holding the rest of the country to ransom while the tories fight among themselves. suella braverman promised she would have more to say after her sacking yesterday. tonight, she has vented her anger. in a letter dripping with derision, the former home secretary accuses the prime minister of putting off the tough decisions in order to minimize political risk — "weakness," she says. we will get reaction to that letter tonight from our panel, the deputy political editor for the guardian, peter walker, and from washington, the conservative commentator carrie sheffield. president biden is about to touch down in san francisco, ahead of a crunch meeting tomorrow with the chinese president xijinping. and we will be keeping an eye on a crucial vote in washington tonight. the house scheduled to vote later on a bill that could avert a government shutdown saturday. was this the night of the long knife? it remains to be seen whether suella braverman has inflicted a mortal wound on this prime minister. but the open letter she published tonight is a zinger — no other way to describe it. she accuses the prime minister of betrayal, weakness, wishful thinking, perhaps of more consequence, a lack of integrity. the home secretary was sacked monday after she was accused of stoking tensions ahead of pro—palestinian marches in london. in one poll, 70% of the public said rishi sunak was right to sack suella braverman. only i7% thought he was wrong. but in a three—page assassination of the prime minister's year in office, the former home secretary says that while she may not have always found the right words, she was the one giving voice to the quiet majority that had voted for the conservatives in 2019. the former cabinet minister sirjacob rees—mogg — who's the conservative mp for north east somerset gave us his reaction. her letter is eyewateringly excoriating. i've never seen a resignation like it. i think suella's pointing out that a number of promises were made to her when she became home secretary and those haven't been delivered on. and, yes, we have had a number of resets. we had a reset with the party conference, we had a reset with the king's speech, but, really, what needs to be done is delivering on the policies we promised in 2019, which is why people voted for us. before she was home secretary she was attorney general. before she was home secretary she was attorney general. we can speak now to dominic grieve, who served as a conservative mp between 1997 and 2019 and was attorney general under david cameron between 2010 and 2014. who of course is back in the cabinet as foreign secretary. good to see you, thank you for coming on the program. there is an awful lot in this letter. i wanted to pick up on two legal points that you might be able to help us with. 0bviously, she is preempting the decision of the supreme court tomorrow. she makes reference to what might happen if there were a defeat. she said she put forward legislative measures that would better ensure the government against that possibility of defeat. she accuses the prime minister of ignoring those arguments what might you be talking about? i assume she wanted to have legislative overrides so that in the event of the government losing tomorrow the government would breach his international legal obligations by frat dues passing through parliament, which was contrary —— past. 0ver parliament, which was contrary —— past. over the internal markets bill. of course she's no longer attorney general. in any attorney general will advise the prime minister acting in that way is a breach of the ministerial code quite apart from being the breach of the united kingdoms international obligations. she united kingdoms international obligations-— united kingdoms international obliuations. ,, ., ., ., obligations. she also talks about what would _ obligations. she also talks about what would happen _ obligations. she also talks about what would happen if _ obligations. she also talks about what would happen if she - obligations. she also talks about what would happen if she wins . obligations. she also talks abouti what would happen if she wins in obligations. she also talks about - what would happen if she wins in the supreme court. the case tomorrow the government would be coco who about it. she says even if that is the case because of the compromises that you insisted on in the illegal migration act the government will struggle to deliver our rwanda partnership in the way the public expects. what does she mean by that? not clear to me what she means by that. very difficult to know without knowing what the discussions might or might not have been in government. she clearly believes, she may be correct about this, problems about her deportation policy and notjust problems about her deportation policy and not just about the european connection with human rights it actually about her uk legal principles. and current uk law. but without knowing exactly what she is referring to is be difficult to comment.- difficult to comment. she's suggesting- -- _ difficult to comment. she's suggesting... she - difficult to comment. she's suggesting... she says - difficult to comment. she's suggesting... she says the | difficult to comment. she's i suggesting... she says the act difficult to comment. she's - suggesting... she says the act is a curious legal challenge. is she saying that it so week in terms of law that others will try and unpack an appeal against the decision? people are always entitled to bring legal challenges. that's why we have the freeborn citizens of the country if we think the law isn't being properly applied. 0ne if we think the law isn't being properly applied. one of the features of this letter is that she accuses the prime minister of betraying her in the sense that he made promises. i must say in reading those promises the first thing that immediately hits you is the promises are impractical term for tennessee. politics is the art of the possible. if those promises were really being discussed then it was pressures for suella problem and to think they will likely to be capable of being delivered. —— suella braverman. would require tearing up the legal rule book in many cases in a way which would jeopardise some of the united kingdoms international obligations, including things like the trade and cooperation agreement with the eu. 5m? the trade and cooperation agreement with the eu. ,, , the trade and cooperation agreement with the eu. ,, ._ , i. with the eu. stay with us if you would. we've _ with the eu. stay with us if you would. we've got _ with the eu. stay with us if you would. we've got peter - with the eu. stay with us if you would. we've got peter and - with the eu. stay with us if you l would. we've got peter and carry with us peter, let me talk to you 1st. i'm sure you've been very busy getting reaction to this letter. what if you picked up along the way? i think the interesting thing about the letter— i think the interesting thing about the letter is there's almost two parts, — the letter is there's almost two parts, the _ the letter is there's almost two parts, the technical legal part about— parts, the technical legal part about what rishi sunak might or might— about what rishi sunak might or might a — about what rishi sunak might or might a promise. i don't think many voters _ might a promise. i don't think many voters were — might a promise. i don't think many voters were real particular care about _ voters were real particular care about that. the problem for the conservatives under rishi sunak is it starting — conservatives under rishi sunak is it starting to feel a little bit boris — it starting to feel a little bit borisjohnson, liz truss. these ministers — borisjohnson, liz truss. these ministers peeling off the exact, saying — ministers peeling off the exact, saying their own things. i think particularly with conservative mps particularly with conservative mp5 on the _ particularly with conservative mp5 on the right, this idea which is not been _ on the right, this idea which is not been proved that he agreed to something in writing, he agreed to promises — something in writing, he agreed to promises. even if they're not realistic— promises. even if they're not realistic things, if he did that and she can _ realistic things, if he did that and she can prove it and it looks like he's _ she can prove it and it looks like he's a slightly slippery person, his bil he's a slightly slippery person, his big pledge moving into number ten was a _ big pledge moving into number ten was a steady hand after the chaos was a steady hand after the chaos was absent when you can trust. this sense _ was absent when you can trust. this sense of— was absent when you can trust. this sense of disorder and chaos cat voters — sense of disorder and chaos cat voters to — sense of disorder and chaos cat voters to get from boris johnson and liz truss. _ voters to get from boris johnson and liz truss. it — voters to get from boris johnson and liz truss, it infects the current that _ liz truss, it infects the current that they — liz truss, it infects the current that they are in quite a lot of trouble _ that they are in quite a lot of trouble. ., , ., .,, trouble. carrie, this will almost be a mirror for _ trouble. carrie, this will almost be a mirror for the _ trouble. carrie, this will almost be a mirror for the united _ trouble. carrie, this will almost be a mirror for the united states. - trouble. carrie, this will almost be a mirror for the united states. it l a mirrorfor the united states. it is immigration that divides politics in washington as well. it divides the republican party. and it doesn't appear that anyone has a formula to deal with illegal migration coming across their borders. brute deal with illegal migration coming across their borders.— across their borders. we certainly don't hear — across their borders. we certainly don't hear in _ across their borders. we certainly don't hear in the _ across their borders. we certainly don't hear in the united _ across their borders. we certainly don't hear in the united states. i across their borders. we certainly l don't hear in the united states. our homeland _ don't hear in the united states. our homeland security— don't hear in the united states. our homeland security secretary, - don't hear in the united states. our homeland security secretary, he - homeland security secretary, he could _ homeland security secretary, he could very — homeland security secretary, he could very well _ homeland security secretary, he could very well phase _ homeland security secretary, he i could very well phase impeachment homeland security secretary, he - could very well phase impeachment in our united _ could very well phase impeachment in our united states _ could very well phase impeachment in our united states house _ could very well phase impeachment in our united states house of— our united states house of representatives— our united states house of representatives because l our united states house of| representatives because of our united states house of- representatives because of his vast incompetence _ representatives because of his vast incompetence i_ representatives because of his vast incompetence. i would _ representatives because of his vast incompetence. i would say- representatives because of his vast incompetence. i would say you - representatives because of his vast incompetence. i would say you all l incompetence. i would say you all are leading — incompetence. i would say you all are leading us _ incompetence. i would say you all are leading us in _ incompetence. i would say you all are leading us in the _ incompetence. i would say you all are leading us in the sense - incompetence. i would say you all are leading us in the sense that l incompetence. i would say you all i are leading us in the sense that you have some — are leading us in the sense that you have some geographic— are leading us in the sense that you have some geographic boundaries. are leading us in the sense that youl have some geographic boundaries to help have some geographic boundaries to heip prevent — have some geographic boundaries to help prevent what _ have some geographic boundaries to help prevent what we _ have some geographic boundaries to help prevent what we have, - have some geographic boundaries to help prevent what we have, which i have some geographic boundaries to help prevent what we have, which is| help prevent what we have, which is basically _ help prevent what we have, which is basically a _ help prevent what we have, which is basically a massive _ help prevent what we have, which is basically a massive flood _ help prevent what we have, which is basically a massive flood of- basically a massive flood of millions _ basically a massive flood of millions of _ basically a massive flood of millions of people - basically a massive flood of millions of people who - basically a massive flood of millions of people who are i basically a massive flood of- millions of people who are here iiiegaiiv — millions of people who are here iiiegaiiv and _ millions of people who are here illegally. and according - millions of people who are here illegally. and according to - millions of people who are here illegally. and according to our i illegally. and according to our national— illegally. and according to our national institute _ illegally. and according to our national institute of— illegally. and according to our national institute of sciences. illegally. and according to our - national institute of sciences more likely— national institute of sciences more likely to _ national institute of sciences more likely to use — national institute of sciences more likely to use public— national institute of sciences more likely to use public welfare - national institute of sciences more likely to use public welfare than i likely to use public welfare than peopie — likely to use public welfare than peopie with _ likely to use public welfare than people with children _ likely to use public welfare than people with children and - likely to use public welfare than. people with children and families then families _ people with children and families then families with _ people with children and families then families with the _ people with children and families then families with the eight - people with children and families then families with the eight whol people with children and families i then families with the eight who are us citizens — then families with the eight who are us citizens so— then families with the eight who are us citizens. so our— then families with the eight who are us citizens. so our safety— then families with the eight who are us citizens. so our safety net - then families with the eight who are us citizens. so our safety net is - us citizens. so our safety net is already— us citizens. so our safety net is already strained. _ us citizens. so our safety net is already strained. we're - us citizens. so our safety net is already strained. we're alreadyj us citizens. so our safety net is - already strained. we're already more than $33 _ already strained. we're already more than $33 trillion _ already strained. we're already more than $33 trillion in _ already strained. we're already more than $33 trillion in debt _ already strained. we're already more than $33 trillion in debt here - already strained. we're already more than $33 trillion in debt here in - than $33 trillion in debt here in the us _ than $33 trillion in debt here in the us i— than $33 trillion in debt here in the us i can— than $33 trillion in debt here in the us. i can certainly- than $33 trillion in debt here in the us. i can certainly see - than $33 trillion in debt here in the us. i can certainly see the i the us. i can certainly see the frustration _ the us. i can certainly see the frustration echoed _ the us. i can certainly see the frustration echoed across - the us. i can certainly see the frustration echoed across the i the us. i can certainly see the - frustration echoed across the pond. you guys _ frustration echoed across the pond. you guys have _ frustration echoed across the pond. you guys have a _ frustration echoed across the pond. you guys have a different _ frustration echoed across the pond. you guys have a different set - frustration echoed across the pond. you guys have a different set of - you guys have a different set of security— you guys have a different set of security issues _ you guys have a different set of security issues as _ you guys have a different set of security issues as it _ you guys have a different set of security issues as it relates - you guys have a different set of security issues as it relates to l security issues as it relates to peopie — security issues as it relates to peopie coming _ security issues as it relates to peopie coming up— security issues as it relates to people coming up from - security issues as it relates toi people coming up from middle security issues as it relates to - people coming up from middle eastern countries _ people coming up from middle eastern countries was — people coming up from middle eastern countries was that _ people coming up from middle eastern countries was that just _ people coming up from middle eastern countries was that just because - people coming up from middle eastern countries was that just because it - countries was that just because it is closer — countries was that just because it is closer we _ countries was that just because it is closer. we have _ countries was that just because it is closer. we have our— countries was that just because it is closer. we have our own - is closer. we have our own struggles _ is closer. we have our own struggles— is closer. we have our own stru: ales. , ., struggles. there is all the right in the country _ struggles. there is all the right in the country that _ struggles. there is all the right in the country that same _ struggles. there is all the right in the country that same sort of- the country that same sort of rhetoric when it comes to migration. when you look at the pole when it comes to suella braverman, 70% of people think he was right to sac her. she claims to be the voice of those who gave the conservatives that mandate in 2019. i don't know if the majority of the country are where she is when it comes to migration? g0 where she is when it comes to migration?— where she is when it comes to miaration? ., ., , ., migration? go with her on any of the oints that migration? go with her on any of the points that she _ migration? go with her on any of the points that she has _ migration? go with her on any of the points that she has raised. _ migration? go with her on any of the points that she has raised. there - migration? go with her on any of the points that she has raised. there is l points that she has raised. there is a remarkable moment at the end of the letter where she says we're failing as a party but we're losing by elections, would you lose the general election because we haven't implemented, we haven't done the things that i say we need to do. but what she never considers is whether in fact the rhetoric and the way she's behaved, of course she was a participant in thejohnson participant in the johnson administration participant in thejohnson administration art in fact the very causes why the conservative party is in such a bad place. i causes why the conservative party is in such a bad place.— in such a bad place. i suppose the oint is in such a bad place. i suppose the point is when _ in such a bad place. i suppose the point is when you _ in such a bad place. i suppose the point is when you look _ in such a bad place. i suppose the point is when you look at - in such a bad place. i sup