In what was widely considered appeasement of the right of the Conservative Party (i.e. the actually conservative bit), Rishi Sunak shored up his cabinet in 2022 by reinstating Suella Braverman as home secretary. It is not without irony therefore that he proceeded to sack her earlier this month for her unexpected conservatism; nor was it likely that she would refuse the opportunity to bite back. During a fortnight’s worth of gossip behind the scenes at Tory HQ, Braverman kept her powder dry—save for an incendiary resignation letter, and the threat of a “damning dossier” on Sunak’s premiership hanging in the air.
This was her initial salvo post resignation:
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…
…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.
The document in question, the much fêted ‘pact’ between the PM and home secretary, has finally come to light via the pages of The Telegraph. In terms of immigration, Braverman and her allies claim there was a written agreement (seen but unpublished by the newspaper), including four pledges to reduce immigration to a manageable figure. While acknowledging that Sunak did not sign the pact, it is understood that the accord was verbally agreed and witnessed on a number of occasions prior to Braverman’s reappointment, and that Sunak left the meeting with a hard copy of the document. Here follows a summary of the pledges:
- Raising the salary threshold for skilled workers arriving in the UK
With the number of visas issued to employees and their dependents having trebled since 2019, Braverman was keen to increase the minimum salary level from £26,200 to £40,000 per annum—a figure the New Conservatives group estimate would reduce migration by around 50,000. Number 10 has admitted considering a raising of the threshold, but it is understood that this will most likely only be in line with inflation, a good £10,000 short of the level Braverman was seeking. This is despite the fact that the ‘architect’ of the points-based immigration system, former PM Boris Johnson, not only supports the £40,000 figure, but also concedes that the initial level was a “mistake.”
- Restrictions on the number of dependants
With immigration at record levels, the government has already taken steps to reduce the number of dependants being smuggled in on work visas. Back in May, it was agreed that there would be restrictions placed on postgraduate students coming to the UK. Only those conducting research are eligible to bring in relatives from January. The Home Office estimates this would remove somewhere in the region of 150,000 from the immigration figures, and Sunak was quick to declare it the “single toughest measure” to get migration under control. Unfortunately, Braverman and others, including Immigration Minister Jenrick, wanted the limit imposed on all work visas, particularly those in health and social care, which last year accounted for 144,000 workers chaperoning an additional 174,000 relatives into Britain.
- An end to two-year graduate visas
Braverman was also keen to scrap the two-year grace period, which is clearly open to abuse. According to the current system, foreign students are entitled to stay on in the UK for an additional two years upon completion of their studies; a benefit conferred upon their dependants, without any demands for gainful employment. Suella suggested that such a system should be replaced by a four-month grace period, during which time successful job offers could either be translated into a work visa, or the students and their relatives would be forced to leave. Again, the New Conservatives group estimate this would lead to a reduction in the region of 50,000 per annum.
The plans face stiff opposition however from Downing Street, the Treasury, and the universities themselves, for whom such a scheme acts as a marketing ploy to attract overseas students and secure exorbitant study fees—never mind the saturation of the labour market, the drain on public services, and the lack of tertiary education places available to native students.
- ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees
Alongside the benefit of a two-year visa, it has long been suspected that non-Russell Group universities are operating a business model of ‘low quality’ (Mickey Mouse) degrees to foreign students, in exchange for easy access to Britain (albeit at a premium). In her pact with the prime minister, Braverman was keen to eradicate such a practice. Furthermore, she was also determined to abolish the shortage occupation list, whereby companies are entitled to hire foreign workers at 20% below the market rate, if unable to fill such roles. Finally, Braverman suggested an overall cap on immigration, which would be set by Parliament each year. Unsurprisingly, such a plan has met with zero interest inside Number 10.
According to Braverman’s supporters, these demands were re-emphasised during six letters she sent the prime minister in her 12-month tenure at the Home Office, all of which were ignored. Interestingly, Sunak has made no outright denial of the claims, although Downing Street has pooh-poohed the suggestion of a deal. “Of course, you have conversations with people when you are in a leadership election and not just Suella,” Sunak confirmed. Quizzed about whether he had concerns about a leak of the agreement, he commented: “That’s a question for her. I’m getting on with actually delivering things.”
You don’t have to be a genius to work out who’s more likely to be telling the truth here, but the situation for Sunak and the Tories is already so dire, it doesn’t even matter. After 13 years of inertia on immigration, and having failed abysmally on his personal promise to stop the boats, Sunak is presiding over the worst migration figures in history. With even the Home Secretary admitting the Rwanda plan is up in smoke, Sunak’s government is 30 points behind Labour in some polls, and facing approval ratings that ended Liz Truss’s brief flirtation with power.
For Sunak, there’s worse to come. The next general election is lost with him at the helm. The only reason he hasn’t already been ousted is because his potential successors need to weigh up their options. Not only is a right-wing coup of the party very much on the cards, Reform UK are up to 11% in the polls—without Nigel Farage. After much speculation on his sojourn in the jungle, a rejuvenated Farage is likely either to reassume the premiership from Richard Tice, or possibly enact a hostile takeover of the Conservative Party itself. This is not as stupid as it sounds. The bookmakers have already slashed his chances of becoming the next Tory leader from 40:1 to 20:1—only slightly longer than his odds of winning I’m a celebrity—which is saying something, seeing as he isn’t even a party member!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Sunak would have done well to keep not just the peace with Suella, but also his word with the electorate.
Pax Suella
In what was widely considered appeasement of the right of the Conservative Party (i.e. the actually conservative bit), Rishi Sunak shored up his cabinet in 2022 by reinstating Suella Braverman as home secretary. It is not without irony therefore that he proceeded to sack her earlier this month for her unexpected conservatism; nor was it likely that she would refuse the opportunity to bite back. During a fortnight’s worth of gossip behind the scenes at Tory HQ, Braverman kept her powder dry—save for an incendiary resignation letter, and the threat of a “damning dossier” on Sunak’s premiership hanging in the air.
This was her initial salvo post resignation:
The document in question, the much fêted ‘pact’ between the PM and home secretary, has finally come to light via the pages of The Telegraph. In terms of immigration, Braverman and her allies claim there was a written agreement (seen but unpublished by the newspaper), including four pledges to reduce immigration to a manageable figure. While acknowledging that Sunak did not sign the pact, it is understood that the accord was verbally agreed and witnessed on a number of occasions prior to Braverman’s reappointment, and that Sunak left the meeting with a hard copy of the document. Here follows a summary of the pledges:
With the number of visas issued to employees and their dependents having trebled since 2019, Braverman was keen to increase the minimum salary level from £26,200 to £40,000 per annum—a figure the New Conservatives group estimate would reduce migration by around 50,000. Number 10 has admitted considering a raising of the threshold, but it is understood that this will most likely only be in line with inflation, a good £10,000 short of the level Braverman was seeking. This is despite the fact that the ‘architect’ of the points-based immigration system, former PM Boris Johnson, not only supports the £40,000 figure, but also concedes that the initial level was a “mistake.”
With immigration at record levels, the government has already taken steps to reduce the number of dependants being smuggled in on work visas. Back in May, it was agreed that there would be restrictions placed on postgraduate students coming to the UK. Only those conducting research are eligible to bring in relatives from January. The Home Office estimates this would remove somewhere in the region of 150,000 from the immigration figures, and Sunak was quick to declare it the “single toughest measure” to get migration under control. Unfortunately, Braverman and others, including Immigration Minister Jenrick, wanted the limit imposed on all work visas, particularly those in health and social care, which last year accounted for 144,000 workers chaperoning an additional 174,000 relatives into Britain.
Braverman was also keen to scrap the two-year grace period, which is clearly open to abuse. According to the current system, foreign students are entitled to stay on in the UK for an additional two years upon completion of their studies; a benefit conferred upon their dependants, without any demands for gainful employment. Suella suggested that such a system should be replaced by a four-month grace period, during which time successful job offers could either be translated into a work visa, or the students and their relatives would be forced to leave. Again, the New Conservatives group estimate this would lead to a reduction in the region of 50,000 per annum.
The plans face stiff opposition however from Downing Street, the Treasury, and the universities themselves, for whom such a scheme acts as a marketing ploy to attract overseas students and secure exorbitant study fees—never mind the saturation of the labour market, the drain on public services, and the lack of tertiary education places available to native students.
Alongside the benefit of a two-year visa, it has long been suspected that non-Russell Group universities are operating a business model of ‘low quality’ (Mickey Mouse) degrees to foreign students, in exchange for easy access to Britain (albeit at a premium). In her pact with the prime minister, Braverman was keen to eradicate such a practice. Furthermore, she was also determined to abolish the shortage occupation list, whereby companies are entitled to hire foreign workers at 20% below the market rate, if unable to fill such roles. Finally, Braverman suggested an overall cap on immigration, which would be set by Parliament each year. Unsurprisingly, such a plan has met with zero interest inside Number 10.
According to Braverman’s supporters, these demands were re-emphasised during six letters she sent the prime minister in her 12-month tenure at the Home Office, all of which were ignored. Interestingly, Sunak has made no outright denial of the claims, although Downing Street has pooh-poohed the suggestion of a deal. “Of course, you have conversations with people when you are in a leadership election and not just Suella,” Sunak confirmed. Quizzed about whether he had concerns about a leak of the agreement, he commented: “That’s a question for her. I’m getting on with actually delivering things.”
You don’t have to be a genius to work out who’s more likely to be telling the truth here, but the situation for Sunak and the Tories is already so dire, it doesn’t even matter. After 13 years of inertia on immigration, and having failed abysmally on his personal promise to stop the boats, Sunak is presiding over the worst migration figures in history. With even the Home Secretary admitting the Rwanda plan is up in smoke, Sunak’s government is 30 points behind Labour in some polls, and facing approval ratings that ended Liz Truss’s brief flirtation with power.
For Sunak, there’s worse to come. The next general election is lost with him at the helm. The only reason he hasn’t already been ousted is because his potential successors need to weigh up their options. Not only is a right-wing coup of the party very much on the cards, Reform UK are up to 11% in the polls—without Nigel Farage. After much speculation on his sojourn in the jungle, a rejuvenated Farage is likely either to reassume the premiership from Richard Tice, or possibly enact a hostile takeover of the Conservative Party itself. This is not as stupid as it sounds. The bookmakers have already slashed his chances of becoming the next Tory leader from 40:1 to 20:1—only slightly longer than his odds of winning I’m a celebrity—which is saying something, seeing as he isn’t even a party member!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Sunak would have done well to keep not just the peace with Suella, but also his word with the electorate.
READ NEXT
The Enterprise State
Play the Ball, not the Man: Cancel Culture’s Attempt To Capture Hungarian Academia
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics