In a brutal resignation letter, Suella Braverman has accused Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of having “manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver” on key policies, and said his “distinctive style of Government means you are incapable of doing so”. Here is her resignation letter in full (courtesy of the Telegraph).
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 on 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. Those were, among other things:
- 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;
- Include specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, i.e., 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;
- Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable;
- 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 U.K. 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 October 7th.
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
Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP
Member of Parliament for Fareham
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
To paraphrase
Dear Prime Minister,
Fuck you
Love,
Suella
Superb exposé of a man who is a globalist shill and an empty space. Bless her
Agree with everything she said….Shame though she couldn’t also mention how this fifth column is selling this country off to the Globalists and how everyone has a price!
Yep, signed up for every WEF program he can get away with. Turned a blind eye to ULEZ and 15 minute cities, carried on with HS2 boondoggle, spent like drunken sailor during covid to wreck the country’s finances, helped his billionaire father in law to get contracts with the UK on Digital ID, helped fund the failure in Ukraine…I mean I could go on and on.
But then again, there is no one that isn’t going to continue with all this sheite that’s anywhere near the levers of power, and if they get there they will either get Liz Trussed, or JFK’d.
What she wrote said that. She didn’t need to say it directly. Seemed obvious to me she was calling him a WEF puppet.
Erm. Not a resignation letter.
And she doesn’t claim it to be. She clearly states she was sacked.
It is lazy journalism.
She was asked to resign, forced to resign – therefore in effect sacked – but nevertheless officially she resigned, therefore ‘resignation letter’ is correct. If she didn’t resign, then she wasn’t forced to resign, but she was forced to resign.
Who cares? It’s what she wrote that matters isn’t it? Utter pedantry
There, there, it’s ok Rishi, David Cameron will make it all better. Now, it’s time to go and get some new school uniforms, you’ve had a growth spurt haven’t you?
“Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave Government. While disappointing, this is for the best.”
As others have already stated that is NOT resignation.
Fishy sacked Suella.
Actually that could be the title of a book or a stage play.
Fair play to Ms Braverman because this letter is brutal. She makes Fishy look like the pathetic deputy head boy trying to do the real job. He’s the eternal little boy in short trousers whispering “please sir” a la Oliver Twist. The inept and hopeless wannabee trying to get into the big league. As knives in the back go this is straight through the shoulder blades.
What did Suella say just after the sacking? Something like ‘I will have more to say later.’ Well she’s ripped Fishy a new one.
I dare say Fishy might limp on but the reality is that Ms Braverman has piled on such a level of ridicule that he will never overcome this. He truly is a laughing stock. Another pointless oxygen thief.
Many thanks Ms Braverman.
Do you really think that it was Robot Rishi’s idea to sack Braverman et al and install the pudgy old WEFer-in-chief, blink-and-you’ll-miss-him Cameron et al?
I don’t.
He takes his orders, reads his teleprompter and is a good little puppet.
Actually I am more than well aware of who is pulling the strings. If you had been reading my posts on DS these last three plus years you would know this.
Never mind.
I have indeed.
Thats why I said “I don’t”
Never mind.
How wonderful to hear a politician not being in the least diplomatic and shooting straight from the hip. A breath of fresh air.
Well that is a belter of a letter in my opinion. She called him out good and proper didn’t she? She makes a very good point about these hate marches too. This author touches on the obvious issue of the Islamification of London, which these protests only serve to highlight further;
”The largest demonstration in English history marched through the streets of London shouting. “Allahu Akbar”.
The capital of Great Britain now has a huge minority with abominable values. Some in Parliament appease them because they want their votes. Others fear confrontation. And the Islamic marches in London are an indication that society is about to collapse.
“We will honor our martyrs,” they chanted outside King’s College in London.
It is not contempt for Britain by Muslims. They are telling the country: “We are the future”.
This London is upside down. Officials of the mayor, Sadiq Khan, contacted the theaters that were to host Eric Zemmour to dissuade them. The journalist candidate for the 2022 French presidential elections (who lives under police protection and is threatened with beheading) could not find a room in London for his conference.
But those who threaten to behead Westerners can march in London. Now, half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of the same Islamic movement from which the Taliban emerged. Deobandis run 738 of Britain’s 1,600 mosques, according to a police report revealed by The Times.
Meanwhile, Jonathan Lieberman, an English rabbi who lives in Netanya, Israel, launched an appeal to his friends who remained in England: “Friends and family in the UK, it’s time to leave: the door is closing behind you.”
But what happens in Europe’s streets does not only concern Jews, who have somewhere to go; it’s about Europeans. And the door is closing for them too.”
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/380278
They can reside in the country towns and villages (not midlands) for now as most Muslims infest city areas. As Hux mentioned yesterday — Deal with the Globalists first, then we can worry about the Islamifacation of Europe.
And the thing is, it’s only the massive demos on the weekends that get the coverage, but I think these protests are going on all the time. And I thought the eco nutters were a massive, disruptive pain in everyone’s arse. This was London Victoria this evening;
https://twitter.com/RonEng1ish/status/1724500531433906474
We need to get a grip. Anybody wearing a tea towel or carrying a black or red, green, white flag should be arrested.
Roger that, huxtable
. You get the oven gloves, I’ll grab my pinny.
Nice one Mogs.
She writes a good letter, but it’s always as though she had no power herself – was she not Home Secretary?
The civil service phone gets a new cover and continues to operate as normal.
Yes what is the point of a manifesto if Whitehall call the shots. Getting immigration down to tens of thousands was one of their failed pledges. She called them out, that’s why the chattering classes on BBC, Five, Live, Vine etc hate the lady.
Capital will always find a way and it is an unspoken tenet of British policy that ‘last man standing; is a good endgame. You can see this in economic policy. I think it is a disastrous strategy and essentially a reflection of the hopelessness of the Anglo-American struggle. It knows it must change and yet it can’t change and can only operate according to the same predatory principles. So mass immigration can’t be stopped or even controlled. There is no allowance within this strategy to move towards a redemptive path. It cannot be reconfigured and it cannot continue to exist.
This ‘letter’ (should really be called an editorial) starts a lot better than it ends. Politicians decreeing that expressing certain opinions in public constitutes hate and is thus to be banned because hate – an emotion of very strong rejection of something – is obviously always evil and reason for state action to counter it isn’t at all good. The state absolutely certainly shouldn’t try to police people’s emotions to begin with (WTF?!?) and abusing the term hate to mean Someone else’s political opinion I really disapprove of!!! is a classic trick from the woke playbook.
The same goes for the undefinable rubber phrase glorification of terrorism.
As someone once put it (I don’t know who) One man’s terrorist is another men’s freedom fighter. And that’s not even touching on the issue what precisely does or doesn’t constitute glorification, as opposed to expressing of legitimate opinion, and even assuming someone could define that, why it should be prohibited. It’s just speech, after all.
Not brutal and simply highlights the PM represents Other Interests which is self evident. Perhaps she had to go because she might actually do something about grooming gangs.
The Conservative Leader position will be vacant soon enough. Is this Suella kicking off a campaign to get the job?
No flies on you. Most of the commentators were reading the letter instead reading of the runes
There is a very simple message – look in the mirror if you want to know why this has happened. I mean the more recent wave. Obviously earlier immigration was to do with Labour shortages and help from Commonwealth countries. I have lived in a protectionist country and believe me it was far far better all around. This ‘everything on the cheap’ attitude will be your undoing if you aren’t careful. I know we had that for centuries but you have to be a bit sharper now.
What “labour shortages”?
There are no labour shortages but it is a simple equation. Provide a greater and greater surplus of labour and thus drive pay and conditions further into the ground. There were periods in the 1950s when hospitals were being built and staffed and they did rely on nurses from the Carribean for example. And just factory workers generaly – Indian and Pakistani workers worked hard in factories to save up the money to buy a house in the 1970s, The pressures to drive up immigration numbers are far higher these days and that is before even considering the huige rise in the number of economic migrants. It takes a strong grasp of the situaton in order to be able to even examine it and our political class has neither the ability nor the inclination.
It should be Net 0 immigration, if we have a deficit then we can let in those that we need. As for illegals, no identification, no passport.
Like Orwell said, empres rule by force or fraud. You could say that the cheap money disappeared in 2007. As Frank Zappa said, the illusion of freedom will continue as lons as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
Aye and that’s what the Great Reset is all about.
You can’t keep up because for every 300,000 recorded immigration cases there is a similar number coming in unannounced. That’s the size of a city every year. British people can’t even get housing or doctor’s appointments. I would just say again, is is worth it for a few extra quid in your pocket. No it isn’t and if you accept that then it would stop overnight,
Bob Moran captures PM Sunak’s bizarrely foreshortened sleeves and trouser legs perfectly here, in addition of course to his biting satire on TPTB.
Honestly it isn’t worth it for a few more slaves and yet you seem to be unable to turn down the offer. Frankly given recent years I don’t even know if it is possible to turn this tanker around. I like money as much as the next man but surely it isn’t worth sacrificing your country and your soul for. Just rein it in.
Yes it is not worth sacrificing our country like this! It is so sad to see such s significant change to our culture that is not compatible. Those marches are shocking to see, our ancestor would be horrified.
It is about time we had some straight words as in her letter but listening to some of the C MPs responses today they remain cowardly, out of touch or allegiances to globalists.
I read the civil servants in the home office cheered at her sacking, the ones who have too much unelected power! They are also not supportive of our culture our British traditions, protecting our borders and our national sovereignty.
The civil service is riddled with big problems.
“The civil service is riddled with big problems.”
That’s a bit of an understatement.
Yep they are an enormous problem,
But Sunak is a Globalist grifter who’s loyalties reside elsewhere in Switzerland.
Hand wringing Tories trying to justify Braverman’s removal because she used “inappropriate language” claim the Tories are a “broad church” . ————-Not apparently broad enough to include Braverman though, and polls indicate millions agree with everything this woman has said. We now have all political parties trying to position themselves right in the middle and standing for NOTHING in the hope they can win more votes than the other fence sitting un-principled parties that say and do NOTHING.
This is how The Globalists make Common Sense Irrelevant. NO one could have espied them better than the job they are doing themselves.