She made a series of inflammatory remarks ahead of some London protests, claiming the police were guilty of having a left-wing bias, and hitting out at “pro-Palestinian mobs” ahead of a wave of right-wing violence in Whitehall.
She was promptly sacked, triggering a major cabinet reshuffle days later.
But, the Home Office published the annual report and accounts for 2023 to 2024 today, and revealed Braverman received the generous “non-taxable exit payment” at the end of last year.
That was the second time Braverman had to resign as home secretary; she was fired by Liz Truss after she breached the ministerial code by sharing an official document from her personal email address with a parliamentary colleague.
Advertisement
She was reappointed six days later when Sunak was in No.10, after the new PM said she had “accepted her mistake”.
A Labour source told HuffPost UK: “The fact that Suella Braverman was able to walk away with a tax-free payout of this size after being sacked for the second time in a year demonstrates how the ministerial severance system was brought into disrepute by the last Tory government, and why it will need to change under Labour.”
Braverman was expected to try and run to be the next Tory leader after Sunak announced he would be stepping down following their historic election defeat.
However, she announced she was withdrawing from it – even though she supposedly had the 10 MPs required to to enter the contest – because the “traumatised” party did not want to listen to her take on why it failed.
Many supporters expected to back her reportedly switched to fellow right-wing Tory Robert Jenrick after the election.
Advertisement
Robert Jenrick is standing to be the next Tory leader
via Associated Press
Jenrick, the former immigration minister under Sunak, resigned from the government last December – but he also received a generous tax-free pay-out, according to the Home Office accounts.
The contest to replace Rishi Sunak as Conservative Party leader has officially begun, as Tories are gradually started to put themselves forward.
After enduring a historic defeat in the general election and walking away with just 121 seats in total, former PM Sunak said he was stepping back from the helm of the party when his successor was chosen.
Advertisement
As the fight for the soul of the party begins, it remains to be seen whether it will end up going for a more centrist figure, or leaning further right.
Here’s who has officially announced their leadership bids, who is expected to – and how long this whole competition is going to go on for…
1. James Cleverly
Shadow home secretary James Cleverly
via Associated Press
The former home secretary (who now shadows the same role) announced his plan to run on Tuesday, a day before nominations actually opened.
Advertisement
Seen as a moderate within the Conservative ranks, he has said the Conservatives need to “re-establish our reputation as the party who, in government, helps grow the economy, helps people achieve their goals, their dream and their aspirations”.
Alluding to the party’s historic loss at the ballot box, he said: “We must ditch the self-indulgent infighting and be ready to deliver when the next chance comes.”
According to a Savanta poll shared with Sky News, Cleverly has a net favourability of -9 with the general public.
He held several ministerial jobs under Boris Johnson before being appointed as the education secretary at the end of the ex-PM’s premiership.
He was foreign secretary for both Liz Truss and Sunak, and home secretary from November 2023 and July 2024.
Advertisement
2. Tom Tugendhat
Shadow security minister Tom Tugendhat
Anadolu via Anadolu via Getty Images
Formerly the security minister, Tugendhat now shadows the same role on the other side of the House.
Although he launched his campaign with a bang by saying he would consider leaving the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), he is usually perceived as a moderate in the one nation wing of the party.
He argued in an article for The Telegraph that he would prepared to leave the ECHR if institutions make it harder to control the country’s borders, claiming this was a “common sense Conservative position” to take.
The former army officer suggested defence spending should be pulled up to 3% of GDP, and claimed he was running “to be the next Conservative prime minister”.
He is expected to try and appeal to Tory members more sympathetic to Reform UK.
His campaign manager, Tory MP Danny Kruger, said Jenrick has the “energy, temperament and policy agenda to take on our rivals and lead us back to power in five years.”
Advertisement
He was not included in the Savanta poll because he did not run in the last leadership election in 2022.
Who else is expected to run?
Mel Stride, shadow work and pensions secretary, admitted at the weekend he was “considering” putting himself forward – he held onto his seat in the election by just 61 votes.
Former home secretary Suella Braverman and her predecessor Priti Patel are both expected to put themselves forward in the coming days.
Kemi Badenoch, shadow housing, communities and local government secretary, may also join the race.
Shadow health secretary Victoria Atkins was expected to run, but she said she would not be in a social media post.
Rishi Sunak announced his resignation as Tory Party leader when he lost the general election
via Associated Press
Advertisement
How will the process work?
The nominations for the candidates opened on July 24.
Each candidate needs to secure backing from 10 other MPs by July 29 to make it to the next round.
But, only around 100 MPs will be able to support a chosen candidate.
That’s because MPs who are whips or who sit on the executive backbencher 1922 committee cannot support a candidate.
It means only 10 Tories – at most – will be able to move to progress past this point in the race.
If two or more candidates get through, a campaign will take place throughout the summer.
In September, MPs cast their votes on the remaining candidates.
The four with the most votes will be selected, and all offered a chance to speak at the Tory party conference, (from September 29 to October 2), and MPs will vote again.
The two with the most vote go through to the next hurdle.
The remaining pair will then have to go before the party members, who will vote on their favourite candidate in an online ballot which closes on October 31.
To vote, members must have been “active” when the whole contest opened in July, and been members for at least 90 days before the ballot closes.
The new leader and official leader of the opposition will be confirmed on November 2, and Sunak’s time leading the Conservatives will officially end.
Advertisement
They will become the sixth leader of the Tory Party since 2016.
A Tory minister was asked if he was “in denial” after he tried to play down the significance of the party’s latest by-election disasters.
Robert Jenrick insisted “the public are undecided” about Labour, despite their seismic victories last Thursday.
Advertisement
The Conservatives lost in Tamworth despite having a majority of nearly 20,000, while Keir Starmer’s party managed to overturn a 25,000 majority in Nadine Dorries’ former seat of Mid Bedfordshire.
But appearing on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme this morning, Jenrick, who is the immigration minister, insisted Rishi Sunak is “making good progress” on his promises to voters, which he said were in tune with people’s priorities.
Presenter Victoria Derbyshire replied: “It doesn’t seem to be having any effect though if you look at what happened in Tamworth and Mid Beds.
“In Tamworth Labour overturned a majority of almost 19,000, in Mid Beds a majority of 25,000.”
Jenrick said: “With all due respect I wouldn’t read too much into by-elections – governments tend to lose by-elections.”
Advertisement
But Derbyshire hit back: “They are massive majorities with double digit swings – are you in denial?”
The minister replied: “I think we all have to listen to what the voters are saying in those by-elections, but we also shouldn’t read too much into them.
“My sense is that the public are undecided, they’re certainly not sold on Keir Starmer.”
Derbyshire interrupted: “Labour just won those two by-elections.”
Jenrick said: “The key thing for us as a party right now is not to worry about party politics but to deliver on the public’s priorities.”
Derbyshire then asked Jenrick how worried he was about losing his own seat of Newark, where he has a majority of 21,816.
“It would be foolish to be complacent – we all need to work hard and be good constituency members of parliament every day,” he said.
Immigration minister Robert Jenrick was left squirming on Sky News as he was presented with proof of the government’s failures.
Presenter Trevor Phillips told him “you’re not doing very well” on the five pledges Rishi Sunak made to voters at the start of the year.
Advertisement
The prime minister vowed to halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce national debt, cut NHS waiting lists and stop the small boats carrying asylum seekers across the Channel.
But Jenrick was shown a graphic demonstrating how the government is failing on four of them.
Inflation is still running at 6.7%, debt and waiting lists have gone up and the government is nowhere near stopping the boats.
Phillips said: “That [small boats] pledge does not say stop 10% of small boats, it says stop small boats. You’re not doing very well really, are you?”
Jenrick replied: “I’m not pretending this is job done, I’m saying our plan is beginning to work.
“We’re around a quarter reduction now in small boats compared to last year, and if you compare that to Italy and much of Europe, small boat arrivals are up by 100%.
Advertisement
“If you look at the number of Albanians coming illegally to the UK, down by 90%. If you look at the number of people who are being returned who shouldn’t have come here, up 75%.”
He added: “On this area we are delivering. There is clearly a long way to go.”
It was immigration minister Robert Jenrick who ordered the artwork of Mickey Mouse and other cartoon characters be painted over last week, the i newspaper revealed.
Advertisement
Jenrick reportedly felt they gave the impression Britain was too “welcoming” to people crossing the English Channel in small boats.
The Kent Intake Unit mainly processes children who arrive solo unaccompanied by an adult. The move comes as Rishi Sunak’s government has made cracking down on immigration one of its central goals.
In the House of Lords on Tuesday, minister for migration and borders, Lord Murray of Blidworth, dismissed the concerns of Labour’s Lord Dubs, who fled the Nazis as a child.
Lord Dubs said: “The minister has just said that the government takes the welfare of unaccompanied children seriously.
Advertisement
“How does that relate to the arrival centre in Dover which had cartoons and welcoming signs for children and which were ordered to be removed by the Home Office minister because it might make the children feel too welcome? Isn’t that a disgrace?”
Lord Murray responded: “The murals he refers to were provided by our detention contractors and were not commissioned or approved by the Home Office.
“It is clearly the correct decision that these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose.”
Asked by @AlfDubs about disgraceful actions of @ukhomeoffice to remove cartoons from Kent reception as they are ‘too welcoming for children’, Minister says: ‘It is the correct decision these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose’ 📢Shameful cruelty pic.twitter.com/q1zOLmjQck
— Every Child Protected Against Trafficking 🧡 (@ECPATUK) July 10, 2023
Conservative peer Lord Brownlow responded by saying he was “quite frankly ashamed at your last answer minister”, adding: “I think people in this House and the wider community would have preferred your answer to have been ‘it was a mistake to paint over those murals and that a contractor would be commissioned to repaint them’.
Advertisement
“We are a welcoming country and whilst I accept the bill is needed to deter it is time we showed some compassion.”
In response, Lord Murray said: “This is a detention facility for those who entered the country unlawfully and it’s appropriate that it be decorated in a manner which reflects its purpose.”
The government has pledged to stop overcrowded dinghies making the journey from northern France to the UK. More than 45,000 people arrived in Britain across the Channel in 2022, and several died in the attempt.
Immigration minister Robert Jenrick order the painting, and another one of Tom and Jerry, be painted over because they were too welcoming for children.
Advertisement
On Sophy Ridge on Sunday on Sky News this morning, Treasury minister Victoria Atkins was repeatedly asked whether she was “comfortable” with the controversial move, but refused to do so.
Pointing to a picture of the centre, Ridge said: “If you have a look at it here – Minnie and Mickey Mouse here, Tom and Jerry there, and that was painted over, the decision taken by Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, because it was too welcoming.”
The murals at the Kent Intake Unit in Dover
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Atkins insisted that children who arrive in the UK on small boats are “looked after properly”, but said the government wanted to stop them making the perilous journey in the first place.
Advertisement
But Ridge replied: “Just looking at this picture, I don’t believe you’re comfortable with the decision to paint over – I don’t believe it.”
The minister said: “I’m not comfortable with the idea that people would bring children across.”
The presenter hit back: “I can absolutely understand that, but that’s not the decision of the children. The decision to paint over this mural, it’s a place where kids go – they must be terrified when they go and sit on those chairs, they don’t know what’s happening and where they’re going to go.
“There was an active decision to paint over Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Are you happy with that?”
As she tried to dodge the question again, Ridge said: “Are you comfortable with this? You wouldn’t have done it, would you?”
Atkins replied: “When children come to the UK in those very frightening circumstances, we want them to be looked after well and looked after properly by local authorities.”
In a final attempt to get the minister to answer the question, Ridge said: “I think you can believe all of that and still be kind of uncomfortable about the idea that you’re part of a government that would paint over this mural.”
Advertisement
The minister responded: “What I care about is how those children are looked after when they come here and I’m confident that they’re given the care and the welfare that we would expect and we would want.”
The mural was installed at the Kent Intake Unit, which mainly processes children who arrive in the UK on their own unaccompanied by an adult.
The murals feature in an HM Chief Inspector of Prisons report published in February following an inspection of the facility after its opening in November.
After the i newspaper revealed the order to paint over them, Labour’s shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock tweeted: “The idea that painting over murals for unaccompanied children in immigration centres will somehow stop the boats is utterly absurd. This is a sign of a chaotic government in crisis.”
Advertisement
The Lib Dems tweeted: “This is the worst kind of trivial nastiness – a Mickey Mouse minister taking an axe to Mickey Mouse.”
A minister has dismissed claims that Rishi Sunak is blocking the release of messages to the Covid inquiry to avoid exposing a plot against Boris Johnson.
Robert Jenrick insisted the reason for the government’s bid to stop the release of unredacted messages to the inquiry was a “simple legal one”.
Advertisement
It follows an extraordinary argument between ministers and the official inquiry into the pandemic.
This is not a good look for the Government. All evidence provided should be unfettered and not restricted by gov censorship – whatever form that may take. https://t.co/bBIufEK91C
— Rt Hon Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorries) June 3, 2023
The government is trying to block the inquiry’s order to release WhatsApp messages and diaries, arguing that it should not have to hand over material which is “unambiguously irrelevant”.
However, a defiant Johnson has bypassed the government and told the inquiry he is happy to hand over all his own communications from that period.
Allies of the former prime minister claimed Sunak was blocking the release of text messages because it could reveal his plot to bring down Johnson, according to the Mail on Sunday.
Advertisement
Asked about the claims, Jenrick told Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “No, as I say, the issue here is a simple legal one.”
Jenrick said Johnson would not be restricted over what he divulged to the Covid inquiry.
But he said it would not be “sensible or reasonable” to hand over ministers’ documents or messages if they are deemed irrelevant to the pandemic.
It comes after cabinet office lawyers wrote to Johnson to warn that money would “cease to be available” if he breaks conditions such as releasing evidence without permission.
He has had legal advice paid for by the taxpayer, but the Sunday Times detailed the letter from government lawyers containing the warning to Johnson.
“The funding offer will cease to be available to you if you knowingly seek to frustrate or undermine, either through your own actions or the actions of others, the government’s position in relation to the inquiry unless there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict of interest on a particular point at issue,” it said.
Advertisement
The cabinet office insisted the letter was “intended to protect public funds” so taxpayer-funded lawyers are not used for any other purpose than aiding the inquiry.
Former culture secretary Nadine Dorries, a staunch ally of the former Tory leader, said it is “not a good look for the government”.
“All evidence provided should be unfettered and not restricted by gov censorship – whatever form that may take,” she tweeted.
Conservative donor Lord Cruddas, an outspoken backer of Johnson, who handed him a peerage, urged the MP not to be “held to ransom” by the threat.
“Don’t worry @BorisJohnson I can easily get your legal fees funded by supporters and crowd funding, it’s easy,” he tweeted.
Robert Jenrick has been called out by Krishnan Guru-Murthy for falsely claiming the United Nations refugee convention dictates that migrants have to seek sanctuary in the first ‘safe’ country they arrive in.
The immigration minister quickly backpedaled and said it was a “key principle” the government supported as the journalist refused to let the politician off the hook.
Jenrick was pulled up on Channel 4 News as he said that those crossing the Channel from France were “essentially asylum shoppers”.
Here’s the exchange (plus clip below):
Robert Jenrick: “If somebody originated from a place of danger, like Afghanistan, the vast majority of those people coming across on small boats are coming from France, and they are choosing to come to the UK for whatever reason.”
Krishnan Guru-Murthy: “As is their right.”
RJ: “They are essentially asylum shoppers.”
KGM: “It is their right to apply for asylum anywhere, they are asylum seekers, not asylum shoppers.”
RJ: “The convention says people should seek asylum in the first safe country.”
KGM: “No, it doesn’t. Where does it say that?”
RJ: “We are prioritising people in a place of danger rather than people who are in a place of safety like France.”
KGM: “That is not true. That is not true. The refugee convention does not say that you must seek sanctuary in the first safe country.”
RJ: “The refugee convention does encourage people to do that.”
KGM: “It does not say you must seek sanctuary in the first safe country, which you just said. That is not true.”
RJ: “That’s a key principle that we support as a government.”
KGM: “OK, but it’s not in the refugee convention.”
RJ: “We don’t think it’s right that if you’re in a safe country like France, that you should be coming to the UK. That’s creating a fundamental unfairness.”
KGM: “That’s the government’s position, it’s not in the refugee convention.”
“They’re not asylum shoppers they’re asylum seekers… That’s not true.”@krishgm challenges immigration minister Robert Jenrick after he claims “asylum shoppers” should seek sanctuary in the first safe country they reach under the “Refugee Convention”. pic.twitter.com/NsDz9DqiO1
Amnesty International has said: “There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.”
The Full Fact site has also said: “The UN refugee convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other ‘safe’ countries.”
And a House of Commons briefing paper from February this year states: “The UK government’s position is that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The UN Refugee Agency says this is not required by the refugee convention or international law.”
In 2021, Tory MP Jonathan Gullis was schooled by an immigration expert after asking why asylum seekers choose to come to the UK in a clip that has gone viral many times since.
Advertisement
The former minister quizzed Zoe Gardner over the number of refugees seeking to settle in Britain after fleeing their homeland.
“If they really are refugees, why don’t they have to stay in the first safe country they reach?”
But he was told the international asylum system would “crumble” if countries refused to accept immigrants and expected other countries to take them instead.
The pair clashed in 2021 as Gardner appeared before parliament’s nationality and borders bill committee.
In the clip, Gullis, the MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, asks Gardner: “If these people out in Calais are legitimate refugees, why are they not claiming asylum in France, Italy, Spain or Greece? Why do they need to come to the United Kingdom?
Advertisement
Gardner replies: “As I’m sure you’ll be aware … the vast majority of people who seek asylum worldwide, firstly, 86% of refugees and displaced people worldwide, remain in the country neighbouring the one they have fled.
“So, 86% of people remain in developing countries.
“France received three times as many asylum applications as we did last year. People stop as soon as they feel safe.
″But the people who are making their way to England and who specifically wish to the UK, do so because they have ties to this country either because they have served with out military in the case of people from Afghanistan, or have family members, or speak the language because of our colonial history and have other ties of kinship and history here.
″So there are people who have legitimate ties to the UK and there is no good reason why they should particularly have their claims assessed in France if they do not wish to.
“It doesn’t really work for us to say to the French, ‘given that we’re geographically located slightly to the west of you, none of these refugees are our responsibility and they’re all on you’ because France can say the same thing and then Italy can say the same thing, and then the entire international refugee protection system will crumble.”
A second government minister has faced public ridicule in as many days after a radio audience laughed at the suggestion the Conservatives do not want to see new voter ID laws deter people from voting.
The government has introduced new compulsory ID rules for those voting in person during England’s local elections next week. The move has sparked criticism that more marginalised communities will face fresh challenges to vote.
The government has said the move will prevent voter fraud and protect democracy. But opposition parties and campaigners claim the plan is based on a false premise that actually amounts to “voter suppression” – locking out millions of voters without ID out of the democratic process.
On Any Questions on Friday, Jenrick argued the move was about “protecting the integrity of our democracy”, and said asking to see ID was not a “very unusual thing to do”.
He added: “The truth is it was an anachronism that we didn’t have to show ID going to vote. We all show ID when we go and collect a parcel at the petrol station, we show verification for all manner of things in life.”
Advertisement
He continued that “it is obviously very important that we get this right because we don’t want to see anybody disenfranchised”, which prompted laughter from the audience.
Jenrick argued the pilot schemes showed 99% of “those people who sought to vote did so successfully”, adding: “I don’t think it will be a major issue. I think it is an important step in defending our democracy and I think we should take that seriously.”
At two trials of voter ID in the 2018 and 2019 local elections, more than 1,000 would-be voters were turned away from polling stations and did not return.
The UK has very low levels of proven electoral fraud – during last year’s local and mayoral elections, there was not a single proven case of in-person voter fraud.
Advertisement
Critics have also argued there is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise young people. Bus and travel passes for older and disabled people are being accepted as photo IDs – but the young people’s travel cards is not being permitted.
When this was put to Jenrick, he dismissed a “confected” issue as he argued: “The evidence is that of the set of ID we’ve created, you are more likely to have that ID if you’re a young person than if you’re an older person.”
Kay Burley clashed with a Tory minister as she urged the government to increase their pay offer to NHS workers.
The Sky News presenter told Robert Jenrick “a nurse if for life not just for Covid” as it was confirmed inflation his 10.5% last month – down from 10.7% in November.
Advertisement
Nurses are striking once again today and also announced earlier this week that they are to hold two more days of industrial action next month in their long-running dispute over pay.
Jenrick, the immigration minister, said “international factors are beginning to tentatively work in the right direction” to bring inflation down from its peak last autumn.
He added: “The worst thing that we could do domestically would be to significantly increase public sector pay and then entrench inflation in the British economy and get into a wage spiral.”
But Burley told him: “To that end you can take on the rail unions, you can take on the civil servants’ unions, but when it comes to taking on the nurses, you don’t have the support of the British people.
Advertisement
“I’ve seen the banners that say ‘a nurse is for life, not just for Covid’.”
Jenrick replied: “Well, we have great respect for nurses, of course we do.”
But Burley hit back: “Well give them more money then.”
The minister went on: “It’s not always as simple as that in life Kay, because what we have to judge is not only how we motivate and respect nurses – and there is a serious challenge with retention and recruitment within the NHS.
“We have to balance that, however, with general affordability to the tax payer, what can the NHS afford. Secondly, the point about inflation, which is so critical to everybody in this country, and thirdly how can we handle this in a sensible and appropriate manner.
“The way that’s done is through independent pay review bodies, and there was an independent pay review last year which concluded that curses should get the pay rise that they have.”
