest Tory to raise concerns about Suella Braverman. In an interview with Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt, Scully did not criticise the home secretary explicitly but he said political leaders should concentrate on “dampening things down” rather than fuelling hatred and division. It was clear whom he meant.

Updated

Starmer says Sunak 'too weak' to sack Braverman

Keir Starmer has described Suella Braverman as “divisive” and described Rishi Sunak as “too weak to do anything about it”.

In a clip for broadcasters this morning, he said she was “stoking up tension at the very time we should be trying to reduce tension” and he went on:

She is doing the complete opposite of what I think most people in this country would see as the proper role of the home secretary … That’s the worst of all circumstances for so many people across the country, it’s the worst of all circumstances for the police.

Asked if Braverman should resign, Starmer replied:

I think the question really is for the prime minister. He must know that this isn’t the way that a home secretary should behave. He must know in himself that the role of responsible government is to reduce tension and to support police in the difficult decisions they have to make.

Keir Starmer on a visit to the the Express and Star in the West Midlands today.
Keir Starmer on a visit to the the Express and Star in the West Midlands today. Photograph: Jacob King/PA

Normally, by the time an opposition party starts calling for a minister to resign or be sacked, in reality the opposition is quite keen to keep them in place – because it has concluded that the minister has become a vote-losing liability. That seems to be Labour’s view now. Here is its latest attack ad on social media.

Updated

Scottish government minister criticised for racking up £11,000 bill in roaming charges using parliamentary iPad on holiday

A senior Scottish cabinet minister spent £11,000 on mobile data roaming fees on his parliamentary iPad while he was on a family holiday in Morocco, but is only repaying £3,000 of the bill.

The Telegraph reports that Michael Matheson, the Scottish health secretary and former justice secretary, spent £10,935.74 on data charges during the week-long Christmas break with his family.

He has agreed to repay £3,000 of that bill out of parliamentary expenses, the paper reports, citing allies who say he was “travelling around a lot” and he had not realised the iPad had an out of date sim card on it. At the time, Matheson was net zero, energy and transport secretary in Nicola Sturgeon’s government.

The Holyrood authorities accepted assurances from the minister “these costs were incurred in relation to parliamentary business and not for personal or government use”. A spokesman for the Falkirk West MSP said he volunteered to donate £3,000 towards the costs.

Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative chair, said:

It’s absolutely scandalous that taxpayers are picking up an enormous tab for Michael Matheson’s mistake.

Even if we are to believe that he racked up this bill doing parliamentary and constituency work on a festive holiday in Morocco, the onus was on him to connect to the wifi where he was staying or check with the network provider to avoid brutal roaming charges.

At a time when Scottish families are hard pressed, this is a scandal and demonstrates the SNP’s totally cavalier attitude to public money. The £120,00-a-year SNP health secretary should do the decent thing and repay this money out of his own pocket.

Updated

Sunak does not agree with Braverman about police being biased in favour of pro-Palestinian marchers, No 10 indicates

And here are some more lines from what was said at the No 10 lobby briefing about Suella Braverman.

  • The PM’s spokesperson indicated that Rishi Sunak does not accept Braverman’s claim that the police are biased against rightwing protest groups and in favour of leftwing ones like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Asked if the PM agreed with this argument, the spokesperson said that Sunak had had a “constructive conversation” with Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, yesterday. He said the police were expected to operate without fear or favour. Asked again if Sunak agree with her argument, the spokesperson said:

The prime minister continues to believe the police will operate without fear or favour.

  • The spokesperson also indicated that Sunak did not agree with the claim that pro-Palestinian marches are like marches in Northern Ireland. Asked if the PM agreed with this claim, the spokesperson said Sunak had expressed his own thoughts about protest yesterday. Asked again if the PM was comfortable with the Northern Ireland comparison, the spokesperson said these were “not words the prime minister would use”.

  • The spokesperson did not give further details of how the article came to be published without No 10 approval, but he did not deny suggestions that Downing Street asked for changes that were not incorporated in the final article.

  • The spokesperson would not say whether Sir Laurie Magnus, the PM’s ethics adviser, is being asked to investigate whether or not Braverman broke the ministerial code by publishing her article without approval from No 10. (See 11.57am.)

As Sam Coates from Sky News points out, it would be wrong to read too much into No 10 saying that the PM still has confidence in Suella Braverman this morning. (See 11.57am.) That is what they always have to say about anyone still serving in government. Sometimes No 10 will say this because the PM does have full confidence in a minister, but in practical terms, all this really means is said minister has not been sacked yet.

No10 do say they have “full confidence” in Braverman. But they will have full confidence.... until they don’t.

Update later is the key line

No 10 says it is investigating how Braverman's article was published without approval and it may 'update if appropriate'

Although the surprise announcement at the lobby briefing was the PM’s spokesperson saying Suella Braverman’s article was “not agreed by No 10”, the most dangerous quote for the home secretary probably came a few minutes later, when the spokesperson was asked how the PM could have full confidence in Braverman if she was going round writing “rogue articles”. The spokesperson replied:

We are looking into what happened in this instance around the op-ed. We will update if appropriate.

Updated

Downing Street disowns Braverman's anti-Met police article, saying it 'was not cleared by No 10'

Downing Street has disowned the Suella Braverman article in the Times. At the No 10 lobby briefing, which has just ended, the PM’s spokesperson said the article was “not cleared by No 10”.

This confirms the Telegraph story published earlier (see 11.16am), but it is worth stressing that it is unusual for No 10 to admit something like this. The normal instinct in Downing Street, under any administration, is to play down splits between the PM and a cabinet colleague, and journalists arriving at the lobby briefing this morning were probably expecting the spokesperson to dodge questions about whether the article had No 10 approval. Downing Street routinely avoids questions like this by saying that it does not comment on process.

But this morning, in response to the first question on this, the spokesperson said the article was not agreed.

The spokesperson would not go further. He would not say whether No 10 did not see the article in the first place or, as the Telegraph reports, No 10 requested changes which were ignored.

Asked if the PM had confidence in Braverman, the spokesperson said yes.

But the spokesperson also said that No 10 was still trying to establish exactly what happened, and that there might be a further “update”. This suggests that Braverman’s position is increasingly tenuous.

And the spokesperson also sidestepped questions about whether Braverman might be investigated for breaching the ministerial code. The code says:

In order to ensure the effective coordination of cabinet business, the policy content and timing of all major announcements, speeches, press releases and new policy initiatives should be cleared in draft with the No 10 Press and Private Offices at least 24 hours in advance. All major interviews and media appearances, both print and broadcast, should also be agreed with the No 10 press office.

Updated

Suella Braverman says in her Times article (see 11.13am) that she believed the pro-Palestinian marches are not “merely a cry for help for Gaza” but an “assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland”.

Her words have caused confusion and anger among prominent figures in Northern Ireland.

Jamie Bryson, the prominent loyalist commentator and politician, wrote on X:

@SuellaBraverman should have been clearer what she meant & what comparisons she was making. Obviously she meant to equate hate marches with IRA terrorist events/commemorations, but the way it has been worded makes it seem the marching band/parading tradition is included. This needs clarified urgently by the Home Secretary.

And David Bevins, Sky’s senior Ireland correspondent, wrote:

Whether this is aimed at Protestant Loyal Orders or the Catholic Civil Rights Movement, it demonstrates breathtaking ignorance re. Northern Ireland’s history, is highly offensive and inflammatory, not least because there’s no power-sharing government in place right now.

A source close to the home secretary said the comment was a reference to the activities of “dissident republicans”.

This is from Sky’s Beth Rigby.

Supreme court says it will deliver judgment on whether Rwanda deportation policy lawful on Wednesday next week

The supreme court is set to give its decision next week on whether government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful, PA Media reports. PA says:

Last month, the Home Office challenged a court of appeal ruling from June that the multimillion-pound deal, which would see asylum seekers deported to the east African nation, was unlawful.

Five justices at the UK’s highest court are now set to give their decision on the challenge on Wednesday.

Updated

No 10 'did not sign off on final version of Braverman article', report claims

Downing Street did not approve the text of Suella Braverman’s article in the Times (see see 11.13am), Charles Hymas and Ben Riley-Smith report in the Telegraph. In their story they say:

No 10 did not sign off the final version of Suella Braverman’s article accusing the police of being biased, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Home Secretary and her team defied No 10 by ignoring some of their requested edits to her article.

Four sources have confirmed to this newspaper that some changes demanded by Downing Street in the Home Secretary’s article in The Times, in which she accused the police of “playing favourites” with Left-wing protesters, were not incorporated in the final version.

We will get the No 10 response at the lobby briefing, which starts at 11.30am.

Updated

What Braverman says in her Times article - and why it is so controversial

The Suella Braverman article is in the Times, but it is causing so much controversy that it is worth posting in full. Here it is. The sub-headlines and the commentary are mine, but the text is from the article. I have included every paragraph, without changing the order.

Braverman starts by defending the right to protest – while including a vague hint that she might want to tighten the law. She says:

The right to protest in public is a cornerstone of democracy. That is why peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked.

Only in the most exceptional circumstances do the authorities step in. The way the law works is clear: if a chief constable believes that there is a serious risk of disorder which the police will struggle to contain, he or she can ask the home secretary to ban a march. Even then, a static protest can take place.

There is a debate to be had about whether other considerations should play a part in such decisions. Are some public displays so offensive that they deserve to be banned? Is there a level of disruption to the life of a city that is too great to justify a demonstration? Nevertheless, the law as it stands makes it clear that marches should almost always be permitted.

Analysis: Braverman’s aides say that No 10 saw the text of her article, and this opening passage may have been included to align with the statement that Rishi Sunak issued last night, in which he said the right to protest was an important freedom. It is not a point Braverman has been making much over the past week. But by talking about the law “as it stands” almost always allowing marches, she may be suggesting this should change.

Braverman restates her claim that the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have taken place in London have been “hate marches”. She says:

These issues have come into sharp focus because of what happened on October 7: the worst massacre of Jews since the Nazi era. The ramifications of that terrible event and all that has followed have been felt on the streets of the UK. There have been dignified vigils in London held by Britain’s Jewish community, but that is not what has tested our capacity to maintain public order.

It is the pro-Palestinian movement that has mobilised tens of thousands of angry demonstrators and marched them through London every weekend. From the start, these events have been problematic, not just because of violence around the fringes but because of the highly offensive content of chants, posters and stickers. This is not a time for naiveté. We have seen with our own eyes that terrorists have been valorised, Israel has been demonised as Nazis and Jews have been threatened with further massacres.

Each weekend has been worse than the previous one. Last Saturday, in central London, police were attacked with fireworks, train services were brought to a halt by demonstrators and poppy sellers were mobbed and prevented from raising funds for veterans.

Now as we approach a particularly significant weekend in the life of our nation, one which calls for respect and commemoration, the hate marchers — a phrase I do not resile from — intend to use Armistice Day to parade through London in yet another show of strength.

Analysis: This is provocative because none of Braverman’s cabinet colleagues has been willing to endorse what she says about the demonstrations being “hate marches”, and the Metropolitan police have not used the phrase either. While some people on the marches have been seen using language or showing slogans that are clearly antisemitic, they seem to be a minority. Braverman also suggests that those attending the marches have been manipulated by “the pro-Palestinian movement”; she does not accept that people might just be turning up of their own volition, because they feel strongly that Palestinians are suffering an injustice.

Braverman says the marches are “an assertion of primacy”, implying they are like unionist or republican marches in Northern Ireland. She says:

Here we reach the heart of the matter. I do not believe that these marches are merely a cry for help for Gaza. They are an 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.

Analysis: Braverman is linking pro-Palestinians with Islamist extremism. This taints a larger group by association with a smaller one. (All Islamist extremists tend to be pro-Palestinian. But that does not mean all pro-Palestinians are Islamist extremists, and it is logically wrong, as well as offensive, to suggest otherwise.) Braverman’s aides insist she was comparing the pro-Palestinians to dissident republicans in Northern Ireland, not to unionists. But this is not explicit in the Times article, and some unionists may feel they have been smeared too.

Braverman suggests the pro-Palestinians are not interested in “the broader public good”. She says:

There will be time for proper discussion about how we got to this point. For now, the issue is how do we as a society police groups that insist that their agenda trumps any notion of the broader public good — as defined by the public, not by activists.

Analysis: This is an odd argument because most people who go on a protest believe the “broader public good” will benefit if their cause is adopted. She also seems to imply that the legitimacy of a protest depends on it having public support – even through protest has traditionally been a means by which minority views can get a public hearing.

Braverman accuses the police of double standards. She says:

The answer must be: even-handedly. Unfortunately, there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters. During Covid, why was it that lockdown objectors were given no quarter by public order police yet Black Lives Matters demonstrators were enabled, allowed to break rules and even greeted with officers taking the knee?

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? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.

Analysis: This is the most provocative passage in the article because it accuses the police of being biased. It looks like interference in operational matters, because Braverman is implicitly telling the police how they should police protests. Given the seriousness of the charge, it is surprising that Braverman has not provided stronger evidence to back up her claim. (It is true that the police often do police protests in different ways, but a lot depends on the context. If two people are chanting something provocative, it is possible to arrest them; if 200 people are chanting the same thing, it isn’t.)

Braverman implies that the police are biased against football fans, and that they don’t care about the views of “the majority”. She says:

Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically-connected minority groups who are favoured by the left. It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority. The government has a duty to take a broader view.

Analysis: This is classic populism. Braverman is arguing that the government must side with the undefined “majority”, and claiming that the police are in hock to a “politically-connected minority”. Braverman has complained in the past about the police being “woke”; all the evidence suggests the opposite.

Braverman ends by saying she hopes the police adopt “an assertive and proactive” approach to policing the demonstration on Saturday. She says:

If the march goes ahead this weekend, the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder.

Analysis: The final paragraph may be an admission of defeat. Having tried to get the march blocked, she now seems to accept it will go ahead.

Updated

DUP MP Ian Paisley defends Braverman, accusing her critics of 'hand-wringing hypocrisy'

Only two Conservative backbenchers spoke up to defend Suella Braverman in the Commons urgent question, but Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, also came to her defence. He told the Commons.

When women were treated brutally and unjustly by the Metropolitan police in this city in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder, this house – inside and out – members came out to criticise the police, correctly, for their failure and their brutality …

The hand-wringing hypocrisy and the pant-wetting that we are seeing over someone criticising the police correctly is amazing.

Updated

I have beefed up the post at 9.43am with much fuller direct quotes from Yvette Cooper’s urgent question. You may need to refresh the page to get the update to appear.

Labour says Braverman has lost support of her party after only two Tory backbenchers defend her in Commons

Chris Bryant (Lab) says only two Tory MPs have turned up to defend Braverman today.

He says she is “the person who is inciting hatred in this country”.

He agrees that the police should be subject to scrutiny. But that normally comes after an operation, not before.

He says Braverman is trying to command the police.

Philp says there are more than two Conservatives here.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, intervenes. He says there may be more than two Conservative backbenchers in the chamber, but only two of them have spoken up in defence of Braverman.

One was Theresa Villiers. (See 9.51am.) The other was Sir Michael Ellis, who spoke before Villiers.

UPDATE: Bryant said:

The fact that only two Conservative MPs have turned up today to defend the home secretary I think shows that she has already lost the support of the house.

The minister is absolutely right when he says there is no place for hate on our streets. Isn’t the truth of the matter though there is no place for hate in the Home Office either, and the problem with the present home secretary is that she’s the person inciting hatred in this country.

Updated

Lilian Greenwood (Lab) says the “incendiary and “inflammatory comments” from Braverman will make it harder for the police to manage the march on Saturday.

Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem) says every day 6,000 crimes go unsolved. If the home secretary does not have confidence in the police, or thinks she could do a better job, she should say so, he says.

Diana Johnson (Lab), chair of the home affairs committee, says her committee backs the idea of operational independence for the police. It is a concept that goes back to 1885. If the government wants to change that, it should be debated in parliament, she says.

Philp says “scrutiny” of the police is not the same as interference.

And he says the government has no plans to revisit the principle of operational independence for the police.

Updated

Theresa Villiers (Con) says she is “deeply troubled” by the idea of the march going ahead. She says in all her years representing the Jewish community in Chipping Barnet (she has been MP there since 2005), she says she has never known such fear amongst them.

Chris Stephens (SNP) says more than 2.5 million Muslims fought for the British empire in the second world war. He says the pro-Palestinian march on Saturday is far away from the Cenotaph, and starts later in the day. And he points out that Nicholas Soames, Churchill’s grandson, has said it should go ahead.

UPDATE: Stephens said:

A lot of discussion has focused on the Palestinian ceasefire march when the police are more concerned with counter protests by the far right … and football hooligans. Will the government also be looking to cancel the 10 Premier League games scheduled this weekend.

Will it look to cancel the City of London’s Lord Mayor’s Parade which overlaps the two-minute silence?”

The ex-Met assistant commissioner said this morning that this is the end of operational independence in policing … saying it’s on the verge of behaving unconstitutionally.

Does this not mean and represent that the home secretary is unfit for office and should be sacked today?

Updated

Policing minister Chris Philp tells MPs he does not know if No 10 signed off Braverman's article

Chris Philp, the policing minister, is responding to the urgent question.

He says Suella Braverman is not here this morning because she is with a close family member who is having an operation. He says he has Braverman’s permission to say that.

He says there has been a spike in Islamophobic offences recently, and a surge in antisemitic offences. He says there have been 98 arrests for antisemitic incidents. People in the Jewish community are worried about the march in London on Saturday, he says.

Responding to Cooper’s questions, he says of course the government believes in the operational independence of the police.

But he says he is not able to say whether Downing Street signed off the Braverman article.

UDPATE: Philp said:

We have seen a spike in Islamophobic offences, there have been 21 arrests in the last four weeks for Islamophobic offences. We have seen a surge in antisemitic offences.

There have been 98 arrests for antisemitic offences in the last four weeks. And I’ve been contacted this morning by members of the Jewish community who are deeply uneasy about what this weekend will bring.”

And it is reasonable for politicians, the prime minister, the home secretary and others, I’m sure some on the other side of the house as well, to raise those concerns and make sure that the police are protecting those communities.

Updated

Cooper says Braverman should not be running 'endless leadership campaign', in Commons urgent question

In the Commons Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is asking an urgent question about Suella Braverman and policing.

She says no other home secretary would have written an article like the one Braverman has.

The job of home secretary is to keep the public safe, not run an endless leadership campaign.

She asks if the government still believes in the operational independence of the police.

And she asks if No 10 signed off on the Times article.

UPDATE: Cooper said:

Attacking [the police’s] 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, deliberately seeking to create division around remembrance, which the policing minister rightly said should be a time for communities to come together and to pay our respects – [Braverman] is deliberately inflaming community tensions in the most dangerous of ways.

She is encouraging extremists on all sides, attacking the police when she should be backing them. It is highly irresponsible and dangerous, and no other home secretary would ever have done this …

[The police] should not be the operational arm of the home secretary, because whether she likes it or not, that is the British tradition of policing, and I for one am proud of it.

We know what she’s up to – claiming homelessness is a lifestyle choice, picking fights with the police to get headlines. But the job of the home secretary is to keep the public safe, not run an endless Tory leadership campaign.

Cabinet colleagues refusing to agree with her, former police chiefs lining up to condemn her. So two questions.

Does this government still believe in the operational independence of the police, and how can it do so when 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. And if he can’t get rid of her, or get a grip of her conduct, it means he’s given up on serious government and he and the home secretary should both let someone else do the job.

Updated

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has joined calls for Suella Braverman to be sacked. He said:

Rishi Sunak must finally act with integrity by sacking his out-of-control home secretary.

Suella Braverman is now putting police officers in harm’s way ahead of far-right protesters flocking to the capital this weekend.

The home secretary’s irresponsible words and foul actions have significantly increased the likelihood of unrest this weekend and the risk of violence towards officers.

Ministers are spending their time fanning the flames of division, instead of bringing communities together. It’s shameful.

These are from Beth Rigby, Sky News’s political editor, on reaction to the Braverman article.

Told Braverman backer Hayes dropped this into MPs WhatsApp group last nite as article landed: ‘So sad to see protests being allowed on remembrance weekend. Wholly inapproriate....& we should speak for the law abiding, patriotic maj by saying so’ > But article angered some MPs..1/

This is a reference to Sir John Hayes.

One senior Tory tells me Braverman position ‘must be questioned’ because she’s making police job harder upholding peace and law & order with her language. Also points out protests have in past taken place on Remembrance Sunday & been policed

Another MP says whips ‘aren’t even trying to defend her’ in convos w MPs

As for fallout 4 PM “if he sacks her it looks like media/Lab pressure. I think Lab attack ad that’s he’s weak hits hard & think it’ll stick, cos he is” Says shown by fact SB says what wants, unafraid of PM

Updated

Former chief inspector of constabulary says Braverman's attack on police 'highly regrettable'

Sir Tom Winsor, the former HM chief inspector of constabulary, said this morning that Suella Braverman’s comments about the Metropolitan police (see 9.10am) represented a “highly regrettable” level of political interference. He told the Today programme:

It’s unusual. It’s unprecedented. It’s contrary to the spirit of the ancient constitutional settlement with the police, I think it’s contrary to the letter of that constitutional settlement. And it is highly regrettable that it has been made.

These political objections can be made by many, many people, but a home secretary of all people is not the person to do this …

By applying pressure to the commissioner of the Met in this way I think that crosses the line.

Updated

Labour says Braverman should be sacked as backlash grows over her attack on Met police

Good morning. In recent weeks many interviews with a government minister have started with the journalist asking: “Do you agree with Suella Braverman about [the migration ‘hurricane’/hate marches/tents/lifestyle choices etc etc]?”, and the said minister then politely making it obvious that they don’t. Today, in an intervention that will bolster the argument that she is best understood as a far-right home secretary embedded in what is trying to be a centre-right government, Braverman has published an article in the Times attacking the Metropolitan police, and accusing them of being biased against rightwing protesters and favouring groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Daniel Boffey has the story here.

Braverman’s comments have infuriated many of her Tory colleagues. But they have also encouraged Labour to escalate its criticism of her. Keir Starmer used part of his time in the king’s speech debate on Tuesday to say Rishi Sunak could not be a serious PM with Braverman in office, and this morning the party has gone further, with David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, explicitly saying she should be sacked.

Last night Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, posted these on X.

Suella Braverman is out of control. Her article tonight is a highly irresponsible, dangerous attempt to undermine respect for police at a sensitive time, to rip up operational independence & to inflame community tensions. No other Home Secretary of any party would ever do this

She’s deliberately seeking to stir up political division around Remembrance Day, a moment when the whole country can come together to pay our respects for sacrifices of the past.

And at same time she’s deliberately undermining police ability to deal with problems she whips up/2

Either Rishi Sunak has licensed this or he is too weak to sack her.

Job of Home Secretary is to keep our country safe, not to run an endless Tory leadership campaign

If PM can’t get a grip of Suella Braverman’s conduct, means he’s given up any pretence of serious government /3

And this morning Lammy posted this.

Suella Braverman seeking to exploit the sensitivities of this moment, and an ignorance of Northern Ireland’s history, to inflame community tensions for her own leadership campaign is an appalling new low.

Rishi Sunak must sack her. But he’s too weak.

I will post more reaction to what Braverman has said shortly.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Martin Hewitt, former chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry. Later in the morning Priti Patel, the former home secretary, is due to give evidence.

After 10.30am: MPs resume their debate on the king’s speech, with the focus on clean energy.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in the West Midlands.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
The Best Skin Care for Dry Skin in Winter Includes This Five Minute Moisturizer Hack
Dry skin? Never met her.
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
LeBron James Likens Cavs' Past Rivalry With Steph Curry, Warriors to 'Rap Beef'
The King had a fitting comparison for the defining rivalry of his career.
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated
Ryan Reynolds Sparks Buzz With Cryptic Post Amid Blake Lively And Justin Baldoni Drama
Ryan Reynolds left fans worried after suggesting he’s going through a difficult time in a video for charity. The clip comes right after his wife accused her It Ends With Us co-star, Justin Baldoni, of sexual harassment. The post Ryan Reynolds Sparks Buzz With Cryptic Post Amid Blake Lively And…
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
'A Simple Favor 2' Director and Co-Star Speak Out in Support of Blake Lively
"She truly did not deserve any of this smear campaign against her."
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
How Long is the Super Bowl on Average? Running the Numbers
For most NFL games, about three hours is all one needs to watch it. But the Super Bowl? That can be a different story.
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated
Ryan Reynolds Has Been Blake Lively’s “Rock” and Is “Very Proud of Her” Amid ‘It Ends With Us’ Ordeal
"They have such a special relationship."
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play