Well, that didn’t take long. After months of speculation, Suella Braverman has finally crossed the floor, metaphorically speaking, and joined Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. The former Home Secretary announced her departure from the Conservative Party earlier today, bringing an end to a 30-year membership and sending shockwaves through Westminster. Or did it? Because honestly, nobody seems particularly surprised.
What has raised eyebrows, however, is the Conservative Party’s official response. In what can only be described as a spectacularly ill-judged statement, Tory HQ decided to bring up Braverman’s “mental health.” And that, frankly, is where this story gets genuinely troubling.
Braverman announced her move to Reform UK with all the fanfare you’d expect from someone who’s been itching to leave for quite some time. Speaking at a Reform event, she declared that she finally felt like she had “come home”, a sentiment that must sting somewhat for the party she’d been a member of since the mid-1990s.
Her reasoning? The Conservatives, she claims, are fundamentally dishonest – Great speeches, good slogans, but few solutions and the lack of political will to do what needs to be done.
The former Cabinet minister, who served under four Prime Ministers including Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak, reserved particular venom for what she sees as broken promises on immigration. She accused the Tories of making pledges with “zero intention of keeping them,” specifically their failure to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights.
“Britain is indeed broken,” Braverman proclaimed. “She is suffering. She is not well. Immigration is out of control. Our public services are on their knees. People don’t feel safe.”
Strong words from someone who was, until relatively recently, the person in charge of the Home Office. But that’s a debate for another day.
Braverman isn’t exactly blazing a trail here. She’s the fourth sitting Conservative MP to defect to Reform UK since the 2024 general election, following in the footsteps of Robert Jenrick, Danny Kruger and Andrew Rosindell. Her arrival brings Reform’s total of sitting MPs to eight, five of whom are former Conservatives.
For Nigel Farage, this represents a significant scalp. Braverman brings genuine Cabinet experience and name recognition; she’s not some backbencher nobody’s heard of. Whether you agree with her politics or not, she’s a substantial figure, and her defection will inevitably fuel questions about the Conservative Party’s direction and viability.
The Tories, still reeling from their 2024 election defeat, now face the very real prospect of bleeding more members to their right-wing rivals. The question many are asking: who’s next?
But here’s where things get properly uncomfortable.
In response to Braverman’s defection, the Conservative Party issued a statement that has prompted widespread criticism. Rather than simply dismissing her departure or attacking her political judgment, they decided to go somewhere else entirely.
The statement claimed that the party “did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health” but that she was “clearly very unhappy.” They also suggested her defection was “always a matter of when, not if.”
Read that again. A major political party, in an official statement, publicly referenced a former colleague’s mental health as part of their response to her leaving.
The implications are staggering. Either the Conservatives are weaponising mental health as a political smear, suggesting that Braverman’s decision to leave was somehow the product of an unstable mind rather than a legitimate political choice, or they’re revealing personal medical information about a former minister without her consent.
Neither option is acceptable.
Let’s be absolutely clear about what happened here. The Conservative Party chose to bring up mental health in a context designed to undermine and delegitimise Braverman’s defection. The subtext is impossible to miss: she’s not leaving because she has genuine political disagreements; she’s leaving because she’s mentally unwell.
This is a tactic as old as politics itself, dismissing opponents as “mad” or “hysterical” rather than engaging with their arguments. But in 2026, when we’re supposed to be having mature conversations about mental health and reducing stigma, it feels particularly egregious.
If Braverman did receive mental health support during her time in government, and there’s absolutely no shame if she did, then broadcasting that fact to the media is a profound betrayal of confidence. Ministers deal with extraordinary pressure, and any suggestion that seeking help could later be used against them will only discourage others from doing the same.
Alternatively, if this is simply a smear with no basis in fact, it’s arguably even worse. Using mental health as shorthand for “unreliable” or “not to be taken seriously” reinforces exactly the kind of stigma that costs lives.
The Question We Must Ask
So here’s the uncomfortable question that this whole sorry episode raises: Is it ever right for a political party to refer to an individual’s mental health in this way?
Think about it from every angle, and the answer keeps coming back the same: no.
If the mental health reference is true, then the Conservative Party has betrayed sensitive personal information about a former colleague. Medical matters: including mental health: are private. Revealing them without consent, particularly in a hostile context, is a violation of trust that should concern anyone who might ever seek support while in public life.
If the mental health reference is false or exaggerated, then it’s a cynical smear designed to discredit Braverman by implying she’s somehow not of sound mind. This weaponises mental health stigma for political gain, contributing to a culture where admitting to struggles is seen as weakness.
There’s no version of this that looks good for the Conservatives.
This incident points to something rotten in our political culture. We claim to care about mental health. We wear the ribbons, we share the awareness posts, we talk about ending the stigma. But the moment it becomes politically convenient, mental health becomes a tool: a way to diminish opponents and cast doubt on their credibility.
Politicians are human beings. They experience stress, anxiety, depression, and everything else that affects the general population: often at elevated rates given the pressures of public life. If the message from this episode is that seeking mental health support can and will be used against you when it suits your former colleagues, we’re going to see fewer people reaching out for help when they need it.
That’s not just bad for politics. It’s dangerous.
Braverman will take her seat among Reform’s growing ranks, no doubt relishing the opportunity to attack her former party from across the aisle. The Conservatives will fight back, I have no doubt, and this particular statement will likely be quietly forgotten amid the next news cycle.
But it shouldn’t be forgotten. Because the casual way in which a major political party reached for mental health as a weapon tells us something important about where we really are in the fight against stigma.
We can do better. We must do better.
***We approached the Conservative Party for a comment, but at the time of going to pixel, none had been received.***
Suella Braverman Defects: A ‘Homecoming’ for Reform and a Low Blow from the Tories?
