A press statement states that nearly 2,000 officers from the Metropolitan Police and other law enforcement agencies will be present, overseeing the proceedings at the Cenotaph and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign march tomorrow.
The Met says:
We know the cumulative impact continued protest, increasing tensions, and rising hate crimes are having across London and the fear and anxiety our Jewish communities in particular are feeling. They have a right to feel safe in their city, knowing know they can travel across London without feeling afraid of intimidation or harassment.
The level of police presence in London has been increased in response to public concern. This represents a 100% increase in the number of officers on duty for the weekend’s events. 1,850 officers will be on duty on Saturday and 1,375 on Sunday.
We will utilize a wide range of abilities to ensure that there are no interruptions during remembrance events. We will oversee the demonstration as it moves through areas of the city, while also safeguarding our communities from individuals who seek to provoke hatred, violence, and chaos.
The authority we have established allows us to promptly and effectively detect and apprehend individuals attempting to exploit these occasions for criminal purposes or to create chaos.
Incorrect to claim that this would be unprecedented, Suella Braverman.
It is commonly believed that prime ministers hold significant power and have the ability to make decisions without much restriction. However, this is not entirely true as all PMs have discovered that once they assume office, they are limited by various factors such as the capabilities of their government departments, legal limitations, parliamentary approval, and media scrutiny, among others.
The determining factor in this situation is what Sunak’s MPs are willing to accept. In the past, all three of his predecessors were ousted due to a rebellion within the parliamentary party. Sunak must decide if he can dismiss Braverman without causing a leadership competition. (I believe he can, but it is not guaranteed.)
Many prime ministers end up facing this same dilemma. Liz Truss was faced with the task of appointing Jeremy Hunt as chancellor, but it became evident that he was the one in charge rather than her. Another example is when Theresa May was prime minister and her cabinet members went against her wishes on a Brexit vote. Despite her desire to remove them from their positions, she lacked the power to do so due to her weakened position. A similar situation occurred between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown during their time in office. As Blair’s relationship with Brown deteriorated, he considered demoting or even getting rid of him, but was unable to do so due to Brown’s strong standing within the party.
Steve Richards, in his book “The Prime Ministers”, is regarded as the most insightful writer on this topic. While I previously described PMs as “weak”, Richards effectively argues that this label is inaccurate as it suggests their actions are limited by their personality, when in reality it is the situation they are in. In his analysis of Theresa May, he expands on this idea.
May was frequently referred to as “weak.” However, this term is not very useful in understanding her as a leader. In terms of politics, she was in a weaker position, but as a person, she was known for her stubbornness and could be considered the most persistent prime minister to reside at No 10 in several decades – possibly even more so than Margaret Thatcher.
In their piece for The Conversation, academics Tim Bale and David Jeffery analyzed the potential makeup of the Conservative party in parliament under three potential election outcomes: a hung parliament, a majority for Labour, and a significant victory for Labour. They concluded that while the party’s ideology would remain largely unchanged, there would be a notable decline in the presence of “red wall” Tories in all scenarios. Additionally, even in the most favorable outcome, there would still be a reduction in the number of MPs from northern constituencies. Bale and Jeffery stated:
Based on our data, it appears that if the Conservatives were to suffer a significant loss, their representation in Parliament would consist of individuals who are even more concentrated in the southern region, resistant to change, and from prestigious universities. This could make it increasingly challenging for them to maintain their claim of being a party for all of the UK.
This graph, created by James Blagden of Onward, a conservative policy institute, suggests that MPs who have large majorities (and are expected to retain their seats) are not necessarily more left or right-leaning compared to those with smaller majorities.
It is unlikely that Tory MPs will hold the same opinions as Conservative party members after the upcoming election. According to this report, Tory MPs typically lean towards more conservative views on economic matters, but are more progressive than party members on social issues.
The News Agents podcast reported that Suella Braverman is causing difficulties for Rishi Sunak in retaining her in her current role. When asked if Braverman’s position is now unmanageable, he responded:
It’s becoming difficult because she is not cooperating. This situation needs to be resolved as it is causing harm. It is not acceptable for high-ranking cabinet members to openly go against the directives of No 10 and pursue their own interests. Additionally, some of her statements have not been beneficial. We are also receiving emails from our constituents expressing the same concern, so this behavior must end.
Loughton stated that he disagreed with Braverman’s labeling of the pro-Palestinian protests as “hate marches”. He believes that while there may be differing opinions among the participants, their concerns are genuine. Additionally, he expressed concern that her negative remarks about the police could harm their credibility and make it more challenging for them to manage the upcoming march on Saturday.
When questioned about the majority opinion of Tory MPs, Loughton responded:
The general agreement is that we are facing a significant challenge and it’s frustrating. Our position in the polls is precarious and recent byelections have not gone well. It’s likely that an election will take place within the next year. The key to losing elections is division and constant internal conflicts. This is strongly disliked by the public. When prominent individuals, including ministers, seem to have conflicting views, it only adds to the problem and is unproductive.
Suella Braverman, members of the Labour party and others may contend that this demonstrates his initial choice to appoint her was incorrect. However, this is not the type of argument that will alter Sunak’s public perception. Typically, when politicians backtrack on a poor decision, as long as the new decision is an improvement, they tend to receive some acknowledgement for fulfilling the desires of the people.
It is difficult to imagine any significant loss for the government if Sunak chooses to remove Braverman, as she is not well-liked among voters. Despite potentially appealing to core Tory supporters, she has failed to convince the general public that the government is effectively addressing issues such as small boat crossings and crime. There is limited proof that she has positively impacted the government’s electoral success.
However, when considering party management, the discussion takes on a different tone. Certain conservative MPs and media outlets are highly supportive of Braverman and may react with anger if she were to be fired. This situation could potentially offer Sunak a chance to demonstrate his ability and determination to confront rebels within his party. However, if he is unable to do so and the party becomes embroiled in conflict, dismissing Braverman could lead to further difficulties.
I provided a quick analysis following Braverman’s speech at the party conference, which I also mentioned yesterday.
Some caution is undertandable. For many journalists and readers/viewers, the terms far/hard/extreme right/left do not have precise definitions, and so using them in reports might not contribute to understanding. Instead it could just look like adding a ‘this person’s a baddie’ label, which is not conducive to good reporting.
Political scientists do employ these phrases with significant connotations. In my blog post following the Tory conference, I referenced a Guardian article discussing far-right parties in Europe, in which the scholars expressed their consideration on whether the Conservative party could be classified as far-right.
Cas Mudde, an academic who has extensively researched this topic, claims in his book The Far Right Today that the far right can be divided into two groups: the extreme right, which denies the fundamental principles of democracy such as popular sovereignty and majority rule; and the radical right, which agrees with the core concept of democracy but opposes important aspects of liberal democracy such as minority rights, rule of law, and separation of powers.
Based on these descriptions, it is clear that Braverman does not align with the “extreme right” ideology. However, her disregard for certain liberal democratic principles suggests that her political beliefs may fall into the category of the “radical right”.
Part of the reason for this is related to one’s view towards the principles of justice. It is possible to argue for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights without aligning with extreme political ideologies. However, as both the Attorney General and Home Secretary, Braverman has shown disdain for legal professionals and has been more eager than her predecessors to test the boundaries of both national and international law. Her remarks about migrants have caused outrage among those concerned with protecting minority rights. Additionally, the ongoing conflict regarding the Metropolitan Police suggests that she aims to expand the authority of the government, specifically in regards to law enforcement, beyond previous limits.
This does not indicate that she is Donald Trump or completely far right. However, she is certainly moving in that direction.
The main functionality is to write-through.
On Thursday, Oliver Dowden visited No 10 to talk about Braverman’s future. He is being considered as a reliable candidate to potentially take over for Braverman and be a more devoted home secretary. He would continue to serve as deputy prime minister if he were appointed to the role.
Some other potential contenders include Mark Harper, the current transport secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister. However, one minister noted that if any of these three were chosen, there would be no women in the top four government positions.
During an interview on LBC’s Tonight with Andrew Marr, Sir Bob Neill, the chair of the Commons justice committee, expressed his belief that Braverman should resign and that Jenrick should be given the position in her place. Neill stated:
[Braverman] has a very able minister of state in Robert Jenrick. He is well capable of taking up the matters in the short term.
One possibility is Michael Gove, the secretary for levelling up. He has served in various cabinet positions for over ten years (with a break after being removed by Theresa May), but has never held one of the top government roles (Prime Minister, Chancellor, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary), and reportedly desires to add one to his resume. This information is from Kevin Schofield of HuffPost.
Suella Braverman.
-
The government representative stated that they are collaborating with the police and other organizations to guarantee the safety of Remembrance events this weekend. They want to ensure that attendees, including veterans, feel secure and that there is no intimidation or harassment towards those in the Jewish and Muslim communities.
-
During an interview, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, stated that he has a productive relationship with Braverman. The spokesperson also mentioned that Sunak and Braverman have a close working relationship. When asked if the Sunak/Braverman relationship is also productive, the spokesperson responded:
They have been collaborating closely on preparations for the upcoming protests and addressing issues such as small boats and legislation outlined in the king’s speech to improve safety on our streets.
According to Suella Braverman, members of the right wing in the party will retaliate against ministers who have not supported her.
To my friends in the Cabinet. Your silence and refusal to support Suella Braverman is being noticed by the electorate, within @conservatives and beyond. Difficult times require honesty, integrity, leadership and candour.
Suella Braverman would face termination. He elaborated:
She is actively hindering the efforts of her colleagues who are running for re-election next year. It appears that she is on a personal mission to further damage the reputation of the Conservative party.
The topics she discusses are not the main concern. In the previous article about the protests, she mentioned how some people choose to live on the streets.
Many of your audience members may share her sentiment that we do not want makeshift communities on our roads and we are worried about forceful begging. However, nobody that I am aware of believes that those on the streets are there by choice. Most of them struggle with various complicated issues, not just housing but also mental health and addiction. They deserve our empathy and assistance, and it is the responsibility of the government to intervene and aid in getting them off the streets instead of labeling them as individuals who intentionally behave in such a manner.
All of the actions she takes are causing challenges for Rishi Sunak and every Conservative candidate who will be elected in the upcoming election.
As a result of these factors, she is not providing assistance to Conservatives and is making the already challenging task of law enforcement even more difficult for those who do not identify as Conservative.
The editorial published this morning brings more positive news for Suella Braverman compared to the Telegraph’s article at 11:25am. It argues that Rishi Sunak should not dismiss her.
Mrs. Braverman stated what was already evident to every dog in the neighborhood: that the influence of wokery has caused our police forces to neglect the impartiality they used to fiercely protect.
Mrs. Braverman’s criticism of toxic identity politics has sparked intense opposition due to its status as a widely accepted belief among many of our institutions.
In response to the Home Secretary gaining criticism, her opponents are pushing for Rishi Sunak to dismiss her. This would be unfair to a politician who has introduced practical thinking into the discussion on policing. He should not give in to the pressure.
However, the Sun has a slightly different perspective. In its editorial, it acknowledges that Braverman was correct about the police, but also points out that the home secretary’s decision to publicly share her opinions has sparked a controversy that has ultimately benefited the Labour party. The Sun states:
There are concerns that they are no longer impartial in their policing and may show favoritism. It is believed that they may give preferential treatment to popular causes.
However, it is the responsibility of advocates and analysts, not Home Secretary Suella Braverman, to bring attention to that.
She holds the responsibility. She possess the authority to strongly reprimand police chiefs. However, she expressed her dissatisfaction in The Times, giving the appearance that she lacks control over the situation.
The controversy, coupled with the disagreement it has sparked with Number 10, has been a boon for Labour and its allies in the television and radio industry.
They can now ignore the internal divisions within their political party regarding Gaza…
Let us suppose that Ms. Braverman’s straightforwardness is the reason for our anxiety, rather than the alarming anti-Semitism coming from the Left.
Yesterday, George Osborne made a critique referred to as “Connie the commentator”. (Refer to 10.06am for more information.)
At 9:08am, the Daily Telegraph’s editorial will likely not bring joy to the woman. The statement suggests that there are others who share her belief that the police have not been strict enough in handling pro-Palestinian protests. However, the editorial continues to state that…
Mrs. Braverman holds a high-ranking government position and has a significant role in the country’s legal system. While she serves as both a member of Parliament and the Cabinet, her duties also involve specific legal obligations and tasks.
The newspaper article effectively critiques Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, for not requesting a ban on the pro-Palestine march that took place on Saturday. This goes against the longstanding practice of keeping operational decisions separate from political influence, which is done for valid reasons.
We do not want a country where ministers have the power to order officers to arrest specific people or interfere with police decisions. If Mrs. Braverman had wanted to ban the march on Saturday, she could have proposed an emergency Bill to do it.
Source: theguardian.com
