Time the PM brought ‘dog-whistling’ Home Office to heel

It is never a good idea for any “here today, gone tomorrow” politician to pick a fight with a national treasure. It does, however, require special reserves of ineptitude for such a figure – Suella Braverman, predictably enough – to offend an entire trove of much-loved national treasures.

Ms Braverman’s careless and dismissive remarks about gay people bogusly seeking asylum were predictably offensive, and she has suffered the inevitable backlash. Whatever political advantage she may have sought with her bizarre intervention will rightly be swamped by the revulsion it provokes – and even in the Conservative circles she seeks to cultivate in her barely disguised leadership campaign.

Sir Elton John, global star and part of the very identity of the British nation, and his husband, the filmmaker David Furnish, have pointed out that what the home secretary said in her ill-starred speech in Washington risks “legitimising hate and violence” against gay people. Sir Elton and Mr Furnish say they are “very concerned” by her comments, calling for “more compassion, support and acceptance for those seeking a safer future”. Given Ms Braverman’s track record, that hope is sure to be disappointed.

Nor is it likely that Ms Braverman will be wise enough to pay much heed to Sir Ian McKellen. He, too, finds that her remarks are “laced with a good dollop of prejudice”. As he argues, “there are certain people in China and Russia and Iraq who said: ‘There are no gay people in our country.’ When you’ve got that sort of stupid attitude, that can lead to great cruelty. And if someone’s escaping from that, they ought to be welcomed to this country.”

It is doubly surprising, and disappointing, that the prime minister approved her inflammatory speech to the American Enterprise Institute, if indeed the usual protocols were followed and he did actually endorse it, or at least tolerate it. Mr Sunak is fast losing his reputation for being an evidence-driven rational politician. He has either not taken much interest in the composition of asylum claims, or he has and he doesn’t mind that his home secretary is painting a distorted picture of the reality.

So far from being a major part of the flow of irregular migration, the proportions are, if anything, surprisingly small – 1 per cent. Indeed, it tends to disprove Ms Braverman’s at-best simplistic claims about the number of “potential” refugees heading for the UK.

If many countries such as, say, Uganda have laws such as its Anti-Homosexuality Act, which carry the death penalty for a normal act of human sexuality, then we might expect rather more to be making the hazardous journey – and for the bogus claims to be bulking up the statistics, which they are not. Perhaps our notably numerate prime minister might like to take a glance at Ms Braverman’s claims.

The more uncomfortable conclusion, assuming Mr Sunak knew what Ms Braverman was up to, is that he is too weak to stop her, or that it finds her “dog-whistling” expeditions electorally expedient. Either way, it does not reflect well on him.

It is widely assumed that Ms Braverman was only reappointed as home secretary when he formed his administration last October – days earlier, she had been fired by Liz Truss, for leaking – because he desperately needed the support of her allies on the far right to secure the leadership. Since then, she has been pushing her luck with wearying frequency.

Mr Sunak seems reluctant to take back control of her. The forthcoming reshuffle, towards the end of the year, represents a final chance before the general election for him to stamp his authority and his government. She is no longer that popular in the party, because of serial incompetence, and she alienates more voters than she attracts to the Conservative cause.

She needs to go, or to be made to shut up.