At midday on Wednesday, October 20, 2022, Liz Truss did a good job at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs).

She looked normal and bouncy, like the woman we saw in the Conservative Party leadership hustings only a few weeks ago. She was good at the despatch box, including against the leader of the Opposition, Labour’s Keir Starmer.

Afterwards, I thought, ‘Phew. Looks like a drama-free day for once’.

By mid-afternoon, all hell broke loose and continued into the evening.

Suella Braverman

Suella Braverman was doing a great job as Home Secretary.

Liz Truss appointed her on September 6.

Many outsiders do not know that Braverman is of mixed race, born to parents of Kenyan and Mauritian heritage.

On September 7, ice cream moguls Ben & Jerry were quick to criticise her plans to stem immigration:

The Telegraph reported (purple emphases mine):

Ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s is facing criticism for publishing a to-do list for Suella Braverman, the new Home Secretary, suggesting she should “scrap the Rwanda plan” and take dessert breaks.

The firm’s UK Twitter account tweeted a message of congratulations to Ms Braverman, accompanied with the image of a list including various objectives for her first day in the role on September 7, such as to “introduce safe routes to the UK for people seeking asylum” and “lift the ban and give people seeking asylum the right to work” …

It came as Ms Braverman made her first speech to Home Office staff on Wednesday, after which it was suggested that she could seek joint beach patrols with the French to help prevent Channel migrant crossings as part of any deal to continue UK funding …

On Wednesday in an address to a packed out atrium of Home Office staff, Ms Braverman said that tackling the Channel migrant crisis was going to be one of her “clear priorities” as she told them she was going to “develop some obsessions.”

“This is not just a manifesto pledge, people are dying,” she said, as she promised to take a “firmer line” against people traffickers. It was one of three priorities alongside making streets safer through a back-to-basics approach to crime with the extra 20,000 officers and counter-terrorism

Braverman, who is a barrister, has a brilliant mind but takes time out for mindless entertainment:

Asked on Wednesday by Home Office staff what she does to unwind, she said that other than spending time with her family, it’s “trash TV” and singles out Married at First Sight, Love Island and First Dates.

The Times had more:

Home Office officials appeared relaxed about Braverman’s appointment, with one source in the department telling the journalist Nicola Kelly: “Anyone — Suella included — would be better than what we’ve had.”

Braverman became the first practising Buddhist to be appointed to the Cabinet and took her oath of office when appointed an MP on the Dhammapada, one of the best known Buddhist scriptures.

The new home secretary, born Sue-Ellen Cassiana Fernandes to a mother from Mauritius and a father from Kenya, married Rael Braverman in 2018 in a ceremony in the House of Commons.

He said that she invited him to the Houses of Parliament as their first date and the couple have told how their shared love of politics is what “allowed their romance to blossom”.

They have two children, aged three and one, and Braverman became the first cabinet minister to go on maternity leave.

It was a huge deal. I remember watching her in Parliament on the day before she went on maternity leave. She was grateful for that opportunity:

As Attorney General, she banned diversity training in her department when she returned from maternity leave.

On August 4, 2022, the Mail reported:

Mrs Braverman, the Government’s chief legal adviser, has scrapped diversity and inclusion training in her department having discovered that hundreds of her lawyers spent 1,900 hours on the woke lectures last year.

Speaking to Talk TV yesterday, she said: ‘I looked at the training materials and I was very sad at what very intelligent, fair-minded, professional people were being taught.

‘This training stuff was based on a premise that someone like me, an Asian woman from a working-class background, must necessarily be a victim, must necessarily be oppressed, must necessarily be a victim of white privilege and white fragility.’

She said that rather than uniting people, it divides them by cohorts ‘based on different kinds of grievances’.

‘I don’t think it’s the right way to spend taxpayers’ money, I don’t think it’s the right way to use vital civil service resource when we’ve got a Passport Office that needs to work harder on delivering passports and we’ve got a DVLA that needs to be quicker at issuing driving licences,’ she added.

Her first achievement was to be in post during the Queen’s funeral events, which went superbly.

Her second was to order an urgent enquiry into why June’s scheduled flight to Rwanda had to be abandoned.

On October 15, The Telegraph told us of the results:

A company owned by a lawyer who helped block the Government’s Rwanda deportation flight was given taxpayers’ money to train immigration advisers, The Telegraph can disclose.

More than £100,000 was awarded to HJT Training – a firm run by two barristers at the chambers which grounded a flight to the African country in June.

A Home Office source said Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, had instructed civil servants to undertake an “urgent review” of the contract, amid claims from Tory MPs the quango responsible for overseeing immigration advice could have been hijacked by activism.

HJT Training and the quango – the Office for the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) – both denied there was any conflict of interest and they are not accused of any wrongdoing

Two of HJT Training’s four directors – Mark Symes and David Jones – are barristers at Garden Court Chambers.

On June 14, the chambers secured injunctions at an emergency hearing before the Court of Appeal which prevented a plane from removing asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Mr Symes, who is listed on Companies House as having a “significant control” in HJT Training, was a member of the team.

Mr Jones did not act in the case. Garden Court Chambers said the asylum seekers they were representing all “had strong cases for asylum in the UK” and their stories demonstrated the “inhumanity in the Rwanda policy”.

Her third achievement was deporting 11 Albanians shortly after they crossed the Channel in small vessels.

On October 18, The Guardian reported concerns from human rights groups, but this is the nub of the story:

The Albanians are thought to have arrived in the UK last week and were taken from Manston in Ramsgate where the Home Office processes small boat arrivals, to Stansted airport from where they were put on a plane back to Albania on Wednesday. It is thought to be the first time small boat arrivals have been put on a plane directly from Manston.

Her fourth achievement was seeing the Public Order Bill debated and passed in the Commons that day:

Her closing remarks in that debate will be remembered for some time to come:

When I was the Attorney General, I went to court to establish that it is not a human right to commit criminal damage. The Court of Appeal agreed with me in the Colston statue case that serious and violent disorder crosses a line when it comes to freedom of expression. That is common sense to the law-abiding majority.

Since 1 October alone, the Metropolitan police have made over 450 arrests linked to Just Stop Oil, and I welcome this, but more must be done. That is why I welcome the fact that, today, Transport for London has succeeded in securing an injunction to protect key parts of the London roads network. That is an important step forward in the fight against extremists. However, these resources are vital and precious, and this has drained approximately 2,000 officer days at the Met already. Those are resources that are not dealing with knife crime and are not dealing with violence against women and girls.

I am afraid to say—and I will come to a close soon—that that is why it was a central purpose of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, now an Act, to properly empower the police in face of the protests, yet Opposition Members voted against it. Had Opposition Members in the other place not blocked these measures when they were in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the police would have already had many of the powers in this Bill and the British people would not have been put through this grief. Yes, I am afraid that it is the Labour party, the Lib Dems, the coalition of chaos, the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati and, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition that we have to thank for the disruption we are seeing on our roads today. I urge Opposition MPs and Members of the other place to take this second chance, do the right thing, respect the rights of the law-abiding majority and support this Bill.

The bill passed: 283 to 234.

The next day, Wednesday, I tuned in to GB News late that afternoon to find out that Braverman had resigned or been sacked:

As such, Braverman holds the record for being the shortest-serving Home Secretary at 43 days.

The next shortest-serving was fellow Conservative Donald Somervell at 62 days, says The Guardian:

Somervell held the post from May to July 1945 in Winston Churchill’s caretaker government before it was defeated in a general election.

Truss will have the shortest record as a serving Prime Minister when she leaves next week.

Grant Shapps, former Transport Secretary, replaced Braverman as Home Secretary. It is hard to imagine that he could do the job.

Nigel Farage said that this was a coup:

You could not make this up.

Guido Fawkes reported, alluding to her Public Order Bill closing speech (emphases his):

The Guardian gets the scoop that Suella Braverman is out as Home Secretary “at the behest of the Chancellor”.

Sources claimed the move was at the behest of the new chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, who has taken over control of the government’s economic response following Truss’s disastrous mini-budget, but who they claimed was now “pulling the strings”.

A major victory for tofu lovers everywhere…

UPDATE: Reports suggesting she was fired for breaching the ministerial code, after handling sensitive documents on a private phone. Chaos…

Anyone wondering if they are part of what Braverman called the ‘tofu wokerati’ can take a Times quiz and find out for sure.

Not surprisingly, I came in the middle with mostly ‘B’ answers to the multiple-choice questions:

Borderline. You know, in your heart, that the wokerati are a real and dangerous thing and definitely not some made-up term chucked about by a desperate home secretary. Come on! You know tofu is bad, nicely crisped or not. You’re just too wrapped up in seeming “reasonable” and with “seeing both sides of things”. Yes, your monthly mortgage repayments have gone up so much that you’ve had to sell one of your children … Come on. Time to get off the fence.

Braverman quickly posted her letter of resignation online:

Patrick Christys analysed it on GB News, pointing out the fourth paragraph, particularly the second sentence:

It is obvious to everyone that we are going through a tumultuous time. I have concerns about the direction of this government. Not only have we broken key pledges that were promised to our voters, but I have had serious concerns about this Government’s commitment to honouring manifesto commitments, such as reducing overall migration numbers and stopping illegal migration, particularly the small boat crossings.

While Braverman went on to speak at a Diwali reception sponsored by the India Global Forum that evening, the political animals among us were dissecting what really happened:

Boris Johnson’s former adviser Dominic Cummings said that what Braverman did was not a sacking offence. ‘OFF-SEN’ is shorthand for Official-Sensitive and ‘CABOFF’ is Cabinet Office:

Former Conservative MP Anne Widdecombe told Dan Wootton the same thing that evening:

The Guardian dissected Braverman’s letter paragraph by paragraph; excerpts follow, bold emphases theirs:

What she said

Earlier today, I sent an official document from my personal email to a trusted parliamentary colleague as part of policy engagement, and with the aim of garnering support for government policy on migration. This constitutes a technical infringement of the rules … nevertheless it is right for me to go.

What she meant

Braverman devoted the top two paragraphs of her letter – less than half – to addressing the issue she said she was resigning over, making clear she realised she had broken the ministerial code by storing government documents on a personal device and sending those to a “trusted parliamentary colleague”. She left herself little wriggle-room and wholly accepted the mistake. It means in the future she will be able to say she stepped down swiftly and try to brush away suggestions about her being unfit to rejoin the government.

What she said

Pretending we haven’t made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can’t see that we have made them, and hoping that things will magically come right is not serious politics. I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility; I resign.

What she meant

Not hard to work out what she is referring to here. The parallel between Braverman taking responsibility for her mistake and Truss being accused of refusing to acknowledge the pain caused by her mini-budget is plain to see. Truss has recently said she takes responsibility for the chaos caused. If she were to follow the logic set out by the former home secretary in this paragraph, she would need to resign.

The analysis also addressed Truss’s brief letter of acknowledgement:

Liz Truss’s reply

I accept your resignation and respect the decision you have made. It is important that the ministerial code is upheld, and that Cabinet confidentiality is respected.

What she meant

Significantly shorter in length and far from gushing about Braverman’s performance as home secretary, Truss ensures that it is known the home secretary is stepping down squarely because of her breach of the ministerial code. Given she still has no ethics adviser, this is a quick decision the prime minister must have come to but she is keen to make sure there is no ambiguity.

Readers will be left with the impression there is no love lost between the two women.

The Telegraph reported that there was more to the story than a breach of the ministerial code. The two women had a row over immigration on Tuesday night, with Jeremy Hunt on hand.

Note that the Office for Budget Responsibility wants more migration, which isn’t surprising, as they are left-leaning:

The fuse for Suella Braverman’s resignation was lit on Tuesday night when she had a heated face-to-face row with Liz Truss and Jeremy Hunt, her new Chancellor, over their demands to soften her stance on bringing down immigration.

Friends said the Home Secretary was appalled that they wanted her to announce a liberalisation of immigration to make it easier for the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to say the Government would hit its growth targets – a key plank in Mr Hunt’s strategy to restore market confidence.

Suella said, this is insane, why are we trying to appease the OBR? Is everything getting thrown out the window?” said one of her allies …

Within 24 hours of her “fiery” 90-minute meeting with the Prime Minister and Mr Hunt, Ms Braverman had been forced to resign after being accused of breaching the ministerial code on two counts for sending official documents to another MP from her personal email …

It now poses a threat to the future of the Prime Minister after Ms Braverman used her resignation letter to say she had “concerns” about the direction of the Government and the breaches of its manifesto commitments on immigration.

However, the most incendiary was a coded attack on Ms Truss’s integrity in which the Prime Minister’s former leadership rival said “the business of government relies upon people accepting responsibility for their mistakes”

It had been intended at the start of the week that Ms Braverman would set out the new immigration policy on Thursday with a meeting of the Cabinet’s home affairs committee, with Mr Hunt, Therese Coffey, the Deputy Prime Minister, and other senior ministers due to finalise the plans on Wednesday lunchtime.

However, Mrs Braverman never attended the meeting after sending an email on Wednesday morning intended for Sir John Hayes, the chairman of the Common Sense group of Tory MPs, containing Government documents about immigration.

The Home Secretary accidentally clicked on the wrong drop-down tab on her email and sent the document from her personal email address to a staffer who works for Tory MP Andrew Percy.

Mr Percy then complained to Wendy Morton, the Government’s Chief Whip, who reported the leak to the Cabinet Office, before Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, investigated and rapidly concluded Ms Braverman had broken the ministerial code on two counts.

One was on part 2.14 of the code, the “security of government business”. That section says “ministers have an important role to play in maintaining the security of Government business”.

The other was 2.3, “collective responsibility”. That states “the internal process through which a decision has been made, or the level of Committee by which it was taken should not be disclosed”.

Ms Truss then confronted Ms Braverman with the findings. She made clear what should follow from ministerial rule breaches, according to allies, leaving Ms Braverman to resign.

There is a dispute over the nature of the documents that she emailed. Ms Braverman maintains it was a draft written ministerial statement (WMS), due for publication imminently and much of which had already been briefed to MPs.

Downing Street sources were, however, incensed by the claim that it was only a WMS which was made public. Instead, the sources said it was the contents of a sensitive internal policy document that Ms Braverman had passed on.

Allies of Ms Braverman said she was told by Ms Truss that if the Government defended her, it would be at risk of “salami slicing” by critics trying to pick off ministers.

“Liz says: ‘If you stay, we’ll have to defend you and it will salami slice our credibility. For your own sake you should go’,” said one ally.

“Suella thought ‘are you serious, you’re not even going to defend anyone over anything?’ She said: ‘Fine, if you won’t stand up for me, I’ll go’.”

The row meant that Ms Truss had to pull out of a visit to a venue near London. Ministers briefed privately that she was detained on a “national security issue”.

Within two hours Ms Braverman had quit

Allies of Ms Braverman said she was in a minority in Cabinet in her attempts to resist liberalising migration to boost growth and the arrival of Mr Hunt as Chancellor appeared to reinforce that majority. In his leadership bid in 2019, he vowed to abandon Mrs May’s immigration target of tens of thousands

Ms Braverman’s refusal to accept an “open borders migration policy” with India proved one flashpoint – and was blamed by critics for delaying efforts to secure a trade deal with the second most populous nation in the world …

Migration has already hit a new high as more than one million foreign nationals were allowed to live, work or study in the UK in a year for the first time.

Wendy Morton

As if Braverman’s departure wasn’t enough during the day, there was more to come with Labour’s motion in the Commons that evening, Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill.

Although the debate was about banning fracking, the results of the vote were one of confidence in Liz Truss’s premiership. As such, Conservative MPs were told there was a three-line whip. There are Conservative MPs who would love a fracking ban.

The Commons was noisy on both sides of the chamber during the debate. I watched the last hour or so.

At the end, Graham Stuart, the Minister for Climate, responded on behalf of the Government. He sowed doubt as to whether this was a whipping matter for Conservatives:

It is a great pleasure to wind up this debate, to which there have been so many excellent contributions from across the House. Perhaps not for the first time, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—he is an extremely clever man, for whom I have a great deal of respect—has been a little bit too clever by half. Perhaps if more drafting had gone into this, instead of seizing the Order Paper we could have had a different style—[Interruption.] It was an attempt to seize the Order Paper. Quite clearly, this is not a confidence vote[Interruption.] Obviously, this is not a confidence vote; it is an attempt—[Interruption.]

Conservative MP Andrew Percy intervened:

The Minister is absolutely right about the green revolution, in which our region in the Humber is playing such a big part. I ask him to reflect on the speeches that have been made today. If this was a clear vote on whether or not we should have fracking, I would be in the Lobby with the Opposition

Labour’s Ed Miliband, who was leading his party’s motion, then asked for clarification:

For the guidance of the House, the Minister said something very important from the Dispatch Box: he said that this is not a confidence motion. I think Conservative Members want to know, because if he confirms that statement, they can vote for our motion in the safe knowledge that they can be confident in the current Prime Minister. Will he confirm that?

Stuart said he had already given the answer more than once. Another Labour MP intervened to ask for clarification.

Then another Conservative MP, Ruth Edwards, intervened:

I really need to press the Minister on this question of a confidence vote. Many of us have been told today by our Whips that if we vote for, or abstain from voting against, this motion, we will lose the Whip. Will he please confirm whether that is the case?

Stuart replied:

That is a matter for party managers, and I am not a party manager.

The Telegraph explained:

… the deregulatory side of the growth package is under threat, with Tory MPs wary of relaxing planning laws and seeking solid guarantees that fracking has local support before going ahead. Ms Truss’s difficulty is that on all these issues she could face rebellions and her beleaguered position makes it harder to persuade her party to support government policy.

Tonight’s Labour procedural vote on fracking, which was originally said to be a confidence matter, was a case in point. Although the Government won, the chaos surrounding the vote only reinforced the sense of a parliamentary party now edging towards open mutiny.

The division — the vote — went on for longer than usual. Madam Deputy Speaker, Dame Eleanor Laing, asked the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the No lobby.

After the results were read, showing that the Government’s stance on fracking only with local approval prevailed, the Shadow Leader of the House, Thangham Debbonaire, raised a point of order:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are very strong rumours that the Government Chief Whip has apparently resigned. I wonder if it is possible to get some clarity[Interruption.] More than rumours[Interruption.] Well, if Government Front Benchers want to say no. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether or not that can be confirmed, given that this is a matter of parliamentary discipline?

Laing said she had not been informed of any Government resignations.

Then Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron asked whether this was actually a vote of confidence:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify that the Minister closing the debate we have just had from the Dispatch Box informed his colleagues that it was not a vote of confidence, when we saw earlier, in writing from the Government Deputy Chief Whip, that it was. Could it be possible that Government Members voted in the Division just now without any clarity on what it was actually they were voting for?

Laing replied:

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which of course is not a point of order for the Chair. My concern is that what is said on the Order Paper is correct and accurate, and it is. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point he raises, but it is not one on which I can judge. Ministers are responsible for their own words.

Then Labour’s Chris Bryant raised a point of order:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I urge you to launch an investigation into the scenes outside the entrance to the No Lobby earlier. As you know, Members are expected to be able to vote without fear or favour and the behaviour code, which is agreed by the whole House, says that there shall never be bullying or harassment of Members. I saw Members being physically manhandled into another Lobby and being bullied. If we want to stand up against bullying in this House of our staff, we have to stop bullying in this Chamber as well, don’t we? [Interruption.]

Laing replied:

Order. We are talking about behaviour. We will have a little bit of good behaviour for a moment on both sides of the House.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter about behaviour. He knows better than anyone else that we have an extremely good system for investigating allegations of bullying, intimidation or bad behaviour. If the hon. Gentleman cares to bring evidence and facts to me, I will make sure that the matter is properly investigated. Of course, we must have decorous behaviour at all times, so we will now proceed quietly and politely.

Later that evening, The Guardian reported:

Amid chaotic scenes in the Commons, it was reported that Wendy Morton, the chief whip, and her deputy, Craig Whittaker, had left the government. However, after hours of confusion Downing Street released a statement saying the two “remain in post”

The change of personnel in the second of the four great offices of state came on a frantic day which also saw a series of Tory MPs, including Truss’s net zero tsar, rebel in a fracking vote, another U-turn over the pensions triple lock, and a mauling from Keir Starmer at prime minister’s questions.

After the government won a vote to defeat a Labour motion to ban fracking, the Labour MP Chris Bryant told the Commons in a point of order that he had seen some Tory members “physically manhandled” by ministers into voting for the government.

Just after midnight on Thursday morning, The Telegraph reported on the chaos around the No lobby.

Things did not look good for the Prime Minister:

The Chief Whip was forced out of Government and then reinstated on Wednesday night, capping off a day of chaos for Liz Truss after a confidence vote descended into allegations of backbenchers being manhandled through the lobby. 

It had been reported earlier in the evening that Wendy Morton, one of Liz Truss’s closest allies, had been ousted and that her deputy, Craig Whittaker, quit in protest at her treatment.

But hours later the position was reversed, with a No 10 spokesman issuing a statement to say that the “chief and deputy chief whip remain in post”.

Downing Street sources insisted Ms Morton resigned, but some MPs claimed that she marched out of the Chamber during the vote on fracking before being sacked by Ms Truss.

Meanwhile, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Business Secertary, insisted that “this is a Government that is functioning well.”

It came at the end of a day of high drama in Westminster, which saw confusion reign over whether or not Conservative MPs would lose the whip for rebelling over a Labour opposition day debate on fracking.

The motion, which was defeated, would have guaranteed Commons time to debate a new law to ban fracking once and for all.

The vote meant that Ms Truss faced a showdown with rebellious MPs, many of whom have openly expressed their opposition to her plans to lift the moratorium on fracking.

But the Prime Minister ordered backbenchers to support the contentious policy – a high risk strategy given the already mutinous mood within the party.

On Wednesday morning, Tory MPs were told by the whips’ office that the vote was a “100 per cent hard three line whip”.

The message from Mr Whittaker went on to say: “This is not a motion on fracking. This is a confidence motion in the Government.

“I know this is difficult for some colleagues, but we simply cannot allow this. We are voting no and I reiterate, this is a hard three line whip with all slips withdrawn.”

If a vote is being treated as a matter of confidence in the Government, it usually means that MPs who vote against it would be expelled from the Conservative Party and have to sit as independent candidates.

Throughout the afternoon, a string of senior Tory MPs broke ranks to declare that they would be prepared to “face the consequences” of voting against the Government.

Truss’s Net Zero tsar, Chris Skidmore, said he would rebel:

Several other Conservative MPs echoed his sentiment.

When it came time to vote on the motion:

Tory backbenchers remained completely in the dark as to whether they would lose the whip for voting against the Government or not.

The scenes must have been unbelievable:

It was at this point that the mayhem appeared to reach boiling point, with Labour’s Chris Bryant claiming that Tories were “physically manhandled” into the “no” lobby.

Ms Truss was reportedly yelled at by rebel MPs as she went through the lobby. Meanwhile, Mr Whittaker was reportedly overheard saying: “I am f***ing furious and I don’t give a f*** any more.”

According to some reports, Ms Morton resigned and left the Chamber as the voting was taking place, with Ms Truss grabbing her arm in an attempt to persuade her to reconsider. The Prime Minister then left the lobby trailing behind Ms Morton, and in the chaos, did not manage to vote herself.

While the Government won the vote, there were no fewer than 40 Tory abstentions – including Kwasi Kwarteng, who was sacked as chancellor on Friday, Theresa May, former prime minister, and Ms Truss herself.

I saw a later report that said that Truss voted but her pass card did not work, which was why her vote did not immediately show.

Chris Bryant alleged that Cabinet members were involved in the chaos:

It was unclear how many of the 40 abstentions were because MPs were unavoidably away from Parliament – Boris Johnson, for example, is currently on holiday – or because they were abstaining as a point of principle.

Mr Bryant told Sky News that Cabinet ministers Therese Coffey and Mr Rees-Mogg were among a group of senior Tories who were putting pressure on Conservative MPs to vote against the Labour motion on fracking.

“There was a bunch of Conservative Members obviously completely uncertain whether they were allowed to vote with the Labour or against it,” he said.

“There was a group including several Cabinet ministers who were basically shouting at them. At least one member was physically pulled through the door into the voting lobby. That is completely out of order.

“I know that Therese Coffey was in the group. I know that Jacob Rees-Mogg was in the group and there were others as well. The group all moved forward with one member.”

Other MPs were also upset at the lack of clarity:

One furious MP said they felt the Government had deliberately tried to trick backbenchers into supporting it with the mix-up over whether the vote was a confidence matter. They said this amounted to a “breach of trust” between No 10 and MPs that would be almost impossible to repair.

Another senior Tory MP put the confusion down to a “cock up” between No 10 and the whips office and said the confidence vote was in fact meant to be attached to the Government’s motion, and not the one tabled by Labour

One senior Tory MP appeared to sum up the mood in the party and said the past 24 hours had been “beyond comedy”, adding: “You couldn’t make it up if you spent 20 years trying to write this. The greatest author in the world couldn’t make it up.”

Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg attempted to shed light on the situation:

Speaking to Sky News after the vote had ended, Mr Rees Mogg said he did not know whether Ms Morton was still in post or not, saying: “I am not entirely clear on what the situation is with the Chief Whip.”

He explained that the confusion arose over whether the Commons vote on fracking was a confidence vote because of a message sent by a “junior official in 10 Downing Street”, suggesting they did not have the authority to do so.

Asked whether the Government “blinked” and U-turned on the confidence vote over fears of losing it, he told Sky News: “I don’t think that’s a fair way of looking at it. I think what happened was that, late in the day, a junior official at 10 Downing Street sent a message through to the front bench that it was not a vote of confidence and nobody else was aware of that.

“The whips were not aware of that, I was not aware of that and most members thought that it was a vote of confidence. It was simply one of those unfortunate miscommunications that occasionally happens.”

He added: “It’s one of the issues you always face in government that people say they speak for Downing Street without having actually ever bothered to get the authority of the Prime Minister and unfortunately on this occasion it fed through immediately to the floor of the house.”

The conversation about the vote continued on Thursday, culminating in Liz Truss’s resignation.

More about this debacle will follow in my post on Monday.

Advertisement