secretary. live now to our chief political correspondent henry zeffman, joining us from westminster. we have just had this we havejust had this in we have just had this in from the prime minister offering his full support from the home secretary. yes offerin: support from the home secretary. 133 offering his full confidence to the home secretary but there is another element that is really quite extraordinary, which is the prime minister's of spokesman saying the article that suella braverman wrote in the times newspaper this morning plastered across their front page dominating all the headlines was not cleared by 10 downing street that is extremely unusual that is to say if fact the article wasn't cleared is extremely unusual when anyone anyone in the government was to me because happy get it cleared by downing street first that is a government in 2023 works. it also to have downing street effectively airing that doty laundry in public and telling the public that didn't say toots will them will burma dispersion in the

times, that is quite something. we have had this reaction from the prime minister, take us what she has written and why it proved so controversial.— written and why it proved so controversial. there has been a row runnina controversial. there has been a row running for — controversial. there has been a row running for several _ controversial. there has been a row running for several days _ controversial. there has been a row running for several days now - controversial. there has been a row running for several days now about| controversial. there has been a row| running for several days now about a protest that is a very large one, plans to take place in london on saturday in support of the palestinian people. that protest coincides with armistice day, the 11th of november, though the main remembrance commemorations take place on remembrance sunday which is the day after. the government has been very clear to the metropolitan police that if the met made a determination that it's thought there was a risk of disorder associated with remembrance events associated with remembrance events as a result of this march, it could apply to the government for the march to be banned and the government would look kindly upon that but the metropolitan police has

consistently said itjust doesn't have the intelligence to clear the high legal bar for that process to begin so there has been a bit of tension between the government and between them metropolitan police over that issue. in her article this morning suella braverman really wretched up that tension, because she accused the met of a double standard notjust a double standard here where she effectively said pro—palestinian protests are treated more likely than other protests, but a more generally double standard between left—wing liberal protests she gave the example of black lives matter in 20 and right wing or nationalist protests, and that accusation as well as being an expert in to cover home secretary who is meant to be safeguarding the operational dependence of the police is a very serious crime to make about met fulton please labour are sa in: the about met fulton please labour are saying the government _ about met fulton please labour are saying the government are - about met fulton please labour are saying the government are trying . about met fulton please labour are| saying the government are trying to bring political interference into a body which is independent. exactly

the question _ body which is independent. exactly the question of— body which is independent. exactly the question of operational- the question of operational independence but the other thing labour party have been pressing since late last night when this opinion piece dropped on the times website and really electrified was minister as they have been arguing that rishi sunak doesn't have control of his government, the were some of cooper where the home secretary is out of control. i think the fact that downing street has a few hours later confirmed that i didn't have control of the world is the home secretary was put into a national newspaper i think it is very significant because it will be used by the labour party, rishi sunak�*s political opponents to say that he is weak and that is very damaging for a prime minister at any time, especially 20 points behind in the polls. time, especially 20 points behind in the olls. , , ., ., time, especially 20 points behind in the olls. , ., ,, . . , the polls. this is a home secretary who has made _ the polls. this is a home secretary who has made many _ the polls. this is a home secretary who has made many controversiall who has made many controversial comments in the past few months. she did actually have to be sacked from her post which she was then

reinstated in by rishi sunak a few days after he became prime minister just over a year ago explain to our audience why she is proving so controversial and a bit of a lightening rod.— controversial and a bit of a lightening rod. controversial and a bit of a liaahtenin rod. ,, ., , �* . lightening rod. she doesn't mince her words and _ lightening rod. she doesn't mince her words and that _ lightening rod. she doesn't mince her words and that is _ lightening rod. she doesn't mince her words and that is one - lightening rod. she doesn't mince her words and that is one of - lightening rod. she doesn't mince her words and that is one of the l her words and that is one of the reasons many conservative mps and no doubt many conservative voters and people in the public like her and there are conservative mps who will say to me privately that she says publicly the things they think privately but aren't bold enough to say publicly. 0ne privately but aren't bold enough to say publicly. one of the interesting things about this opinion piece that i think it's worth noting is that if you take out some of the rhetoric and the rhetoric is very impassioned she talks of pro—palestinian mobs, hate marches there is lots of incendiary deliberately rhetoric but if you take that out of it and strip it down to the substance of her argument which is essentially a thinks the met police are going to soft on these protesters a lot of

conservative mps, a lot of the cabinet agreed with that, i don't think she has become a lightening rod because of the policies she espouses but there is a problem with her language and her ability to grab headlines as some conservatives and colleagues of hers it, which is when a conservative minister ends up on a media interview, there is a high chance they find themselves having to either say whether they agree or disagree with the latest thing suella braverman has said. we have certainly seen _ suella braverman has said. we have certainly seen that _ suella braverman has said. we have certainly seen that this _ suella braverman has said. we have certainly seen that this morning - certainly seen that this morning haven't we?— certainly seen that this morning haven't we? , , ., ., �* �* haven't we? yes this morning on bbc breakfast markka _ haven't we? yes this morning on bbc breakfast markka for _ haven't we? yes this morning on bbc breakfast markka for the _ haven't we? yes this morning on bbc breakfast markka for the transport i breakfast markka for the transport secretary repeatedly could not say whether he agreed with what she had written, that is deeply frustrating for government ministers who want to be able to talk about policy in their area without having too mop up after their colleagues. b,

their area without having too mop up after their colleagues. b. bit their area without having too mop up after their colleagues.— after their colleagues. a bit more about suella _ after their colleagues. a bit more about suella braverman's - after their colleagues. a bit more | about suella braverman's position and we reflected at the beginning of this conversation that the prime minister has said he has full confidence in her they are looking into what happened given she didn't make the edits downing street requested speculation amongst the westminster bubble about what could happen to her what she is trying to achieve. what do you think there are those saying that perhaps in fact she wants to be fired. i those saying that perhaps in fact she wants to be fired.— she wants to be fired. i can see into her mind _ she wants to be fired. i can see into her mind although - she wants to be fired. i can see into her mind although that. she wants to be fired. i can see | into her mind although that was she wants to be fired. i can see - into her mind although that was the claim made by nadine dorries to former culture secretary to whether she wants to or not. it certainly feels possible she will be fired after that and street statement, saying they are looking into it if you're looking into something usually in government there is an end to that process and an announcement about what you have found. if they find she had been

deliberately insubordinate, that is the sort of thing that government ministers usually get sacked for. she is not any old government minister she is a home secretary at the heart of rishi sunak�*s government she has been a bit part of one of his key pledges is my priority which is to reduce the small boat crossings. it wouldn't be losing another minister it would be a much bigger deal than that and it would also because you mentioned earlier the controversial circumstances in which suella braverman ended her first into song for under the truss, it would also go into question potentially rishi sunak�*sjudgment in bringing her back to the home of when he became prime minister in the first place. none of us can read into her mind but there who are speculating she may want to be fired or want out of this position what is the thinking behind that? i this position what is the thinking behind that?—

this position what is the thinking behind that? ~ ., ., behind that? i think that argument as far as it goes _ behind that? i think that argument as far as it goes is _ behind that? i think that argument as far as it goes is that _ behind that? i think that argument as far as it goes is that the - as far as it goes is that the conservatives look likely, certainly not certain but likely to lose the next general election just to share political fact when you look at the opinion and you look at the by—elections and the labour party winning them on unprecedented swings, and suella braverman ran for the leadership when liz truss won it last summer. and everyone knows she would like to run again, should the ball come loose from the back of the scrum to use the phrase for his johnson once used. i think the argument those people make is that if she were to resign or be sacked over an issue like this she would then be able in a leadership campaign when it may come to say here you go i stuck by my principles i stood firm against the metropolitan police when people didn't want me to and that is a sort of thing you will get if i become

leader of the conservative party. what you think the prime minister is is weighing up right now and trying to determine its next move? this investigation _ to determine its next move? ti 3 investigation should really take too long. downing street will have their own record of what exchanges were had about the versions of the articles and the edits that were requested and not applied and whatever may or may not have happened there so i don't really know what more there is to it i suspect what is being weighed up in downing street is the politics of it whether they really do want to dispatch through the home whether they think they could write out the criticisms that would come about him appointing her in the first place and also that would come from the right of the party from her supporters for not sticking with her. there wrote all of that and

then also of course, if you dispense with the services of your home secretary you need a new home secretary you need a new home secretary and i am there will be some discussions in downing street if they are indeed discussing whether to sack her about how they would replace her. big whether to sack her about how they would replace her.— would replace her. big decisions i know ou would replace her. big decisions i know you are _ would replace her. big decisions i know you are keep _ would replace her. big decisions i know you are keep across - would replace her. big decisions i know you are keep across all- would replace her. big decisions i know you are keep across all of. would replace her. big decisions i l know you are keep across all of this for us. let's remind what yvette cooper had to say when she criticised the secretary's statement as well as a fact home secretary was not actually there in the commons literally earlier today to respond to her urgent question. where is the home secretary? sent the policing minister to come to refuse to repeat her words, because we've seen her words this morning attempting to rip up the operational independence of the police, attacking their impartiality in the crudest and most partisan of ways, deliberately undermining respect

for the police at a sensitive time when they have an important job to do. deliberately seeking to create division around remembrance, which the policing minister rightly said should be a time for communities to come together and to pay our respects. and she is deliberately inflaming community tensions in the most dangerous of ways. she is encouraging extremists on all sides, attacking the police when she should be backing them. it is highly irresponsible and dangerous and no other home secretary would ever have done this. there was an exhalation as to why suella braverman wasn't there and it was due to a family situation she needed to attend we heard from the prime minister's of spokesman saying number 10 did not clear suella braverman's piece in the times they said downing street is looking into what happened regarding the publication of this article that said the prime minister as full

confidence in the home secretary. more analysis on this. we cn now speak to henry hill, deputy editor of conservative home, a news blog regarding the conservative party. what do you make of what downing street had to say? rishi what do you make of what downing street had to say?— what do you make of what downing street had to say? rishi sunak came into downing — street had to say? rishi sunak came into downing street _ street had to say? rishi sunak came into downing street after— street had to say? rishi sunak came into downing street after this - street had to say? rishi sunak came into downing street after this liz - into downing street after this liz truss it in an extraordinarily weak position and that was embodied by how he built his government he most obviously inherited jeremy hunt as chancellor i think everybody incumbent wants to choose his own chancellor but he put suella braverman in the home office which raised eyebrows at the time at the suspicion was it was part of a deal with the right of the party to prevent a challenge. it is an open question as to whether it makes her invulnerable or if she is angling to be dismissed but that is the explanation for why he has this loose cannon now in the home office. it is traditionally where recent

conservative prime minister have put a right—winger but it seems to be going back to bite the prime minister. . , ., , ., ~ ., minister. have you been talking to our minister. have you been talking to your contacts. _ minister. have you been talking to your contacts, mps, _ minister. have you been talking to your contacts, mps, people - minister. have you been talking to your contacts, mps, people in - your contacts, mps, people in government and what of they been saying to you about her position? it is essentially very hard to know the mind of this downing street. there is an awful lot about it that buzzes people. the prime minister went out himself and criticised the planned marches for armistice day. he is not talking nearly as hard against the police as the home secretary but he went out on a limb which makes it harderfor him to draw a clear line through this position but even where he mounted to do so the question is one, with that destabilise his premiership how much support us we

have come at would he put on the home office inside dead and given he would still need to buy up that group of the party with thatjob would it make that much difference? is there a huge danger for him that he comes out as weak, if he didn't authorise this not only did he not authorise this not only did he not authorise it he asked for edits and they won't put through does it undermine his permission as prime minister he came in on a weak position more than a year ago, it is unlikely that a good be another leadership contest given we are probably a year away from another election so does he have to assert himself now and say he does have control of his party and the home secretary? if control of his party and the home secreta ? , control of his party and the home secretary?— secretary? if this continues absolutely _ secretary? if this continues absolutely a _ secretary? if this continues absolutely a little - secretary? if this continues absolutely a little detail- secretary? if this continues i absolutely a little detail about asking for edits and not getting it thatis asking for edits and not getting it that is insubordination there is very little chance of a challenge against rishi sunak because at this point there would almost certainly have to be a general election it is

impossible to imagine that in another change of conservative leader would have an election and no one wants to see is a crime when the party is 20 points behind in the polls you might think that it does give him some leeway to take action especially because as we saw with the king speech there is a lot of critical legislative work that the government is trying to do where he would need to avoid rebellions. most of the bills are quite small fry and unlikely to divide the party and if he doesn't do that the question will be white. —— it will be white. thank you for your analysis. i'm joined now by sir tom winsor, former chief inspector of her majesty's constabulary from 2012 to 2022, who's worked with several home secretaries. what do you make of suella braverman's intervention today in the times? i braverman's intervention today in the times?_

braverman's intervention today in the times?— the times? i think it is unusual unprecedented, _ the times? i think it is unusual unprecedented, i— the times? i think it is unusual unprecedented, ithink- the times? i think it is unusual unprecedented, i think it - the times? i think it is unusual unprecedented, i think it is - unprecedented, i think it is contrary to the spirit of the constitutional settlement of the relationship between the government and the police. in this country politicians do not have day—to—day direct control over the police they can't tell people who to arrest. they can't tell the protest must be policed and in what manner. the home secretary's article comes very close to telling the police that they are being partial, that they are not policing protests evenhandedly, and that there is a necessity, that saturday's protests should be banned. if that is the message that the police are receiving, it is a

very unfortunate thing for the home secretary to have said. she very unfortunate thing for the home secretary to have said.— secretary to have said. she wrote in the article that _ secretary to have said. she wrote in the article that the _ secretary to have said. she wrote in the article that the metropolitan - the article that the metropolitan police were playing favourites over its handling of the pro—palestinian protests she said right—wing protest that become aggressive world often stopped while pro—palestinian she called them were permitted are you seeing any sign of that? the called them were permitted are you seeing any sign of that?— seeing any sign of that? the police of rotests seeing any sign of that? the police of protests is _ seeing any sign of that? the police of protests is the _ seeing any sign of that? the police of protests is the brain _ seeing any sign of that? the police of protests is the brain surgery - of protests is the brain surgery policing it is the hardest thing they do particularly when there are tens of thousands of of people coming. there will be skirmishes i expect on saturday, when people do break the law. they commit public order offences or the committee offences in other legislation to support or promote the views of proscribed organisations such as hamas and his brother and i have every expectation that when these things happen —— his pelle that

police were going on and the rest the over principle of policing in this country is that they police with fear or favour, without political partiality or any other kind of personality yes in the past the police have made mistakes but in this commissioner the policing i think is very evenhanded and i think it has been under previous commissioners as well. therefore i think the accusation of having favourites and partiality is misconceived and ill—advised and should not have been made. 50 misconceived and ill-advised and should not have been made. so mark rowle the should not have been made. so mark rowley the commission _ should not have been made. so mark rowley the commission of _ should not have been made. so mark rowley the commission of the - rowley the commission of the metropolitan police have said the threshold has not been met in his view to ban this march can you explain what that threshold would have to look like?— explain what that threshold would have to look like? under section 13 ofthe have to look like? under section 13 of the public— have to look like? under section 13 of the public order _ have to look like? under section 13 of the public order act _ have to look like? under section 13 of the public order act 1986, -

have to look like? under section 13 of the public order act 1986, police can only apply to the home secretary for permission to ban a march you can't ban it without home secretary's permission which clearly she is inclined to give if the request is made. but he can only make the request if he has reasonable grounds for believing that he cannot properly police the protest, there is a danger his resources will be insufficient, but his officers will be overwhelmed, and that there is a risk of serious public disorder or serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. he can only apply for that home secretary to ban the march if he has a reasonable belief that his powers are insufficient to prevent serious publishers or the. can are insufficient to prevent serious publishers or the.— publishers or the. can i ask you about a comet _ publishers or the. can i ask you about a comet crisp _ publishers or the. can i ask you about a comet crisp phelps - publishers or the. can i ask you i about a comet crisp phelps made publishers or the. can i ask you - about a comet crisp phelps made when he was responding to the urgent question on behalf of suella braverman and he reference conversations he had with people in the jewish conversations he had with people in thejewish community

conversations he had with people in the jewish community who expressed concern about another weekend of these marches we have seen a huge rise of anti—semitic attacks over the last month since the october the 7th attacks by hamas and israel up 500 the arrest around these marches include 100 arrests for alleged tight crimes and 98 of those anti—semitic 20 is one of those anti—semitic, 21 islamophobic, how much of an issue should this be for so mark rowley when he is this threshold in terms of banning it? these are relevant things about the threshold requires into her reasonable grounds for believing there will be serious public disorder which has resources as police officers cannot cope with. i have every expectation that they will be able to cope with them and the commissioner is confident that he will be able to cope with these things. if he has reasonable grounds for believing serious public disorder and being overwhelmed only then can he lawfully applied to the

secretary for permission but have he doesn't have the raised grounds and doesn't have the raised grounds and does things stand today he says he does things stand today he says he does not that may change, but at the moment he doesn't. if he doesn't have those grassy you cannot lawfully apply for the home secretary because my consent and if the home secretary wouldn't give that consent of her consent would be unlawful as well can i ask you one question, you think the law should be changed changed specifically around the policing of these marches or should and shouldn't be allowed to go ahead? it seems to me that there is no need to change the law. the law is perfectly clear and perfectly adequate. if the police can't cope with the risk of serious public disorder, then they march can be banned. that is a perfectly legitimate threshold test, balancing of course the legitimate right of people to express their views in

public protest that is something that the people who died and the people we commemorate in the war gone by, they fought for people to have those freedoms, not for those freedoms to be taken away arbitrarily on the whim of a minister on insufficient grounds. thank you for being with us. with more on this i am joined by our home affairs correspondent daniel sandford from the newsroom. this political row is one that is deepening by the moment. what impact does it have for the policing and authorisation of this march going ahead on saturday? i authorisation of this march going ahead on saturday?— ahead on saturday? i think it has been a very _ ahead on saturday? i think it has been a very difficult _ ahead on saturday? i think it has been a very difficult moment - ahead on saturday? i think it has been a very difficult moment for| been a very difficult moment for policing this week. they have experience of which they haven't really experienced on this scale before and it has been difficult for them to know quite how proud they with it. you have seen a situation

where the commission of the metropolitan police has been summoned to a series of meetings effectively all but ordered to prevent this march going ahead then when he has pointed out that under the law he doesn't really have the power to prevent the march going ahead because he needed evidence that it was going to be serious public disorder and he didn't see that evidence there there has been a march every saturday and it hasn't been serious public disorder to has been serious public disorder to has been disorder but it hasn't been serious public disorder is a reason to think there would be this weekend he is in finding a where a home secretary has accused him of being biased. just in picking out a little bit of course have been marches that have been banned. the most famous incidents is in recent years were about 10 or 11 years ago when i was about 10 or 11 years ago when i was a series of english defence league

marches which were banned the police did go to that then home secretary theresa may, a conservative home secretary and said they think these english defence league marches in the areas where they are taking place to risk causing serious public disorder, they were regarded as provocative in they are where they were taking place and also there had been some disorder on some previous marches, so that is the sort of recent example where marches have been banned. there was a debate about whether the marches should be banned during the time of covid but that was more about whether there was were preaching covid restrictions are than whether they were causing serious public disorder. and there was some pretty robust words exchanged between the then home secretary priti patel and then home secretary priti patel and the police about whether they should be enforcing the covid rules but this is a much higher level of criticism and this allegation of bias is essentially what suella

braverman has said you should be treating the f solidarity campaign march in the same way as you treated the english defence league marches —— the palestine solidarity. and pray that you are biased and that has put the police and an exceptional difficult difficult position because they hold very tightly to the scene which is laid down by parliament under the policing protocol which was renewed only this year in 2023, that the police have operational independence because they police by consent, it is quite important that they don't police at the request of politicians because then at any one time any one government at a time only has a0 or 50 support of the population which means the rest of the population don't fully support that government of the day and if the police are doing things are going to the government of the day rather according to the law, that will immediately cause problems in a

democratic structure of society so thatis democratic structure of society so that is why the police find this operation independence point incredibly important. iliiui’hat operation independence point incredibly important.- operation independence point incredibly important. what is your assessment _ incredibly important. what is your assessment of _ incredibly important. what is your assessment of that _ incredibly important. what is your assessment of that claim - incredibly important. what is your assessment of that claim by - incredibly important. what is your assessment of that claim by the l incredibly important. what is your- assessment of that claim by the home secretary that the met is playing favourites, she specifically talks about the policing of right protests that became aggressive but often stop said while pro—palestinian mobs have been permitted. you have been home affairs correspondent for a long time and seen lots of these different marches, do you feel the policing of these pro—palestinian marches over the past month have been police differently at all? i think certainly the policing has been the same as every protest i have ever seen, they have watched observed sometimes filmed and recorded incidents and then taken action afterwards, when they feel that people have been inciting racial hatred or choice of sport for a banned organisation under the terrorism act, so in terms of how they have policed it i wouldn't say

there has been any very significant difference i remember being on the very, very first demonstration outside the israeli embassyjust two days after one people had been killed in israel and the march felt very insensitive people were setting off fireworks and flares out side the embassyjust off fireworks and flares out side the embassy just two off fireworks and flares out side the embassyjust two days after 1a people had been killed but again there wasn't much sign of lawbreaking going on and the police dispersed it quietly and gently when the opportunity arose i think the key question is the difference between what happened to the english defence league in the early two and 20 and what is happening in these marches here and when i look at what suella braverman said that as he only thing i can think about, what she is saying because that is the only example in march have been banned which have essentially been

nationalised marches which she references in her article and the difference to police would point out that the moment is the disorder that surrounded those marches the previous marches before the bands came in and the relative lack of disorder that surrounded these marches however much people may be upset by these marches there has been a relative lack of disorder surrounding them.— been a relative lack of disorder surrounding them. been a relative lack of disorder surroundin: them. ., , . surrounding them. thanks very much. let's show surrounding them. thanks very much. let's show you — surrounding them. thanks very much. let's show you the _ surrounding them. thanks very much. let's show you the scene _ surrounding them. thanks very much. let's show you the scene alive - let's show you the scene alive outside downing street where in the past half hour we have had this response to suella braverman's article in the times in which an spokesperson said that number 10 did not clear at article. in fact they asked them to make edits which did not happen they said they are looking into what happened regarding the publication of the article but said the prime minister has full confidence in the home secretary in a past two minutes later if i were

labour party so keir starmer as there is a prime minister to sack home secretary over this article. he said that he needs to question her ability to fulfil her role he said she is stoking up tension at the very time we should be trying to reduce tension. i will be talking soon to the shadow home secretary who called urgent questions in the house of commons a little earlier. now though, new figures from nhs england show that around 1 million people in england are waiting for multiple treatments as the backlog hit a new record high. there were 7.7 million waits for non—emergency treatment at the end of september, that is up from 7.75 million in august. that analysis of nhs england showed that includes people who are on more than one waiting list. most are on two or three but some will be on as many as five. let's speak to our health

correspondent. in fact, we will talk to nick a little bit laterfor the analysis on those figures. events in the middle east,. as fighting intensifies on the streets of gaza city, a military focus and said that the gay south would be open. then estimate —— the gate to the south would be open. they said that they have lost control of gaza. they have been with israel defence forces inside the territory. the sections featuring the israeli military have been cleared by the idea. like young soldiers in many wars, israeli troops looked excited, not apprehensive, as they made their final

preparations to join israel's invasion of the gaza strip. they're moving in as the war approaches a critical point.