firing her will allow him to eliminate a popular rival and look tough
If she was a popular rival, and I don't think she is, it would probably be safer for Sunak to have her in cabinet and subject to cabinet discipline than on the backbenches causing more trouble.
Boris Johnson tops the list of people Conservative party members would most want to see take over if Liz Truss resigned
And if you had to choose from the same list, who would you most like to take over if Liz Truss resigned in the next few weeks? % of 530 Conservative party members
Boris Johnson
32
Rishi Sunak
23
Ben Wallace
10
Penny Mordaunt
9
Kemi Badenoch
8
Jeremy Hunt
7
Suella Braverman
3
Nadhim Zahawi
1
Tom Tugendhat
1
Michael Gove
1
Grant Shapps
0
Someone else
2
Don't know
2
Ok – score is one each IIRC.
gone in a month?
I’ll take that. She’ll definitely still be there in a month. She’s clearly going to brazen it out and Rishi is too weak to sack her as it’ll upset the headbangers
The pies you sent as my winnings last time were absolutely lush!
yer on!
Funniest part of this was Sunak's reply in Japan to Chris Mason - "Do you have any question on the summit?"... "Others will". Great one off retort from Mason given that Sunak was probably jet-lagged and only read it in the Sunday Times that morning (Maybe, probably put it there a few days earlier). I think she's toast too. It's Grayling's time...
She’s obviously been briefed to repeat it like a malfunctioning droid whatever anyone asks her to avoid the truth.
The Tories are good at producing "malfunctioning droid" ministers. Shame she's not boiled it down to a three-word-slogan yet though, i think that shows a certain lack of effort on her part.
Theresa May had it down to a fine art with "Brexit Means Brexit".
How long before speed cameras are a woke leftie conspiracy against our God-given freedoms to drive as fast as we like? It's especially ironic given her diktat to police chiefs last year to concentrate less on woke diversity training (her words) and more on fighting crime.
Here we are Cruella, we're fighting the crime of speeding.
NO, NOT LIKE THAT!!
How long before speed cameras are a woke leftie conspiracy against our God-given freedoms to drive as fast as we like?
Judging by my local Facebook community group this is already a widely held view.
Perhaps Suella Braverman leaked the speeding story herself - it turns out that she could probably do with an excuse to resign!
Apparently new figures out this week are likely show legal immigration at another record high, that won't go down well with her faction of the party.
Perhaps what was seen last week as a bid for the Tory leadership was actually her preparing for an excuse to resign from the government - "I don't agree with Rishi Sunak's policies on immigration".
She could use the fuss over her speeding incident as an excuse to resign portraying herself as the victim of a smear campaign.
The question is how soon she needs to resign to avoid bearing responsibility for the government’s failure to stop people crossing the Channel. The longer she stays in post, the harder it will be to say “I told you so”. Martyrdom is elusive once you’re complicit.
On Thursday (25 May), immigration figures will be released that are expected to be well over half a million. Her resignation letter writes itself: these figures prove that No 10 should have heeded my advice. What better time to go?
How long before speed cameras are a woke leftie conspiracy against our God-given freedoms to drive as fast as we like?
Doesn’t that place the Tories into an uncomfortable position though, because aren’t they supposed to be the party of Law and Order? The ones advocating increased surveillance and increasing numbers of cameras?
Although Wiltshire removed all of its speed cameras, and even the cash cow camera on the Batheaston Bypass has been deactivated, and that’s BANES; it’s always amusing following cars out of Bath, and watching drivers stick to just under 50 as they approach the camera heading East.
I don't think she is that clever Ernie. also she could resign on a point of principle rather than leak damaging info about herself
because aren’t they supposed to be the party of Law and Order?
And economic responsibility!
Doesn’t that place the Tories into an uncomfortable position though, because aren’t they supposed to be the party of Law and Order?
They’re very selective about which laws they want enforced though. Financial fraud over multimillion pound PPE contracts, say? Let’s just forget about that, eh? Would you like a knighthood to go with that yacht?
Glueing yourself to a bridge? Throw away the key!!
Rishi is too weak to sack her as it’ll upset the headbangers
Yep. They have little Rish by the balls.
This really isn't a law and order issue, it is a ministerial code issue. The ministerial code states that you have to separate out your private interests as a minister from your public duties,
It is widely accepted that if she had simply taken the points or the speed awareness course that would have been the end of the matter.
The only reason there is a problem is because she is alledged to have asked a civil servant to deal with a personal and private matter on her behalf.
The only reason there is a problem is because she is alledged to have asked a civil servant to deal with a personal and private matter on her behalf
The only reason there’s a problem is because yet again we have a Tory MP who thinks that the laws, rules and conventions that apply to everyone else, shouldn’t apply to them. She also thinks that civil servants are there purely to facilitate this for her and unquestioningly do her bidding
The sheer arrogance of it.
Isn’t the chief whip being quoted as saying ‘the problem with Suella is she thinks she can just do whatever she likes’
Hardly a novel attitude when it comes to the most high profile Tories, is it?
Well Simon Jenkins of the Guardian also manages to miss the point:
"There are many reasons the home secretary may not be right for the job, but this inflated drama isn’t one of them"
IMO Jenkins is right when he dismisses the speeding as trivial, it is. But of course Braverman should be sacked if she has yet again broken the ministerial code.
Rishi Sunak promised integrity in government, he can't reasonably expect to be taken seriously if he has a serial ministerial code breaker as Home Secretary.
And just to emphasise that he has completely missed the point Jenkins ends up waffling on about whether some speed limits and low-traffic neighborhoods are justified.
Does anyone view anything Simon Jenkins writes as anything other than total bollocks?
Exclusive:
One Tory insider said........
Why is the Guardian getting exclusive briefings against Braverman from a 'Tory insider'?
Are the knives out for Braverman?
Maybe some of them (the less far right neo nazis amongst them) see that yet more 'one rule for the plebs no rules for the leaders' from pretty much the top (home office is arguably the 3rd highest job after PM and Chancellor) is going to rile the general public further and consign even more of them to losing their seat at the election.
The only reason there is a problem is because she is alledged to have asked a civil servant to deal with a personal and private matter on her behalf
In the version I heard, asked the CS, get told no, and then instead gave it to an advisor to sort out with them.
The original enquiry I can sort of see - wasn't avoiding the offence, asking if a driving course was a possible alternative and if that can be private because there ARE possible reasons why someone like her might need to avoid attending a public course.
It's being told no and then as a lawyer, the ex-head of the profession in the UK, and now the Home Sec using unfair influence for potential private gain because you don't like the answers breaks the integrity test to me.
Might be minor compared to illegal proroguing parliament, but it is systemic in this lot. That's the issue.
"Honesty, integrity, accountability" was the promise from the steps of No 10. Can only mean one thing in my mind. But I'm not so sure in theirs.
The original enquiry I can sort of see – wasn’t avoiding the offence, asking if a driving course was a possible alternative and if that can be private because there ARE possible reasons why someone like her might need to avoid attending a public course
Curious to know the valid concerns which would prevent the SSHO attending an online course? Surely it would be more beneficial for the party of law and order to show justice applied to all?
As an aside I know a guy who works for the Home Office, got caught speeding, in his own car, off duty, put his hands up straight away, three points etc, nobody had any knowledge of his employment. Reports it to work - written warning; bringing the employer into disrepute. Going to be hard to justify that if the bosses take the piss without sanction.
Curious to know the valid concerns which would prevent the SSHO attending an online course?
Yes, that's the thing - video off in an online course is about avoiding political embarrassment, not ensuring security.
Reports it to work – written warning; bringing the employer into disrepute.
Really? Seems a bit unlikely..
I don't know what the concerns that may have been cited were, but the fact they exist indicates there must be cases where deemed appropriate. Freeman claims it's because the presence of 'celebrity' means that instead of concentrating on the course, everyone is sat there open mouthed because they're in a room with <celebrity criminal>
Conversation should have gone.
'I got done for speeding. Will I be offered a course instead of fine and points, and if so do I have to go to a public one, etc?'
'Nope. If you get offered a course, which we have no influence over, you'll have to do it like anyone else. No-one can be seen to be above the law, especially given the shitstorm already being created by perception. Suck it up'
'Ah OK, was just checking'
- I could live with that.
Curious to know the valid concerns which would prevent the SSHO attending an online course? Surely it would be more beneficial for the party of law and order to show justice applied to all?
High profile people get 121 sessions if their participation might disrupt a group session. The course providers or their lawyers can request it, works both ways. And it's fairly common.
The fact that the "governments top lawyer" at the time didn't know this speaks volumes.
as an aside.... you can do them online? Minimal inconvenience and you can be playing on your phone at the same time - who's to know otherwise, as long as you have half an eye on the course.
Surely that can't be appropriate?
As an aside I know a guy who works for the Home Office, got caught speeding, in his own car, off duty, put his hands up straight away, three points etc, nobody had any knowledge of his employment. Reports it to work – written warning; bringing the employer into disrepute. Going to be hard to justify that if the bosses take the piss without sanction.
Hopefully said person is composing a strongly worded email as we speak. It is a similar thing to a hypothetical situation where a new variant of covid with far higher mortality arises. If, heaven forbid, we did have to lockdown again or impose strict measures - I would say a significant minority or even narrow majority of the population would tell the advisors to shove it up their arses citing Johnson's behaviour.
With Braverman, the progressives who want her out need to be a bit careful because it will spun, obviously, as Home Secretary Ousted Over Three Speeding Points. This needs to be done with a great big billboard behind shouting how she was dismissed for breaking the Ministerial Code, then given another top job 6 days later - but has broken that code on at least one other occasion.
Remember this is all framed by the culture warriors as the blob getting rid of Raab by squealing to teacher about his bullying, now it is a Home Secretary being ousted over 3 points on her licence (not my framing, but plenty of gammons on other social media are pushing this). I strongly suspect there are a few Labour MPs and wannabe ministers who are having a think about how they have handled some issues and how it could play out.
I want the Tories gone at all costs, but I'd like it to be replaced by something much, much better.
The fact that the “governments top lawyer” at the time didn’t know this speaks volumes.
I really wouldn't expect the "governments top lawyer" to be intimately familiar with such a minor detail of one aspect of the huge machinery of the British government.
I really wouldn’t expect the “governments top lawyer” to be intimately familiar with such a minor detail of one aspect of the huge machinery of the British government
I would expect her to know who she could speak to without breaking tne ministerial code to find out what could be done.
As for the warning for the Home Office speeder - it is a huge issue for CS staff that we seem to be held to a higher standard than ministers and MPs.
I really wouldn’t expect the “governments top lawyer” to be intimately familiar with such a minor detail of one aspect of the huge machinery of the British government.
I wouldn't describe the rules concerning speed awareness courses as being part of the huge machinery of the British government.
And I would definitely expect a qualified barrister to have the capability to do her own legal research into a personal legal issue.
I would also expect her to have a greater understanding of the ministerial code - the rules that relate to a minister's private interests and their public duties aren't complicated.
If you have even a vague understanding of the mindbogglingly complex British immigration and nationality laws, which you would expect a Home Secretary to have, you should be able to get your head round something as simple a the ministerial code.
If you have even a vague understanding of the mindbogglingly complex British immigration and nationality laws, which you would expect a Home Secretary to have, you should be able to get your head round something as simple a the ministerial code.
If I am interpreting this paragraph correctly...
👏
Because what I think you are implying is that Braverman doesn't actually understand the legal framework around her favourite topic because she doesn't care - her game is not detailed reviewing and amending, but blowing a dog whistle for her supporters. And that she regards the Ministerial Code as an annoyance to be circumvented wherever possible.
I don't think SB thought that much about it. It's clearly been alighted upon as a weapon that can be used to attack her, probably by Sunak (or supporters of, with tacit agreement) as I understand he was unhappy that he was "encouraged" to include her in his cabinet in a prominent position by segments of his own party under the guise of unity, and given the shite that routinely falls out of her open mouth, I'm not surprised. If she survives this - probably IMO, there will something else in a couple of weeks, likely before the summer recess
Why is the Guardian getting exclusive briefings against Braverman from a ‘Tory insider’?
Are the knives out for Braverman?
Seems pretty obvious to me that this whole story has originated from Sunak's people in response to her shameless grandstanding last week. They've probably had this in their back pocket for a while and were just waiting for an excuse to deploy it to finally get rid of her and amazingly she gave them the perfect excuse.
She's the ultimate living embodiment of the hollowing out of the Tory party by Johnson and the promotion of people who are completely unfit to hold high office, and who's only qualification for the job is unquestioning loyalty or factional political expediency
There have been some truly dreadful appointments over the last few years which frankly make this country a laughing stock, but someone like Braverman as Home Secretary is absolutely ludicrous and just shows what an absolute banana republic Brexit Britain is
She’s the ultimate living embodiment of the hollowing out of the Tory party by Johnson and the promotion of people who are completely unfit to hold high office, and who’s only qualification for the job is unquestioning loyalty or factional political expediency
There have been some truly dreadful appointments over the last few years which frankly make this country a laughing stock, but someone like Braverman as Home Secretary is absolutely ludicrous and just shows what an absolute banana republic Brexit Britain is
100%
We have fallen so far in such a short period and it was the Brexit vote and its associated trashing of accepted political norms that pulled the brick out from the bottom of the wall.
Sad, sad times.
Sad, sad times.
Odd comment given that it's destroyed the tory party and any chances they had of winning the next election. Or would you prefer a sensible tory govt in the EU than a labour govt out of it?
I'm no tory apologist, but the current state of our politics/government is pretty sad from my POV.
You're no match for Ernie at this stuff. The word 'sensible' is so open to interpretation that it makes your question pointless.
Here's Peter Oborne (no ones bleeding heart liberal) cataloguing the destruction of the UK's political respectability by actually stating the lies of Sunak and Johnson.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-truth-integrity
If you honestly believe that Johnson would have gotten to be PM without Brexit, you need to have a good look in the mirror.
My use of the term 'sad times' was referring to how far the UK has sunk in the view of the rest of the world - not in relation to any damage done to the Tory brand. As well you know.
Ministerial competence has been on an almost vertical downward trajectory for a long time.
It went into freefall in 2016 (hmmm... I wonder why?) with the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary, then we've hurtled past a series of grimly ****-witted benchmarks... Chris Graylings Ferries, David Davis's freestyling Brexit, Matt Hancock as Health Secretary during a pandemic, Dominic Rabb rewriting our bill of rights (probably in his own blood) after realising our ports are quite important, Theresa Coffey as Secretary of State for Environment, credulous simpering halfwit Helen Whately in the cabinet, the callous cruelty of Priti Patel, the Truss and Kwatang, Laurel and Hardy show. But surely Bravermans appointment as Home Secretary, twice, is right up there as the very personification of how standards in government has declined to such a terrifying degree under this shower of blithering incompetents?
Though Ceverley's present 'Air Miles' globetrotting as Foreign Secretary is surely its equal
My use of the term ‘sad times’ was referring to how far the UK has sunk in the view of the rest of the world
Another odd comment. Do you actually care what people around the world think about the british state? Why? Do you judge people from other countries by the competence of their government? Given the abject failure of all governments around the world to address the single biggest issue facing us I don't see the difference between ourselves and others.
I couldn't give monkeys what the rest of the world think of us (even though we're now worse than Berlesconi's Italy). What I care about is having a succession of cabinet ministers who you wouldn't trust to run a ****ing bath, let alone a government department. You wonder if the likes of Helen Whately manage to get themselves dressed and tie their own shoelaces in the morning without assistance
nickc
Full Member
I don’t think SB thought that much about it.
Yup quite possibly, which is what I find particularly astonishing. It should have been extremely obvious to her that approaching a civil servant in relation to a personal and private matter was likely to have ministerial code issues.
So it is hard to understand why she went ahead anyway when she had already previously been forced to resign for breaking the ministerial code, you would expect her to be double careful.
The previous occasion was also for mixing private stuff with her role as a government minister.
So it is hard to understand why she went ahead anyway when she had already previously been forced to resign for breaking the ministerial code, you would expect her to be double careful.
There are only really 3 possible answers...
1. Stupidity
2. Arrogance
3. Both of the above
Do you actually care what people around the world think about the british state? Why?
Very much so. It governs how other, supposedly grownup, countries interact with us.
Presumably the biggest issue you refer to is climate change(?)
Countries will need to trust each other in order to get anything useful done. No one is going to trust a government that will renege on deals just because 'x' CEO kicks off about environmental targets hitting his bottom line (and thus bonus) or 'y' bunch of gammons in the Home Counties regard driving themselves to the golf club in a 4 seater Lexus as a fundamental human right.
And what about all the pissing around threatening to break existing international law because we can't get what we (supposedly) want?
How about wanting locals to trust us should we end up militarily involved in peacekeeping somewhere? Now we treat Afghans who have helped us like shit because it doesn't play well to racists to help brown people out?
If you honestly think (again), that the past seven years has not damaged the credibility of the UK as a potential partner, it is mirror time again.
And on a personal level you are right - it does matter to me. I've had many conversations with continental europeans who are amused that a country that holds its own political system in such high regard was conned by people like Farage into voting against its own best interests.
The UK, as a post-industrial, supposedly educated, service and tech based economy, has no future if not in close collaboration with other states at a similar point in their development.
I think that covers it, TBH.
More on her somewhat flexible attitude to the Ministerial Code:
https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1660960831184543744
No one is going to trust a government that will renege on deals just because ‘x’ CEO kicks off about environmental targets hitting his bottom line (and thus bonus) or ‘y’ bunch of gammons in the Home Counties regard driving themselves to the golf club in a 4 seater Lexus as a fundamental human right.
But that pretty much describes all western developed countries. So none of them are to be trusted? There is not a single developed western country which is properly addressing climate change. All other issues are insignificant, so your continental friends who look down on us are deluding themselves as to their supposed superiority. You should remind them of that next time you speak and stop worrying about it.
We have fallen so far in such a short period and it was the Brexit vote and its associated trashing of accepted political norms that pulled the brick out from the bottom of the wall.
Yeah, but look at the sunlit uplands...
