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
I care about how we are viewed. Our criticism of other regimes regarding the immorality of their actions - should mean that we maintain high-standards and are not hypocritical.
Historically, as a nation we have committed significant acts of repression in the name of colonialism, religion, racial supremacy etc. and needed to correct the centuries of injustice we as a nation imposed.
Instead, we have acted illegally to wage war in the Middle East, continued and escalated the removal of controls which should prevent the exploitation of our own and other countries populations and economies.
The 21st century Conservative government is just the latest batch of incompetent, self-serving charlatans that represent the country.
Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level - despite acting hugely despicably and immorally.
More than ever and openly in fact,the government acts in bad faith, ignores international law and openly lies.
This government in common with many others, exists in a post-fact world, empty of facts and expert knowledge. The only value the government seems to have is exploiting the 99% to increase the wealth and influence of the 1%.
Turns out she had her dirty fingerprints all over training of Rwandan lawyers that she's now dealing with to export poor desperate defenceless refugees there.
Talk about corrupter and corrupterer
I would expect her to know who she could speak to without breaking tne ministerial code to find out what could be done.
Oh, I completely agree. I just don't think not knowing exactly how exceptions to speed awareness courses work (or the opening times of the loading dock of the Crown Court at Guildford for that matter) somehow proves you're incompetent as Homw Secretary. Especially when there are so many other, more compelling, reasons...
Much as I can't stand Braverman, the Rwanda thing is an absolute non-story. What exactly are the two conflicting interests or duties that she had?
we have acted illegally to wage war in the Middle East...Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level...
🤔
I just don’t think not knowing exactly how exceptions to speed awareness courses work (or the opening times of the loading dock of the Crown Court at Guildford for that matter) somehow proves you’re incompetent as Homw Secretary
Her incompetence was already beyond doubt. This was just further evidence of her self centered incompetence.
What exactly are the two conflicting interests or duties that she had?
As I understand it, she failed to disclose her involvement, which is (yet another) breach of the parliamentary/ministerial code.
It may be she hasn't abused or taken advantage of her role in Rwanda. But if you don't disclose it we'd never know. It's why the rules exist.
But that pretty much describes all western developed countries. So none of them are to be trusted?
The US and EU seem to be cooperating in good faith without too many problems when it comes to shaping the future of low carbon, greener technologies. 🤷♂️
Why hasn't the UK got a seat at this table? We asked to be excluded. Why did we ask to be excluded?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/08/rishi-sunak-reshuffle-conservatives-brexit
Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level – despite acting hugely despicably and immorally.
I assume that you are not making a comparison between asking a civil servant if it is possible to arrange a private speed awareness course and an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands have died or deliberately pursuing policies which you know will cause 3 million unemployed?
So what has Rishi Sunak's government done to warrant the claim that it has stooped lower than Blair, Major, and Thatcher?
Btw John Major's government was utterly sleaze ridden, in fact it was precisely because of all the scandals which occurred during John Major's government that the Ministerial Code was introduced in the first place.
I intensely dislike Tory governments but some people have a surprisingly rose-tinted view of history and past Tory governments.
Btw John Major’s government was utterly sleaze ridden, in fact it was precisely because of all the scandals which occurred during John Major’s government that the Ministerial Code was introduced in the first place.
Yes, and like Sunak's rickety shitshow he also made a rod for his own back with Back To Basics.
Johnson was elected precisely because he is a liar and the mood at the time was very much that he would toss the EU off in negotiations and pull off a 'victory'. Idiotic, but there you go. The lack of a credible alternative was also a huge contributing factor.
Also worth noting that a number of sleaze scandals revealed is not always a reliable barometer of what is going on. Major, despite a miraculous election win, was weak in a Westminster numbers sense and in hock to the Ulster Unionists. The whiff of death was all around.
The US and EU seem to be cooperating in good faith without too many problems when it comes to shaping the future of low carbon, greener technologies. 🤷♂️
You mean collaborating to achieve sweet F.A. The US has just licensed oil exploration in Alaska. Germany have turned their coal power plants back on. The UK is developing new coal and oil sites. No country is coming anywhere near where they need to be to meet the 1.5deg Paris target. In fact if you listen to some eminent climate scientists, a lot more that 1.5 degrees warming is already baked in.
https://twitter.com/postcarbonsteve/status/1659653566154285076?s=20
As I understand it, she failed to disclose her involvement, which is (yet another) breach of the parliamentary/ministerial code
Which part of the Ministerial Code did her non-disclosure breach? 7.1?
General principle
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise
What is the reasonably perceived conflict between her being involved some years before in some degree in a charity that trained African lawyers, which (possibly?) included some Rwandan civil servants and her negotiating the Rwandan offshore processing deal? I don't even see the relevance let alone the conflict.
It's a total misunderstanding of what a conflict of interests is and what the Ministerial Code requires. Stirring in irrelevant nonsense just gives harrumphing Tories encouragement that it's a woke witchhunt.
In fact if you listen to some eminent climate scientists, a lot more that 1.5 degrees warming is already baked in.
What are the predictions around desertification and its impact on ostriches re rising sand levels?
It’s a total misunderstanding of what a conflict of interests is and what the Ministerial Code requires
An awful lot of people who know what they are talking about disagree with your opinion.
A rather good summary from Marina Hyde
Make way for Westminster’s biggest celebrity: Suella ‘three points’ Braverman
Co-founder of a charity which trained lawyers in Rwanda.
Lawyers are now members of the Rwandan Gov.
UK Gov paying 100's of millions to Rwandan Gov for the migrant resettlement programme.
Nothing in and of itself wrong with that.
Failure to mention it at all - starts to make me scratch my head a bit. May still be nothing but why not? I mean, all are supposing it's bent deals (can't imagine why!) but it could just be ineptitude. Questions as to which therefore are appropriate.
Neither are a particularly good look for a minister of state though.
Am I not the only person whose second thought (after the sheer revulsion at the Rwanda Policy) was "who has got mates or relatives in Rwanda?"
The problem is that Braverman has a serial history of making mistakes, saying daft things and generally being wrong about stuff that as a lawyer she should know better
Coming off the back of May/Johnson/Truss the public just want some competency in government, but Sunak needed to keep the rw culture warriors happy and thats why he picked her
Coming off the back of May/Johnson/Truss the public just want some competency in government, but Sunak needed to keep the rw culture warriors happy and thats why he picked her
Yup.
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.
FWIW that is cobblers. All other issues are insignificant? Tell that to previously pretty well off working couples who now can't afford to pay their mortgage due to Truss's ****tery. Or the Scottish shellfishermen who can't sell their produce into the EU. Or the food exporters who can't attend trade fairs because exporting anything less than a tonne of cheese is now economically unviable.
Many of the continental Europeans I was referring to were work colleagues, by the way. I'm certainly not making myself look a fool by defending the indefensible on behalf of thick racists. You can, if you like. 👍
An awful lot of people who know what they are talking about disagree with your opinion.
This is an appeal to (unnamed) authority. I notice you seem to think it's obvious but can't actually articulate what the actual or perceived conflict would be.
Am I not the only person whose second thought (after the sheer revulsion at the Rwanda Policy) was “who has got mates or relatives in Rwanda?”
Maybe not. But Kagame has long been an authoritarian ally of the UK. He and Blair are close friends. He loves Arsenal and he - I mean, the tourism board - sponsors them.
This is an appeal to (unnamed) authority. I notice you seem to think it’s obvious but can’t actually articulate what the actual or perceived conflict would be.
You quoted 7.1, which seemed to cover it nicely. She has failed to disclose a connection to a country that has unexpectedly become the recipient of UK taxpayers money. As plenty of people on here have perceived there could be a conflict of interest, she is in breach of the code.
Again.
You might like to articulate why you disagree.
ernielynch
Full Member
Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level – despite acting hugely despicably and immorally.I assume that you are not making a comparison between asking a civil servant if it is possible to arrange a private speed awareness course and an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands have died or deliberately pursuing policies which you know will cause 3 million unemployed?
The only comparison I am making is that Blairs government acted illegally as has every Conservative government in the 21st century.
Majors government and MP’s from across all parties acted immorally in exploiting g the ability to claim expenses and lobby parliament.
Thatchers government and policies have formed the foundation for the ‘leadership’ we have today.
I won't link to the obvious clickbait article in todays Daily Heil, but the delightful Sarah Vine has written an article about poor, brave Suella being hounded and persecuted by the 'Woke Mafia' who are apparently running, and ruining, the country
If the poundshop Katie Hopkins says anything like that then my first reaction is to check what her ex-husband has said recently. Yep, he's taken a gentle swipe at Cruella:
Gove came out before Christmas saying that she's a top politician, so the football equivalent of publicly backing the manager.
Gove came out before Christmas saying that she’s a top politician, so the football equivalent of publicly backing the manager.
She's a politician in a top job. That is a very different thing. And we all know what seminal event put people like Braverman in the ascendancy.
Aye, back stabbers. Point being that it's all a game.
Well, colour me surprised!
Who'd have thunk it, eh?
Thats my bet with TJ won 😀
Looks like Rishi really is just the continuity Johnson candidate and the ministerial code is just pointless as there is no sanction for breaking it repeatedly
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1661293884641624066?s=20
Thats official now then. There is to be no investigation into Cruella
You owe me some pies Uncle Jezza 😀
Shouldn't you give TJ a 'cooling down period' of a few days to allow for the usual pathetic, crumbling, u-turn?
Apparently Rishi Sunak took the independent advice of an Eton-educated former investment banker.
In his letter to the home secretary, the prime minister said he had consulted with his independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, who advised that "on this occasion further investigation is not necessary and I have accepted that advice".
No doubt Little Rishi thinks he has got what he wanted - Cruella's wings apparently clipped for now.
Of course, the nutters will have given him a non-committal nod which he will interpret one way.
They will renege on that as soon as Sunak does something non-crazy.
You quoted 7.1, which seemed to cover it nicely. She has failed to disclose a connection to a country that has unexpectedly become the recipient of UK taxpayers money. As plenty of people on here have perceived there could be a conflict of interest, she is in breach of the code.
Again.
You might like to articulate why you disagree.
You are still not articulating a conflict of interests. You are skipping across the important middle bit and going straight from "Braverman has a (somewhat historic, personal, and tangential imo) connection to Rwanda" to "she faced a conflict in in her negotiations with the Rwandan government".
But what exactly are the two interests that are in conflict?
Interest #1: duty to obtain best deal for the UK in shipping migrants over to Rwanda.
Interest #2: ???
Is the suggestion that she betrayed her duty to the UK and was more favourable to the Rwandan government because she was some years ago involved in some way with a charity that trained some Rwandan government lawyers...? That's weaksauce, if so.
Again.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Thats official now then. There is to be no investigation into Cruella
You owe me some pies Uncle Jezza 😀
</div>
Still time for her to go yet but its not looking likely 🙁
Still time for her to go yet.....
Well no time soon as Sunak has now clearly ruled it out.
Which is great news for opposition parties as Suella Braverman is deeply unpopular with voters:
And that was last week after Suella Braverman's rousing speech to a right-wing rabble.
She isn't even popular with Conservative voters :
Only 14 per cent of Britons have a favourable view of Ms Braverman, with 52 per cent having an unfavourable opinion. She has a -14 net favourability score from those who voted for the Conservatives in the 2019 general election, YouGov said.
So Sunak has decided to hang on to a discredited Home Secretary who voters don't like, and many Tory politicians, plus apparently right-wing newspapers, feel it's time for her to go.
You would have thought with so much stacked against him with regards to the next general election that he would have jumped at the chance of jettisoning unnecessary and useless baggage.
@politecameraaction
They were procuring a service, under public sector procurement rules you must declare any potential conflicts of interest, which includes have been a training provider for the other party. She didn't declare it, so that's where the potential for disrepute comes in. It's not that there was a conflict, it's that due diligence was not undertaken to determine if there was a conflict or not. I work public sector and i'm a budget holder, i have to declare that one sibling works for a major bank and another is an accountant at a major firm. Not that i would be involved in the procurement of either the bank or accountancy services, you still have to be transparent.
Personal opinion - she's bent as a nine-bob note.
Professional opinion - she's circumvented multiple rules to prevent conflicts of interest
You would have thought with so much stacked against him with regards to the next general election that he would have jumped at the chance of jettisoning unnecessary and useless baggage.
He's in a bit of a dilemma though. He got rid of both Zahawi and Raab after both of those were exposed by the media, and Sunak was more or less forced into agreeing that if the accusations proved true, he'd get shot of them. Regardless of Braverman's behaviour there's must be a point at which as PM you've got to stop doing it every time the media dig up some dirt about the behaviour of your cabinet because otherwise it makes the media want to go after all the cabinet and it makes you look both weak and foolish for appointing them in the first place. On the other hand, I think Sunak was forced into accepting Braverman into his cabinet by sections of his own party (whom he clearly feels he's got to keep onside) and I don't think he'd be massively unhappy if she went, I think what he wants is for her to resign, I don't think he wants to have to sack her.
I'll bet money there's another story waiting in the wings.
I’ll bet money there’s another story waiting in the wings.
To a lesser degree She's got that sense of self-entitlement Johnson possesses, that means more scandals are sure to follow
This feels like a great outcome. As Ernie says she is a proper vote loser beyond a bubble of a particularly nasty group of individuals that were never going to switch alliance to anything other than an even further right party. Add to that the damage her hanging around like a bad smell does to Sunak's credentials and it's happy days for the opposition.
Long term, probably the worst outcome for her too - if she stays as HS right up to the election she'll be tainted with failure and worse placed for a party leadership contest in 2024.
I’ll bet money there’s another story waiting in the wings.
Another socialist woke leftie conspiracy against the poor beleaguered hard-working Home Secretary who only made a small error of judgement while doing something she genuinely thought was the best thing at the time...?
That's what you meant to write surely?! 😉
They were procuring a service, under public sector procurement rules you must declare any potential conflicts of interest, which includes have been a training provider for the other party.
You think the interest that actually or apparently conflicted with Braverman's role was that she was a training provider for Rwanda?
But she wasn't. Not at the time of the negotiations. And not before. And even if she had been - where is the actual or apparent conflict? What exactly are the two duties or interests that were pulling her in different directions at the time of the negotiation?
Conflict of interests (in corporate life and in public procurement) is an area of such misunderstanding and wafflebollocks because people don't work through the steps. And this is leaving aside the fact that the Rwanda deal was cynical and transactional, but was not procurement. It's not buying traffic cones for the council from your brother's company.
Braverman is awful, but this is a non-issue.
Braverman is awful, but this is a non-issue.
is the issue not that she failed to declare it, shes not supposed to give the impression of corruption as well as not actually be corrupt
What exactly are the two duties or interests that were pulling her in different directions at the time of the negotiation?
I think you may be hanging your hat on a point that isn't being made - whether she was conflicted or not isn't clear, but she DID have an historic professional relationship with the other party and that should have been declared in order to determine whether she was conflicted or not. I think?
You are still not articulating a conflict of interests. You are skipping across the important middle bit and going straight from “Braverman has a (somewhat historic, personal, and tangential imo) connection to Rwanda” to “she faced a conflict in in her negotiations with the Rwandan government”.
It is not for Braverman to determine whether she has an actual conflict of interests, it is her duty to declare any potential conflicts of interest, or things which may create that impression, in order that civil servants the blob can determine whether those conflicts exist, or whether everything is OK, and advise accordingly.
This helps our Home Secretary retain at least the impression of propriety when it comes to her role in handing over 140 million of our money to a foreign government (for sweet fa so far, I note).
Any failure to declare could give rise to accusations of corrupt practices (even if there is no substance to them), and undermine British government policy. That's why the ministerial code tells ministers to do it.
The only thing I would say is it is a double failure, both on her part, and on the part of the Home Office/Cabinet Office team, who should have been aware of her Rwandan dealings ahead of her appointment, as they were hardly a state secret, and brought the issue up when they noticed it wasn't on her declaration.
Well, colour me surprised!
Who’d have thunk it, eh?
Thats my bet with TJ won 😀
Goshdarnit
Looks like you are right. With the rest of the psychodrama engulfing the tories the focus has been taken away from her and no more news stories?
Greggs is it sir? I have no more of the superlush pies
