UK

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailFormer Prime Minister Boris Johnson has faced two days of questioning at the Covid inquiry – and his answers have illicited more questions from our readers.Mr Johnson was heckled as he arrived at the hearing this morning, having already been booed by crowds of bereaved families on Wednesday.During his first day of testimony, Mr Johnson’s apology to the nation was interrupted by four people who staged a protest in the hearing room.In Wednesday’s hearing, Mr Johnson admitted the pandemic’s impact on the NHS had “bewildered” him. He also acknowledged the government’s policy appeared “incoherent” on the timing of actions in light of the graph in March 2020 suggesting the NHS could be overwhelmed.It came after an explosive two months at the inquiry, which heard Mr Johnson was “obsessed with older people accepting their fate” and dying from the virus; entrusted his top adviser Dominic Cummings with too much power; and wanted to “let the bodies pile high” to avoid imposing a second Covid lockdown.As we hear from the man in charge of the UK’s Covid response, I’ve been answering questions from readers about the former prime minister and the Covid inquiry.Here are nine questions from Independent readers – and my answers from the “Ask Me Anything” event.Q: What do you think the chances of Johnson making a proper return to politics are? And could the Covid inquiry damage any plans he might have for further public life?SS7890A: I don’t think Boris Johnson is likely to return to politics. Whatever your view of the government’s actual policies on coronavirus, his behaviour seemed erratic and un-reassuring to too many people. He retains some support among grassroots members of the Conservative Party, but probably not as much as he thinks, and the main obstacle to a return remains the parliamentary party. Tory MPs never supported him strongly – they turned to him in desperation in 2019 to get them out of a deadlocked parliament. I think the chances of their turning to him again in some future crisis are extremely low.Q: Who’s going to come off worse… Cummings, Hancock, Gove or Johnson?Adam679A: One of the reasons I think the inquiry is a bad idea is that I don’t think it should be about apportioning blame. The important thing is to learn lessons. And one of the worst responses to politics is to think that politicians with whom one disagrees should go to jail. That is pure “lock her up” Trumpism.Q: Realistically, did we have a better person who could be in charge than Boris? Only Jacob Rees-Mogg, but a good job was done. A lot of countries waited too long and then followed Great Britain.polarbearA: I think most recent prime ministers would have handled the problem better than Boris Johnson, because they would have taken it more seriously earlier and would have got to grips with the detail. As for current or recent ministers, I think Rishi Sunak would have been better, but he had only just moved up from the most junior cabinet position (chief secretary to the Treasury) at the start of the pandemic.Q: Could Boris or others be charged with misconduct in public office? If so, who can bring this charge forward?LoneFishA: Not reading a document, taking a day off and not attending a meeting are not serious enough in themselves in my view to warrant anything like you suggest. The breach of coronavirus regulations was dealt with by penalty notices (and I didn’t agree with the ones issued to Johnson and Sunak). Hancock’s breach of guidelines was dealt with by his resignation as a minister.Misconduct in public office is an antique charge that would need to be revived only if other sanctions were not available. It is usually wheeled out by people to mean, “I disagree with what this politician did very strongly indeed,” and is only one step down from, “They should go to jail.”I don’t think the government handled the pandemic particularly well, but neither do I think they did so particularly badly.Q: Will the enquiry report its findings before the next General Election?ParcelOfRogueA: I imagine that you have already made up your mind about its findings! It is a good question, though, because I am not sure what the timetable is for interim reports. The inquiry will go on for years, but the current module (“Core UK decision-making and political governance”) has nearly finished public hearings. I will get back to after this AMA if I can find out anything.Q: Did Boris Johnson send the WhatsApp messages to himself? Surely there must be other phones which sent and received the messages from Johnson’s phone? Or does deleting messages on one phone automatically delete them on other phones?HectorshouseA: I would have thought all WhatsApp messages are saved on servers, but I think this issue is a distraction, not least because I don’t think the inquiry should be happening at all, but also because we know what the issues are, and the idea that “the truth” is somehow concealed in secret deleted messages is always wrong.Q: How much is costing us tax players to fund Johnson’s legal advice during the inquiry?Blue63A: Quite a lot, but I don’t think the inquiry should be happening at all.Q: Would it not be fair to say the the parliamentry Conservatives were in thrall to US libertarianism when it came to the pandemic?Jim987A: I think that is a peculiar way to describe the views of elected representatives in the House of Commons! Some MPs who represented the people supported “zero covid”; others were opposed to lockdowns altogether; most were in between, and parliament rightly had a say in deciding the policy as it should in a democracy. If anything, it was a problem that MPs were unable to scrutinise legislation sufficiently – there were cases of laws being passed and then voted on in parliament, and of laws being passed within a few hours.Q: Shouldn’t we expect Sunak to want to remain PM for as long as possible? In other words, an election in winter 2024?Matthew RedgraveA: That is the default assumption in politics. Harold Wilson is the only recent clear example of a prime minister giving up office before they had to. Although Baldwin and Salisbury from longer ago also gave up voluntarily, probably because of illness in all cases. Tony Blair is an interesting case, in that he managed to leave before the mechanisms for ejecting him were actually triggered.I think Rishi Sunak will probably want to stay in office nearly as long as legally possible. He may go for the last possible date for a general election, in January 2025, although that would probably be too unpopular, so I agree with Matthew that October or November 2024 is more likely.Logically, with Sunak’s political problems getting worse month by month, he ought to go for an early election so that he can save as many seats as possible from the deluge. But prime ministers want to hold on, and they want to believe that things will eventually get better even as they continue to get worse.These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by John Rentoul at 11am GMT on Thursday 7 December Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.John also sends a weekly Commons Confidential newsletter exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, taking you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak is fighting to save his flagship Rwanda policy – and his premiership – after a desperate defence of his new deportation bill failed to stop a growing revolt by Tory MPs on both sides of the party.The beleaguered PM dodged questions about whether he could be forced to call a general election if he cannot get the bill through parliament, in the most significant political crisis he has faced at No 10.Hardliners on the Tory right said they could rebel in an “existential” showdown vote on Tuesday, while moderates in the One Nation group remain “nervous” about backing the bill.Mr Sunak was warned that he could even face a leadership vote soon if he “antagonised” more MPs into submitting no-confidence letters. Some MPs claimed almost two dozen letters have already been submitted to the Tories’ all-powerful 1922 Committee – which requires 53 of them to hold a vote on his future.The prime minister tried to face down right-wingers at a hastily convened press conference, telling them their demands to opt out of all human rights law would see his controversial Rwanda scheme collapse.But the Tory leader stopped stop of threatening to expel them if they defy him next week – rejecting the idea he will turn the bill into a “back me or sack me” confidence vote.Sunak declined to say whether he will call an election if his bill is defeatedAccused by the opposition of being a “lame duck” losing control of his “sinking ship”, a tetchy Mr Sunak was forced to deny his government had become a “joke” – and appeared to plead with Labour to back his under-threat legislative plan.Ducking questions on whether he would win support from Tory rebels, Mr Sunak said: “The real question when it comes to parliament… what are the Labour party going to do about this vote?”Mr Sunak also claimed there was only “an inch” between him and bitterly divided MPs – but hardliners on the right remain furious that he chose not to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights.Dozens of right-wing MPs – including members of the 35-strong New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group and the European Research Group – have convened a “star chamber” to help decide before Tuesday if they should vote for the bill.They are unimpressed by Mr Sunak’s claim that legal challenges by individual asylum seekers threatened with a one-way ticket to Rwanda will be “vanishingly rare”.Sunak was rocked by the resignation of hardliner Robert JenrickOne senior figure on the Tory right told The Independent that they were angry the bill allows for “spurious legal claims” that would see the courts “clogged up”.And the leading MP warned Mr Sunak not to force their hand with a confidence vote. “It would be very foolish of him to make it a confidence vote because it would antagonise people. They might then put a [no-confidence] letter in.”Asked if the threshold of 53 no-confidence could be triggered, the MP said: “I think so. A badly watered-down bill will make people consider a letter. It’s existential for the prime minister to get this right.”One right-wing Tory rebel said they knew the names of 18 MPs who had already submitted no-confidence letters to The 1922 Committee, according to The Mirror.Cabinet minister Chris Heaton-Harris played down the chances of Mr Sunak facing a vote on his leadership as “very unlikely”. And Tory chair Richard Holden told reporters: “I think it’d be insanity to do that.”Tory veteran Sir Charles Walker – former 1922 committee chairman – said an election would have to be called if a “ridiculous” vote in Mr Sunak’s leadership was triggered. “If the threshold of 50 or so letters was crossed then the idea of another leadership [vote] is a nonsense – we have to go straight to a general election,” he told the News Agents podcast.Home secretary James Cleverly watching Sunak’s press conference Mr Sunak has to decide how much pressure to put on his MPs before Tuesday. Convention dictates that the PM would either resign or dissolve parliament and call an election if he loses such a vote made into a confidence issue in his government. He also faces a major threat from the One Nation group of Tory moderates, which boasts of around 100 MPs. Centrists are not happy about the bill’s move to disapply the Human Rights Act, and the attempt to stop any court challenging ministers’ insistence that Rwanda is safe.Senior moderates are understood to be undecided about how to vote on Tuesday. A source in the One Nation wing revealed that MPs were “very nervous” – and said the PM’s press conference claim that the courts could not stop ministers had only inflamed opinion.Moderate MP Tobias Ellwood said he would not support the Rwanda bill if there is “any prospect” of breaking international laws. “We uphold international law. We don’t break it,” he told Times Radio – admitting Rwanda was “ripping our party in half”.Mr Sunak said Robert Jenrick – a former Sunak ally who resigned on Wednesday – was “simply not right” to suggest the bill would fail, insisting its move to disapply the Human Rights Act “blocks every single reason that has ever been used to prevent flights”.Suella Braverman denied ‘spreading poison’ to bring Sunak down Sacked home secretary Suella Braverman piled more pressure on Thursday by saying “This bill will fail.” In a tense exchange with BBC Radio 4 host Nick Robinson, Ms Braverman denied trying to oust Mr Sunak by “spreading poison” in the Tory party.One senior Tory MP loyal to Mr Sunak told The Independent that many were “appalled” by Ms Braverman’s attacks and “disappointed” in Mr Jenrick’s move.“It’s a storm in a tea cup,” the MP said on the prospect of right-wingers voting against the bill – predicting they would not be willing to bring the PM down over it. “I’ll be very surprised if they vote against. Why wouldn’t they back it?”But George Osborne said the Tory civil wars had well and truly “reopened”. The former Tory chancellor told his Political Currency podcast: “[Mr Sunak] can’t now claim anymore to have stabilised things [after Boris Johnson and Liz Truss].”Former No 10 strategist Dominic Cummings said Mr Sunak’s position was now “pure farce”. Asked if Mr Cummings was right to claim Rwanda would send more asylum seekers to the UK than the other way around, a No 10 spokesperson said: “No, we don’t think that’s right.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailBoris Johnson fell silent for three minutes at the Covid inquiry on Thursday morning as he was confronted by all the times he talked about “letting it rip” through the population.The former prime minister has been in largely good spirits responding to questioning from Hugo Keith KC, the probe’s lead counsel.But Mr Johnson looked distinctly uneasy as he was shown five damning diary extracts by Sir Patrick Vallance.The extracts included Sir Patrick’s recollection of Mr Johnson saying the elderly have “had a good innings” and should be allowed to catch the virus. They also showed Mr Johnson saying “get Covid, live longer”, in reference to the average age at which people died from the virus.On a brutal morning for the former PM, here are the key takeaways from his second day at the Covid inquiry:Boris Johnson has backtracked on his witness statementMr Johnson, who quit as an MP before he could be booted out for lying to parliament, has backtracked on his witness statement to the official Covid inquiry.He was grilled by Mr Keith over the claim he knew the controversial Eat Out to Help Out scheme was discussed with top scientists Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Whitty before it was launched.Having claimed in his written submission to the probe that it was, when questioned he backtracked, saying instead that he “assumed” it must have been.Both Sir Chris and Sir Patrick have said they were blind-sided by the hospitality scheme.Boris Johnson called his own rules “stupid”Covid inquiry counsel Hugo Keith referred to a diary entry in Sir Patrick Vallance’s evening notes “where you (Mr Johnson) exclaim in frustration, but plainly perhaps not to be taken too seriously, ‘Who made these stupid rules?’”Boris Johnson replied: “Yeah.”Mr Keith asked about any debate or discussion around the workability of regulations and any confusion which arose around them.Mr Johnson said: “We did try to make the rules as simple as we could but the problem was the effort to get people to self-isolate, to avoid contact – because of the complexities of human life – became extremely complicated.”Boris Johnson believes Partygate has been misrepresentedMr Johnson mounted an incredible defence of his lockdown-breaching behaviour – and that of Whitehall officials – during the pandemic, saying the Partygate scandal has been mis-represented by the media.The former prime minister said the way repeated gatherings in Downing Street during the pandemic have been presented is a “travesty of the truth”.And Mr Johnson told the Covid inquiry: “The version of events that has entered the popular consciousness about what is supposed to have happened in Downing Street is a million miles from the reality of what actually happened in No10.”He added that some of the representations of what happened have been “absolutely absurd”.Boris Johnson called Partygate backlash “insane” and said: “Let’s smash on.”Mr Johnson admitted that he should have told people to behave better in Downing Street during the pandemic, but added “now we must smash on”. In a December 2021 WhatsApp, as the scandal was growing, Mr Johnson told cabinet secretary Simon Case that he was “really sorry” for the “grief” it was causing him. “This whole business is insane,” he said. Mr Case replied to the PM: “Thanks PM, it is a bit grim, but hopefully it will pass.” And the former prime minister wrote back: “In retrospect we all should have told people – above all [comms chief] Lee Cain – to think about their behaviour in No10 and how it would look.“But now we must smash on.” “Let it rip” was a phrase in “common parlance”, Boris Johnson claimedMr Johnson mounted an emotive defence of his repeated use of the phrase “let it rip” during the pandemic, arguing he was simply trying to “speak for everybody” who was not in the scientific meetings.The former PM claimed the phrase was used “plenty” in conversations with him and said “you would expect me to be talking about that”.He went on to say he “needed to have the counterarguments” to explain to the public why “letting it rip” would be a mistake.Tiers did not work, Boris Johnson admitsThe ex-PM said he was “very sad about it”, but that his tiered local lockdown system did not work. Mr Johnson said it was “worth a try”, but the local restrictions became “invidious” as local areas found themselves in varying degrees of lockdowns. And he was asked by Mr Keith about then health secretary Matt Hancock’s claim that he “knew” the system would not work. But Mr Johnson said he did not remember being told as much by Mr Hancock.Boris Johnson was “absolutely terrified” of OmicronMr Johnson said the Omicron Covid variant was “absolutely terrifying”.“It was very transmissible. And there seemed a real risk that it would do a huge huge amount of damage to people,” Mr Johnson told the Covid inquiry.Boris Johnson thinks he and Nicola Sturgeon “got on very well”The former PM insisted that he and the ex-Scottish first minister “got on very well and had a friendly relationship” – despite a claim from one of his top aides that they “generally didn’t like each other very much”.In his evidence, Mr Johnson’s old chief of staff Lord Lister said: “There was quite a lot of tension between the Prime Minister and the First Minister, they had no real personal relationship of any kind other than that they, I think, generally didn’t like each other very much.”But Mr Johnson told the Covid inquiry he was “sorry to hear Eddie said that”, and insisted he and Ms Sturgeon “got on very well and had a friendly relationship”. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email For months, Albanian opposition parties have used flares and noise to disrupt Parliament, in protest at what they describe as the authoritarian rule of the governing Socialist Party. On Thursday, lawmakers passed the annual budget and other draft laws, despite opposition claims that the left-wing Socialists have blocked the establishment of commissions to investigate allegations of government corruption. The disturbances started in October just before prosecutors accused Sali Berisha, 79, former prime minister and president and now the main leader of the center-right Democratic Party, of corruption over of a land-buying scheme that’s under legal investigation in the capital, Tirana. Opposition parliamentarians regularly pile up chairs, use flares, start small fires and even physically grab microphones when their Socialist counterparts take the floor.The governing Socialists, led by Prime Minister Edi Rama, hold 74 of the 140 seats in Parliament, enough to pass the 2024 budget in an eight-minute vote and then close the session.The opposition pledges to step up its fight until its right to establish investigative committees is accepted.The disruption in Parliament may be an obstacle to much-needed reforms at a time when the European Union has agreed to start the process of harmonizing Albanian laws with those of the EU. Last year, the bloc agreed to launch membership negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia. After 18 months of vetting, Brussels said Albania is ready to take the next step and begin negotiating specific chapters.Albania has been a member of NATO since 2009. WHY IS THE OPPOSITION PROTESTING?The opposition is protesting the use of Public Private Partnership projects, or PPP, launched by Rama’s Cabinet. Because the government lacks funds of its own, it puts capital projects out to tender by private companies, who then receive an annual fee for several years. The opposition claims the public money from the PPPs has been misused for personal profit, and the parliamentary investigative commissions would probe alleged cases of corruption involving Rama and other top government officials.In September, a former Albanian environment minister was convicted and imprisoned, along with other officials, for bribery over a contract to build an incinerator.A former Socialist deputy prime minister left the country after being accused of corruption in a case linked to another incinerator. A former Socialist health minister has also been accused of corruption over a PPP contract worth 100 million euros ($100 million) for a lab to sterilize and distribute medical equipment. The government says the opposition’s requests are unconstitutional, following a ruling from the Constitutional Court that a parliamentary commission cannot be set up while the judiciary is dealing with a case. PROTESTS YIELD NO RESULTS FOR A DIVIDED OPPOSITION After 10 years in opposition, the center-right Democratic Party is weakened and fractured, with the main grouping led by Berisha, the longest-serving politician in post-communist Albania.In May 2021 Berisha and his family members were barred by the United States from entering the country, and later also the United Kingdom, because of their alleged involvement in corruption.Prime Minister Rama says Berisha is exploiting what remains of the once-dominant Democratic Party for his personal profit in the legal battle. While previously he could gather thousands of supporters at rallies, Berisha is now limited to disrupting sessions of Parliament. ANY SOLUTION IN SIGHT?Opposition lawmakers have pledged to step up their protests, without explaining how. Berisha has called for “civil disobedience,” but so far only Parliament has been disrupted. Calls for rallies have failed to turn into reality.For their part, the governing Socialists are trying to work as normal, noting that Parliament has approved the largest budget ever, twice the size of 2013 when the Democrats left power.Both sides are maintaining their stance, with no sign of sitting down to find a solution, which in post-communist Albania has often come only after intervention by international mediators.___Follow Llazar Semini at https://twitter.com/lsemini More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailThe fund management firm co-founded by former business secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg is to be wound down after recently losing its largest client.London-based Somerset Capital Management said it was in advanced discussions to transfer its key UK funds, along with their investment managers, to a new investment adviser, but would be “closing its wider institutional business in London”.Somerset has seen its assets under management plunge after its biggest client, St James’s Place, last month ended its relationship with the firm, dealing a massive blow as it withdrew a reported 2.5 billion US dollars (£2 billion) in assets.The move is said to have unsettled remaining clients with Somerset.Sir Jacob co-founded Somerset with two other colleagues in 2007, and the Conservative MP has retained a minority stake in the firm.At its height five years ago, Somerset had around 10 billion US dollars (£7.9 billion) in assets under management and, not long after, is understood to have rejected a takeover approach worth up to £90 million from rival Artemis Investment Management.But the recent client outflows have left it with a reported 1 billion US dollars (£794 million) in assets as of October.Oliver Crawley, partner at Somerset, said: “It has been a privilege to manage capital for world-leading institutions and clients for over 16 years.”He said that if talks to transfer funds – including the top performing Somerset Asia Income Fund and Somerset Emerging Market Dividend Growth Fund – were agreed, “this will ensure the seamless continuity of these funds and their managers, while positioning them for continued growth”.He added: “The current teams have delivered strong performance for their investors and continue to do so.“We hope a transition can be secured which we believe will give the funds a bright future.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailEmbattled Tory leader Rishi Sunak will be grilled about his actions during the pandemic when he appears before the Covid inquiry on Monday.The PM is fighting to save his premiership after resignation of immigration minister Robert Jenrick, as he failed to appease the Tory right with his Rwanda legislation.Adding to Mr Sunak’s woes, it emerged that he will be hauled up in front of the public inquiry within days to answer questions about his time as chancellor.He is likely to be questioned about the impact of his controversial policies such as the Eat Out to Help Out scheme to boost the restaurant trade during a resurgence of the virus.Government advisers referred to Mr Sunak as “Dr Death” during the pandemic, WhatsApp messages shown to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry have revealed, because of concerns about the impact of his push to keep economic activity going.The correspondence between epidemiologist Professor John Edmunds and Professor Dame Angela McLean – now chief scientific adviser to the government – took place during a meeting in September 2020.Dame Angela messaged Prof Edmunds, referring to “Dr Death the Chancellor”, the inquiry was told.Sunak will be under scrutiny over ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ Prof Edmunds told the inquiry the reference “could well be” about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, which was devised by then-chancellor Mr Sunak and deployed a month earlier in a bid to kickstart the restaurant industry following lockdown.The announcement that Mr Sunak will face a whole day of questioning on Monday came as former prime minister Boris Johnson began his second day of questioning.Baroness Hallett’s inquiry has heard that scientists and then-health secretary Matt Hancock were left out of discussions around the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, which offered discounted meals in summer 2020 to help the hospitality trade after lockdown measures were lifted.Mr Hancock told the inquiry he was not told about the scheme until the day it was announced and “argued very strongly” against the possibility of extending it at the end of August 2020.The inquiry has also heard that former chief scientific adviser Professor Sir Patrick Vallance, England’s chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty and their former deputies Dame Angela and Sir Jonathan Van-Tam were also not told about the scheme.Sir Jonathan said: “I would have said ‘This is exactly encouraging what we’ve been trying to suppress and get on top of in the last few months’. So it didn’t feel sensible to me.”Prof Edmunds said he did not want to blame Eat Out To Help Out for the second Covid-19 wave, but the “optics” around the scheme were “terrible”.He said he understood the restaurant sector needed support, but that this “was not really just supporting them”.“They could have just given them money,” he added. “This was a scheme to encourage people to take an epidemiological risk.”In response to the comments, inquiry counsel Hugo Keith said: “To make it clear, there is very little or there’s weak epidemiological evidence to show that infections in the areas in which people took up the scheme went up significantly. Your point is at the optics of it.”Prof Edmunds said advisers were measuring public behaviour in August and at the time there was a change. He added: “I wouldn’t say it was Eat Out To Help Out, but it was contributing.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailSuella Braverman has denied trying to oust Rishi Sunak by “spreading poison” in the Tory party, as the PM was left reeling from the shock resignation of Robert Jenrick as immigration minister.Mr Sunak’s premiership has been rocked by the resignation of Ms Braverman’s ally, as the PM failed to appease the Tory right with his plan to “disapply” the UK Human Rights Act in Rwanda deportation cases.Mr Sunak will hold a press conference at 11am this morning as he faces a growing crisis over his Rwanda plans, with No 10 said to be increasingly worried by the number of no-confidence letters being submitted by Tory MPs.In a bruising interview of BBC Radio 4, the sacked home secretary defended her outspoken attacks on Mr Sunak and piled further pressure on him by insisting his Rwanda deportation legislation is doomed to fail. Ms Braverman said she was merely being “honest” and would not “shy away” from make further controversial comments. “If that upsets polite society I am sorry about it,” she said.The right-winger – who has claimed Mr Sunak is “weak” – was challenged by Today programmer interviewer Nick Robinson, who told her: “You are a headline grabber and you do it by spreading poison, even within your own party.”Ms Braverman replied: “Sometimes honesty is uncomfortable, but I’m not going to shy away from telling people how it is and from plain speaking, and if that upsets polite society, then I’m sorry about that.”The tense exchange came as Ms Braverman attacked Mr Sunak’s legislation, saying: “This bill will fail.” She said the reality “is it won’t work and it will not stop the boats.”Former home secretary Suella Braverman said she would not ‘shy away from telling people how it is’ The right of the party furious that the PM chose not to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mr Sunak is reportedly worried by the number of no confidence letters being submitted – amid warnings he could soon face a leadership challenge.In his scathing resignation letter, Mr Jenrick made clear he wanted to bypass the ECHR – calling the bill “a triumph of hope over experience”. And Ms Braverman told the BBC the bill “will allow a merry go round of legal claims and litigation. Ultimately, this bill will fail.”Since being fired, Ms Braverman is widely seen to be plotting a bid to succeed Mr Sunak. On Wednesday she warned the PM that the Tories were heading for “electoral oblivion” if he failied to thwart international human rights law.But she denied speculation she is plotting to bring down Mr Sunak’s government, saying “no one’s talking about leadership or changing leadership”. “That’s nonsense,” she told the BBC.Robert Jenrick said Sunak bill is ‘triumph of hope over experience’ In an extraordinary exchange, Ms Braverman was repeatedly asked whether Mr Sunak was “lying” when he claimed the Rwandan government had threatened to pull out of the deal if Britain breached international treaties. “I don’t know [whether he is lying],” she eventually said.A No 10 accused Ms Braverman of denying reality. A Downing Street source said: “Conservatives need to work within reality. What she wants isn’t available, the Rwandans have said no.”Mr Sunak also fired back at Mr Jenrick – telling him his resignation was based on a “fundamental misunderstanding of the situation”. The PM said Rwanda would “collapse the entire scheme” if he had gone any further.The Tory leader is reportedly ready to threatens to call an election if right-wing MPs threaten to vote against his legislation. The PM is considering making the vital showdown on the legislation next week – with a vote expected on Tuesday – a confidence issue.Convention dictates that the PM would either resign or dissolving parliament and call an election if he loses such a vote. However, No 10 sources have denied that next week’s showdown vote will be treated as a confidence vote in the government.Cabinet minister Chris Heaton-Harris played down the chances of Rishi Sunak facing a vote on his leadership as “very unlikely”. The Northern Ireland secretary told LBC: “I’d say vanishingly small.”Mr Heaton-Harris added: “I don’t think it’s as a big a story as is being made. I don’t like anybody resigning from my party, but when I was Boris Johnson’s chief whip… Pretty much everyone did. Maybe I have a scale of proportion that others don’t have.”Rishi Sunak is under huge pressure from Tory centrists and right-wingers Despite the huge damage done by Mr Jenrick’s resignation, the PM had been warned that he faced an even more damaging rebellion – with the possible resignation of up to 10 moderate ministers – if he had tried to bypass the ECHR.Senior Tory moderate Damian Green, chair of the One Nation group – which boasts support from around 100 MPs – has warned Mr Sunak that he “should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and HRA”.A spokesman for the One Nation group said it welcomed the government’s decision to stick with “international commitments”, and taking legal advice on whether to support the bill.Despite the cautious backing of centrists, senior moderate Tobias Ellwood told Times Radio that he would not support the Rwanda bill if there is “any prospect” of breaking international laws. “We uphold international law. We don’t break it.”Mr Ellwood said the row over Rwanda was “ripping our party in half”. The Tory MP added: “If this infighting continues, it will not just cost us the next general election, it will see our party splinter into two between the centre right and the far right.”The new Sunak bill includes provisions to disapply relevant parts of the Human Rights Act so they cannot be factored into court decisions on deportation cases – but does not try to disapply the ECHR.However, the legislation will ensure UK ministers “retain the decision on whether or not to comply” with interim orders from the European Court of Human Rights – the Strasbourg body that oversees the ECHR.Former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve told BBC Newsnight: “We are watching Tory splits between those MPs that believe in the rule of law and those Conservatives who do not.”The Tory right are also angry at the legislation still allows for individual legal challenges. Mr Heaton-Harris acknowledged that people faced with being sent on a one-way trip to Rwanda will still have some legal routes to challenge the decision.The right-wing Brexiteer Mark Francois said: “If under this legislation those people could continue to appeal and appeal in order to delay being put on a flight, what’s the point of the bill?” More