Braverman defection sparks row over Tory mental health claim

Published: 27 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The fallout from the Braverman defection has exposed deep fractures within British conservatism and its public tone. Within hours of Suella Braverman formally joining Reform UK, senior Conservatives faced fierce criticism for linking her departure to alleged mental health concerns. The episode has reignited debate about political responsibility, personal dignity, and the increasingly bitter language shaping Westminster’s realignment.

Braverman, a former home secretary and prominent figure on the Conservative right, ended months of speculation by defecting to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Her move made her the third sitting Conservative MP to cross the floor in little over a week. Appearing alongside Farage, she accused her former party of abandoning core promises, leaving her politically homeless after years of internal conflict.

The controversy erupted when the Conservative Party issued an initial statement responding to her exit. It claimed the party had done “all we could to look after Suella’s mental health” and suggested she was “clearly very unhappy”. Critics across parties condemned the language as inappropriate and stigmatising. Within hours, the statement was withdrawn and replaced, with party officials describing the original wording as an unreleased draft sent out in error.

That explanation did little to stem the backlash. Former Conservative MP Nigel Evans called the statement an “absolute disgrace”, while immigration minister Mike Tapp described it as “gutter politics”. Mental health charities and campaigners also expressed concern, warning against the use of personal wellbeing as a political weapon during moments of crisis or transition.

Braverman herself responded later that day, saying the comments revealed more about her former colleagues than about her. She said she had previously been accused by party figures, including leader Kemi Badenoch, of having suffered a breakdown. According to Braverman, Badenoch later apologised during her leadership campaign, privately acknowledging the remark and seeking her support.

Standing before a crowd at a Reform UK rally in central London, Braverman framed her defection as principled rather than opportunistic. She argued that repeated Conservative promises on Brexit, immigration, and national sovereignty had collapsed. While critics noted her senior roles in shaping those very policies, she insisted internal resistance and legal constraints prevented meaningful delivery.

Nigel Farage welcomed her as a figure of experience who understood government from the inside. He confirmed discussions with Braverman had been ongoing for over a year, adding that her arrival strengthened Reform’s credibility as a serious parliamentary force. Her husband, Rael Braverman, who previously left Reform following criticism of his wife, has since rejoined the party.

The Braverman defection has also unsettled Conservative backbenchers already anxious about party unity. Some fear a steady drain of rightwing MPs could accelerate perceptions of decline. Others argue her move simply formalises a split that has existed since the Brexit years, when ideological divisions hardened and loyalty became increasingly conditional.

Within Reform, reactions have been mixed. While Farage praised Braverman’s willingness to challenge orthodoxies, some party insiders worry about absorbing too many former Conservatives with leadership ambitions. Reform figures previously briefed that Braverman and Liz Truss would not be welcomed, concerned their records might undermine the party’s outsider image.

At the rally, Braverman accused Badenoch of leading a “witch-hunt against rightwingers” within the Conservative Party. She told supporters that loyalty must be questioned when a party no longer reflects its founding values. Her speech echoed themes used by other recent defectors, describing Britain as broken and betrayed by cautious governance.

Farage, however, sought to draw boundaries. He ruled out welcoming figures such as Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson, or Priti Patel, arguing they symbolised policy failure and denial. Speaking to broadcasters, he said Reform would not accept those unwilling to acknowledge responsibility for record immigration levels or economic stagnation.

Labour seized the moment to attack both parties. Party chair Anna Turley said Reform was filling its ranks with failed Conservatives responsible for fourteen years of decline. She accused Braverman of helping botch Brexit and contributing to chaos during her tenure as home secretary.

Beyond partisan skirmishing, the episode has intensified scrutiny of political language and mental health. Several MPs privately expressed discomfort at the initial Conservative statement, warning that such remarks could deter public figures from speaking openly about wellbeing. Campaigners stressed that mental health should never be invoked to undermine credibility or agency.

For the Conservatives, the damage is reputational as well as electoral. The rapid correction of the statement suggested internal alarm, yet critics argue it revealed instinctive hostility toward dissenters. With local elections approaching, party strategists fear the narrative of bitterness and disarray could further erode voter trust.

Meanwhile, Reform UK’s parliamentary presence has grown to eight MPs, an unprecedented development for a party long viewed as peripheral. Whether this momentum translates into sustained influence remains uncertain. Farage faces pressure to prove Reform is more than a refuge for disaffected Conservatives seeking relevance.

As for Braverman, she has promised to outline her reasons for leaving in greater detail, including renewed criticism of the European Convention on Human Rights. She maintains that constraints imposed by the convention blocked tougher immigration enforcement, a claim contested by legal experts and former colleagues.

The Braverman defection thus represents more than a personal political gamble. It highlights the fragility of party loyalties, the volatility of political rhetoric, and the ethical lines tested during periods of upheaval. How voters respond may shape the next phase of Britain’s evolving political landscape.

Check our latest news