Grotesquely cruel and lacking judgement, but Braverman can’t lose

She broke the ministerial code and her subsequent statements beg more questions than they answer, says Sean O’Grady

Suella Braverman managed to avoid going ‘full tofu’ in the Commons on Monday (PA)

It’s difficult to find a precise forerunner to Suella Braverman in British political history, or indeed the chronicles of any society. To be fired and rehired for the same job inside six days is a remarkable record; but, as is possible, to be sacked again from the same job for much the same reasons would be even more remarkable. Like her one-time but temporary ally Liz Truss, she will go down in the record books for all the wrong reasons.

Her performance in the Commons was more considered than some of her usual knockabout Boris Johnson tribute act routines, and apart from appallingly labelling refugees an “invasion” she mostly avoided going “full tofu”.

Despite a six-page letter of explanation to the Home Affairs Select Committee, and fresh assurances that she “never blocked the usage” of hotel accommodation to ease the pressure on Manston, doubts linger. The MP for the area, Roger Gale, indicated dissent during the parliamentary exchanges and seems to still believe that Braverman did refuse to commission necessary accommodation in a timely way, consistent with the law. These matters seem still to be in dispute.

When Michael Gove lavished praise on Braverman over the weekend for being a “first-rate, front-rank politician,” he was having a private joke, signalling that he didn’t think she was a first-rate minister, a slightly different thing. Nor is she actually much of a politician. The simple fact remains that Manston was designed for about 1,500 people and now houses 4,000 in sometimes poor conditions. They are supposed to be there for 24 to 48 hours, but many have been there for far longer. That is against the law, and thus the ministerial code. There is no exclusion for Albanians or any other nationalities.

Her shortcomings as a minister are obvious – lack of judgement and a belief that the rules and the laws that others are expected to comply with don’t apply to her. She broke the ministerial code over leaking documents and was fired, and her subsequent statements beg more questions than they answer. She undermined the free trade treaty with India that was being pursued by Liz Truss and freelanced over policy quite freely – as if she was still running for the leadership, which she may well be. Either before or after she was rehired by Rishi Sunak, or possibly both, she is accused of refusing to move refugees on from the Manston reception centre and/or commission accommodation despite a requirement in law to do so. Breaking the law is, if anything, a more serious offence than the leaks she confessed to. Braverman adamantly denies the accusations, including that she ignored legal advice – she says she took it into account.

The squalid conditions at Manston, including some cases of diphtheria and a spread of scabies, plus the bombing of a refugee centre down the road in Dover adds to the sense of crisis and chaos.

Politically, she has been more shrewd in positioning herself on the hard right of her party, and effectively the leader of that faction, including the European Research Group (though in the end, they declined to follow her lead and endorse Sunak for the leadership). Sunak needs her onside to neutralise that flank. She cannot be criticised for being some sort of liberal Remainer, and her language about asylum seekers embarrasses even those who are naturally sympathetic to her view – most notoriously her “I have a dream” statement about a plane load of refugees being put on a plane to Rwanda for Christmas.

If Braverman survives in office it will be because Sunak wants her there to demonstrate to the right, in his party and outside it among the fringe of far-right groupings, that he is doing everything to “solve” the migration crisis.

The problem for Sunak, and why she still has leverage, is that Braverman would be better able and willing to campaign for a harder edge to policy outside the cabinet – specifically that the crisis can only be solved by the UK withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. It wouldn’t work – because the migrants would keep coming – but it would be a focus for those who think Brexit won’t be complete until Britain leaves the ECHR. Although discredited in many ways, Braverman would still represent a threat to Sunak’s position, or at least a leader of the internal opposition for rebellions and plotting.

Some dream that she might defect to the likes of Reform UK. More likely, she’d bide her time until the Conservatives lose the next general election, seize the leadership with the support of the grassroots, and get to be leader of the opposition – a lurch to the right not seen since the leaderships of William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith after the New Labour landslide in 1997.

So in a way, Braverman can’t lose. An incompetent minister who cares little for the rules, a poor, overexcitable debater and a grotesquely cruel political personality, she’s hardly an asset. But she does appeal to a certain constituency of people who would happily have the Royal Navy sink the dinghies. Either she clings on as home secretary and builds her political base as far as she can while making little real impact on the numbers, or she is sacked and takes her permanent leadership campaign to the back benches. It would be depressing, but not at all surprising, if she came back from the parliamentary dead again.