So Long, Suella, and Farewell, British Tories

T he first rule of political office is that you should leave your party and country in better condition than you found them. That’s why there’s no question that David Cameron, prime minister of the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2016, was a failure. And that’s why it’s almost incomprehensible that, for all the trouble he’s caused, he’s been plucked from his lucrative post-political career by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, plopped into the House of Lords, and bestowed with the esteemed high office of foreign secretary.

The appointment smacks of desperation. Reinstating Cameron to government is an attempt to lend Sunak some much-needed credibility. It is also an attempt to distract from the unpleasant business of Suella Braverman, Sunak’s former home secretary, whom he fired last week after she penned an unauthorized op-ed for the Times of London criticizing the British police for their “double standards” in being soft on anti-Israel thugs yet harsh on others.

As NR’s Andrew Stuttaford explains, the Braverman debacle was in part because she’d continued to undermine Sunak’s authority. Nevertheless, “it is hard to see Braverman’s firing as a winning move for Sunak. It seems likely to further disenchant already disillusioned Tory loyalists, as well as many of those voters (many of them traditional Labour supporters) who gave the Conservatives a chance in the 2019 election.”

This is especially pertinent given that Braverman, who doubtless knew her Times article would prompt her removal, has sought to inflict maximum political damage on her way out. She wrote an open letter to the prime minister, calling him “weak” and outlining the ways in which he has “manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver” on important policy priorities.

Among Braverman’s complaints is that legal migration has not been reformed or reduced, as the prime minister promised. As for illegal migration, there remains a dearth of legislation needed to “stop the boats” that arrive on British shores every day by the hundreds. Braverman accused Sunak of slow-walking the Northern Ireland protocol, which is important in avoiding an Irish Sea border, essentially putting the EU ahead of U.K. interests. She also pointed out that the prime minister still hasn’t issued “unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children” despite promising to do so by the end of summer.

These criticisms are demonstrably true. Braverman is controversial; her critics deem her too right-wing in her policies and too “extreme” in her rhetoric. But whatever her unpopularity, she has a plan and a vision for her party, whereas it increasingly appears that Sunak does not.

The migration crisis has gotten out of control. The government’s Rwanda policy, a scheme to deport asylum seekers to a third country for processing, was struck down by the U.K. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Braverman saw this defeat coming. That’s why she argued for leaving the European Court of Human Rights, or at least blocking international legislation with “notwithstanding clauses.”

Braverman accused Sunak of “magical thinking,” of believing that he could will his “way through this without upsetting polite opinion.” With the cries of jihad ringing across the streets of London, Braverman urged the government to ban “hate marches” outright. While this is controversial, even in the U.K., where free-speech protections aren’t as strong as here in the U.S., Braverman argued that drastic measures were needed because “Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalization and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years.”

So, what does Sunak’s “reshuffle” achieve, when the credibility of all other cabinet members combined is overshadowed by David Cameron’s looming legacy of disaster?

Remember David Cameron, the prime minister who triggered a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EU, without giving any thought to what should happen if the country chose to leave? Cameron, whose foreign policy included toppling Libyan dictator Colonel Qaddafi and worsening the migrant crisis that was already manifest on British shores. Cameron, who spent his premiership cozying up to China, and undermining international security; already, the CCP is rubbing its hands at the news of his return. Cameron, who led the campaign for gay marriage and who has made a habit of LGBTQ virtue-signaling ever since.

All this does is reinforce the impression that the Tory party does not have any real claim to conservative tradition nor any coherent answer to the biggest challenges facing Britain today. It proves once and for all that no lessons have been learned. And it confirms what many voters have long felt: that the future of British conservatism, if it has one at all, lies outside the Conservative Party.