It is all kicking off this morning.
So, brief recap of teh last week or so. In response to the current conflict in Israel/Palestine, there have been weekly pro-Palestinian marches calling for ceasefire. Mostly these marches have been peaceful, but there is a disturbing fringe of indeterminate size doing unpleasant and illegal things like openly calling for jihad, anti-semitic chanting etc. It is a bit of a test of our commitment to free speech.
This Saturday, the 11th, was also Armistice Day where we commemorate those who fell in wars. 11am is the specific time for quiet reflection. The march on Saturday was due to start at 2pm, and would not go near the Cenotaph which is the focal point for Armistice commemoration. Further, the ceremony there happens not on the 11th but always on the Sunday closest, in this case yesterday.
Nevertheless, the Home Secretary on Wednesday wrote an inflammatory editorial in the Times in which she labelled these marches as hate marches, said they would threaten the sanctity of the Cenotaph and Remembrance weekend, that they were mobs, expressions of primacy by Islamists, and that the police were operating a double standard, ignoring crimes that they would arrest far-right protestors for. She also demanded that the march be cancelled - interfering in operational matters which is not meant to happen. The head of the Metropolitan police did not choose to cancel the march, stating that he had no lawful grounds to do so.
Very predictably, this riled up those self-same far-right elements who promptly organised a counter-protest to protect the Cenotaph from being defiled by these… well, you get the idea. Astonishingly enough this counter-protest turned violent - as mentioned, the actual march went nowhere near the Cenotaph so the far-right contingent who’d come for a fight and were damn well going to get one charged the police. An unseemly brawl involving injuries to police officers in the vicinity of the Cenotaph was the pretty much inevitable result of the Home Secretary’s witless intervention.
Following the article, there was a lot of speculation about whther she would be sacked, more so when it turned out that the PM’s office had seen the article and sent back amendments, which were ignored. Obviously, after a day of riot and tumult, that speculation only grew stronger.
This was essentially a test of Sunak’s strength. Braverman was only Home Secretary because he did a deal with her in the leadership election - give me your support, I give you your old job back. If he didn’t sack her it would be an admission that he couldn’t stand on his own two feet.
He sacked her this morning.
Rishi Sunak sacks Suella Braverman as home secretary - BBC News