Even though Britain's government continued, its craven staggering to the left under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, his former Home Secretary, the outspoken, truth-telling conservative Suella Braverman is using the occasion of her dismissal to slam Sunak's failures as prime minister.

Braverman's dismissal from her position as Home Secretary on Monday made the second time she has been fired from that job in less than 13 months. The previous firing was perhaps the only thing Liz Truss was able to accomplish during her forgettable 49 days as prime minister. Braverman's departure led to a major reshuffling of Sunak's cabinet, replacing her with former prime minister David Cameron, who resigned when Britons voted to leave the EU despite his campaigning to stay.

In Britain, the Home Secretary oversees policing, immigration, and national security. Braverman's opinions in those areas frequently put her into conflict with more squeamish members of the Conservative Party.

Last year, she caused panties to wad in the apparently self-hating British establishment by referring to illegal aliens flooding across the English Channel in small boats to claim asylum as an "invasion."

When she swore to stamp out grooming gangs and noted that most of the perpetrators were South Asian "groups of men, who hold cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values," she was slammed for using "inaccurate narratives that play into right-wing tropes."

She caught more heat when she proposed a law to keep charities from giving tents to the homeless, calling it a "lifestyle choice."

Unless we step in now to stop this, British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug taking, and squalor. 2/4

— Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) November 4, 2023

What I want to stop, and what the law abiding majority wants us to stop, is those who cause nuisance and distress to other people by pitching tents in public spaces, aggressively begging, stealing, taking drugs, littering, and blighting our communities. 4/4

— Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) November 4, 2023

There is a lot more truth about homelessness in this thread from X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, than you'll find in the typical social service agency or master's in social work coursework.

She's also supporting a proposal to send all illegals to Rwanda to apply for asylum.

Last year, the government introduced a plan that would send people arriving in Britain by “illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods” to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed there. While the plan was first announced by Ms. Braverman’s predecessor, Priti Patel, Ms. Braverman has been an ardent supporter and put the policy front and center.

During the Conservative Party’s annual conference in 2022, she said that it was her “dream” to see a flight depart for Rwanda; after the Court of Appeal decided earlier this summer that such deportations could violate human rights, she vowed to do “whatever it takes” to see the policy put in place.

The straw that broke the camel's back was Braverman pointing out what was obvious even to Mr. Magoo. The British police were firmly on the side of antisemitic protesters, treating them with kid gloves while bringing the hammer down on counter-protesters.

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.

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.

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.

Elections are looming in Britain and must be held no later than December 19, 2024. The Conservative Party has been in power since 2019, but it seems rudderless and timid and trails the Labor Party by at least 20 points

And it seems that Prime Minister Sunak thought that offending the police, which seem to act as a political interest group rather than a government agency devoted to law enforcement, would hurt him. 

Braverman did not go quietly.

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman accused Rishi Sunak of betraying his “promise to the nation” on immigration, in an excoriating letter sent just a day after she was sacked by the U.K. prime minister.

In her first intervention since being ousted by Sunak, Braverman — popular on the right of the Conservatives and seen as a future leadership contender — said the prime minister had “manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver” on a host of pledges.

She accused him of “wishful thinking” over his flagship pledge to cut the numbers of people crossing the English Channel in small boats, and painted the prime minister as having “put off tough decisions in order to minimize political risk to yourself.”

Braverman's letter was three things. It was a vocal defense of her policies and the course she had taken; it was a direct attack on the failed leadership of Sunak; and it set her up as a potential replacement for Sunak as the leader of the Conservative Party. In her scathing letter, she accused him of failed leadership at all levels. She said his leadership was lacking in stemming the tide of illegal immigrants to Britain because he was afraid of offending "polite opinion."

"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."

This was "a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do 'whatever it takes' to stop the boats."

She accused him of violating his promises to her in return for her helping him become prime minister. She said that he'd also failed to deliver on Conservative policy priorities.

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.

She also blamed him for the rise in blatant antisemitism in Great Britain, saying, "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."

The letter was deserved and a clear signal to Sunak that should the Conservatives retain power after the next election, he will not be the Prime Minister, but he may very well have just fired who will be.

Suella Braverman's Letter to the Prime Minister

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:

1. 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
2. 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
3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable
4. 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.

This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you. It is generally agreed that my support was a pivotal factor in winning the leadership contest and thus enabling you to become prime minister.

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 be 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