7 questions for Suella Braverman

Photo by Ian Talmacs on Unsplash

So yesterday Suella Braverman shared her letter to the PM in response to her being sacked.  Here are 6 key questions to Suella.

1) Will you share the documents, letters, proposals, legal advice, policy detail and action proposals your letter mentions?

2) Will you share the proof that these were often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest?

3) What obligations did you accept on becoming the Home Secretary?

4) In withdrawing from ECHR, HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK, what safeguards for individuals did you suggest remain in UK law?

5) You appear to be suggesting there is no Plan B if the Rwanda scheme is judged to be unlawful. Isn't it the job of the Home Secretary to develop a Plan B?  Or are you saying that you were ordered to not develop a Plan B?

6) You say someone needs to be honest on the PMs plan not working.  If you're being honest, how much of the mess we are in is due to the previous conservative PMs plans not working?

7) What are the facts that support your assertion about the quiet majority?

TEXT FROM SUELLA BRAVERMAN RESIGNATION LETTER - with questions

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 antisocial behaviour, police dismissals and standards, reasonable lines of inquiry, 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.  Suella Braverman should share this critical document she says sets out clearly the terms on which she agreed with the PM to be Home Secretary.  An obvious question is what terms did the PM set for Suella Braverman being a Cabinet member?

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, Human Rights Act 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.  So Suella Braverman should publish the letters, proposals, legal advice, policy detail and action she mentions.  Plus the proof that these were 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.  So here Suella Braverman suggest that the UK should withdraw from ECHR, HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK.  What safeguards did Suella Braverman suggest we replace these obligations with?

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. Isn't it the job of the Home Secretary to develop a Plan B?  Or is  Suella Braverman saying she was ordered not to do so?

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. Suella Braverman should publish her plan B.

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. Yes Suella Braverman they disagreed with you.

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. So this is all down to the current PM, none of the previous PMs have any responsibility for any of the situations our country no finds itself in?

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.  What are the facts that support your assertion about quiet majority?

I will, of course, continue to support the government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda. As a promise that is so conditional as to be worthless.

Sincerely,

Suella Braverman

The #cofe House of #Bishops 52 page letter - 11 tests to use when deciding who to #vote for, the 14 arguments supporting that advice - 6 points about christianity and politics - for the 2015 #UK General #Election

The 52 page Who is my neighbour letter is about how Christian men and women should approach the UK General Election to be held on 7 May 2015.

"we want to move beyond flagging up lists of issues to dig deeper into questions about the trajectory of our political life and visions of the kind of society we want to be and which political life should serve. If anyone claims that this letter is “really” saying “Vote for this party or that party”, they have misunderstood it." (page 4)I have tried to summarise below the main arguments the letter puts forward in terms of

- a better vision built on virtues

- 11 tests to use when deciding who to vote for 

- the 14 arguments supporting that advice

- 6 points about christianity and politics

A better vision built on virtues

The letter is about building a vision of a better kind of world, society and politics. Underlying those ideas is the concept of virtue – what it means to be a good person, politician, neighbour or community.

Virtues are nourished, not by atomised individualism, but in strong communities which relate respectfully to other communities which make up our nation.

Strong communities are schools of virtue. They're where we learn how to be good, how to live well and how to make relationships flourish. They build on the traditions through which each generation learns its national, local and family identity.



11 tests to use when deciding who to vote for

It is the duty of every Christian adult to vote, even though they may have to vote for something that falls short of a vision that inspires them.  And they must work with politicians and others to try and make that vision more inspiring.  Voters are encouraged to support candidates and policies which:

1) Halt and reverse the accumulation of power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands (of the state, corporations or individuals);

2) Involve people at a deeper level in the decisions that affect them most;

3) Recognise the distinctive communities (whether defined by geography, religion or culture) which make up the nation and enable all to thrive and participate together.

4) Treat the electorate as people with roots, commitments and traditions and address us all in terms of the common good and not just as self-interested consumers;

5) Demonstrate that the weak, the dependent, the sick, the aged and the vulnerable are persons of equal value to everybody else. (E.g. Is what they propose on austerity fair?  Do they support a Living Wage sufficient for a full time worker to live decently? );

6) Offer the electorate a grown up debate about Britain’s place in the world order and the possibilities and obligations that entails;

7) Acknowledge the insecurity and anxiety that permeates our society after decades of rapid change, not least the changes brought about by the banking crisis and austerity programme;

8) Recognise people’s need for supportive local communities and that the informal/voluntary sectors hold society together in ways neither the state nor private enterprise can match;

9) Recognise that people need a sense of place and of belonging;

10) Address the culture of regulation and litigation where anxiety about potential litigation can be a brake on local voluntary action;

11) Reflect the obligation to secure the common good of future generations, not just our own, address issues of inter-generational justice, be responsible on environmental issues.




14 arguments put forward to support the voting advice

In arguing for a better vision the letter includes various observations on politics, politicians and our society and culture.  I've summarised the arguments presented below.


Too much power in too few hands is not good

1) Widespread indebtedness is another manifestation of the accumulation of power in too few hands. This is as true for nations as for individuals and families. (From the "Debt and a humane economy" section).  It is perhaps this concentration, and the way some seem to treat politics as an extension of consumerism  - which has contributed to so much apathy about politics and politicians (from the "Apathy, cynicism and politics today" section)



The choices we face are rarely as simple as politics suggests they are

2) State or free market - Politicians seem to either place excessive faith in state intervention on the one hand or the free market on the other, (from the "Visions worth voting for" section)

3) “Us” and "them" rhetoric - stirs up resentment by dehumanising or demonising "them". Ethnic minorities, immigrants, welfare claimants, bankers and oligarchs – all have been called up as threats to some fictitious “us”. (From the "Equality – us and them" section)

4) Neighbourliness is both what we do for others and are willing to receive from them - So being willing to receive from those we fear, ignore or despise. The way we talk about migration, with ethnically identifiable communities being treated as “the problem” has, deliberately or inadvertently, created an ugly undercurrent of racism in every debate about immigration. Crude stereotyping is incompatible with a Christian understanding of human social relationships. But we also challenge the assumption that to question immigration at all must always be racist. (From the "Power, identities and minorities" section)

5) Right or left - Its not a choice between “right” and “left” nor do we imagine truth lie equidistant between extremes.  The letter emphasises an approach to politics which can trace its roots on both left and right and which could be embraced by any of the mainstream parties without being untrue to their own histories. (from the "Beyond “Left” and “Right” " section)

6) Agree or don't work together - Its wrong to think people can only work together if they agree about every issue.  The ability to make, and break, alliances – so that people can work together on issues they share, but may not be on the same side on other issues – is what makes the voluntary sector generally, so crucial to a flourishing democratic society (From the "Disagreement, Diversity and Coalitions" section)

7) National or local approaches - Sometimes we work best as a nation & sometimes as members of smaller and more local groups.  A sense of “place” helps to form people’s identity in community. People cannot so easily be uncoupled from the geographical spaces they inhabit. (From the "A Community of Communities" section)

8) A thriving society needs intermediate institutions (bigger than the family, far smaller than the state).  These informal/independent structures are small enough not to need every activity to be codified.  So they can help people to learn to work together in trust, not just according to rules. Such bodies can disagree with each other and pursue incompatible goals. A culture in good order needs that kind of diversity and capacity to argue about what makes a good society. (From the "Strengthening institutions" section)



None of us can stand alone

9) We prize individualism and autonomy yet a society of strangers is a vision few of us want. Instead most of us still find numerous ways of being with other people – at work, by volunteering, through religious services or sports or other interests.  Each of these have their own customs and shared solidarities and ways of identifying with each other.  Without them our lives would be extraordinarily fragile and lonely. (from "A Society of Strangers?" section)

10) To be dependent on others is what makes us social creatures.  In understanding the balance between the individual and the community we need to move beyond the superficial.  (from "The Person in Community" section)

11) No nation can stand alone - Its an illusion to think a nation can flourish without strong international alliances.  Our reliance on world trade demonstrates how intertwined our national economy is with other nations. People and nations are divided, not just by military conflict but by grotesque inequalities of wealth and power. The accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few nations has a profoundly destabilising effect. Supporting developing nations without creating unhealthy dependencies is politically challenging and yet absolutely necessary (From "The community of nations" section) 



Community, involvement and the long term

12) Living as part of a community and depending on others  - shows us the moral limits of the market.   This kind of community does not even need to rely on personal acquaintance, only on a perception of mutual reliance. In the maritime industry, shipping companies compete against each other in an open market. But when a ship is in trouble, it is unthinkable that other ships in the vicinity will not go to its assistance, at considerable commercial cost.  Those who make their living on the sea know their need of each other. For the rest of us, our mutual dependence is no less real, but is often obscured from our sight until troubles arise.(From the "Debt and a humane economy" section)

13) A good constitution involves as many people as possible in decisions  - even if like the UK's it is largely unwritten and has evolved over the centuries. (From the "History in an old country" section)

14) People will commit to the long term if they have a stake in it - A thriving economy needs investors who look to the long term. Intergenerational justice depends upon sharing power and decision making now. By enabling people to build a stake in the communities they are encouraged to live, not only for the day, but for their grandchildren’s future – and, on behalf of future generations, to cherish the created order rather than viewing our environment as a commodity to be consumed. (From the "Our grandchildren’s future" section)

6 points about Christianity and politics

1) Religion is not just something that belongs solely to the private sphere. Belief - of its nature - addresses the whole of life, private and public. (page 5)

2) Without a grasp of the power and meaning of religion, it is impossible to understand the dynamics of global politics today. (page 6)

3) Christians are called to love their neighbour as themselves and in the Lord's prayer say “Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven”. This incarnational faith is why politics and the life of the Christian cannot be separated. (page 7)

4) As individuals christians start with an acknowledgement that all is not well, that what is good and right has been neglected and that change is inescapable. (page 8)

5) The Biblical tradition is not only “biased to the poor”, but warns constantly against too much power falling into too few hands. (page 9)

6) Christian theology behoves all people to “think it possible that you may be mistaken” – to use the words of Oliver Cromwell. (page 10)

letters from amnesty international

letters from amnesty international on vimeo.
via blue eyed ennis

letter from god

from revising reform