The official release of letters by Downing Street between a prime minister and a resigning member of the cabinet usually offer only the sparsest glimpses of real emotion.
They use heavily coded language to hint at anguish, to avoid the departure sparking a bitter divide between two senior members of the same party. Not so with the outgoing home secretary, Suella Braverman.
Here’s what she said, which left little to the imagination about what she meant …
What she said
Earlier today, I sent an official document from my personal email to a trusted parliamentary colleague as part of policy engagement, and with the aim of garnering support for government policy on migration. This constitutes a technical infringement of the rules … nevertheless it is right for me to go.
What she meant
Braverman devoted the top two paragraphs of her letter – less than half – to addressing the issue she said she was resigning over, making clear she realised she had broken the ministerial code by storing government documents on a personal device and sending those to a “trusted parliamentary colleague”. She left herself little wriggle-room and wholly accepted the mistake. It means in the future she will be able to say she stepped down swiftly and try to brush away suggestions about her being unfit to rejoin the government.
What she said
Pretending we haven’t made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can’t see that we have made them, and hoping that things will magically come right is not serious politics. I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility; I resign.
What she meant
Not hard to work out what she is referring to here. The parallel between Braverman taking responsibility for her mistake and Truss being accused of refusing to acknowledge the pain caused by her mini-budget is plain to see. Truss has recently said she takes responsibility for the chaos caused. If she were to follow the logic set out by the former home secretary in this paragraph, she would need to resign.
What she said
It is obvious to everyone that we are going through a tumultuous time. I have concerns about the direction of this government. Not only have we broken key pledges that were promised to our voters, but I have had serious concerns about this government’s commitment to honouring manifesto commitments, such as reducing overall migration numbers and stopping illegal migration, particularly the dangerous small boats crossings.
What she meant
Braverman moves swiftly from the issue of the security breach and wastes no time in expressing serious concerns about government policies of which she has been part for the past 43 days.
Having been a thorn in the side of Truss for dropping the promised abolition of the top rate of income tax – which Braverman said was a “coup” – she goes even further to target Downing Street on a lightning-rod issue among Tory members: irregular immigration.
She will now get to criticise government from the outside, a clear intention given she directly accuses Truss of abandoning “key pledges”.
What she said
In even the brief time that I have been here, it has been very clear that there is much to do, in terms of delivering on the priorities of the British people.
What she meant
This is a throwaway sentence towards the end of the letter – but the closest that resembles a nod to wanting to run in any future leadership contest. Saying there is “much to do” suggests she thinks Truss’s government has run out of road and is incapable of delivering on its promised priorities.
Given she was knocked out of the last leadership contest and went on to endorse Truss, Braverman is signalling her potential willingness to run again – keeping her supporters yapping at the prime minister’s heels.
Liz Truss’s reply
I accept your resignation and respect the decision you have made. It is important that the ministerial code is upheld, and that Cabinet confidentiality is respected.
What she meant
Significantly shorter in length and far from gushing about Braverman’s performance as home secretary, Truss ensures that it is known the home secretary is stepping down squarely because of her breach of the ministerial code. Given she still has no ethics adviser, this is a quick decision the prime minister must have come to but she is keen to make sure there is no ambiguity.
Readers will be left with the impression there is no love lost between the two women.
