As ever the politician is as much a symptom as the catalyst. Braverman has been a vehicle to allow the nastier side of a lot of the public to be vindicated in their vile beliefs. Whilst not here (because we are largely fine upstanding examples of the Wokerati) there are millions of potential votes UK that like oversimplified racist abusive. In many ways its not the scum at the top of the pile that worries me the most, but the swamp we are forced to swim in.
That's an interesting analysis. And invokes a chicken and egg situation. Are so many people a bit racist because it's an inherent human characteristic, or because of social conditioning? Nature v Nurture. I prefer to think that people are generally ok themselves, and it's the environment they're in that shapes their thinking and rationale. Xenophobia is a base fear in all of us, for sure, but it's how we confront that fear that determines how we end up racist or not. And by that, I'm not implying that racism is a binary phenomenon; one can be slightly prejudiced, or downright hateful, and all shades of grey in between, in my opinion. I don't believe anyone is truly without any form of prejudice though. But environment is so crucial; if you grow up in London for example, go to school with kids of all different backgrounds, and form long term relationships with such people, you're probably less likely to be so phobic than if you were raised in a poor, white working class community in a rural area for example. Massive generalisation and simplification, but you get the idea. But the tories love to work on people's base fears, helping to encourage xenophobia is essential for the divide and rule elitism they espouse. People like Braverman amplify those fears still further, to the point of inciting real hatred. That video of those guys in the train station; screaming 'we were ****ing born here!' as though that somehow entitles them beyond others. Very disturbing. But if you can get everyone thinking like that, it's far easier to compartmentalise, and ultimately, control them. Blinded by hatred for one another, they won't see just how much they are being manipulated and exploited for the benefit and power of others. Hence the vital importance for dialogue and discourse.
She’s a dead cert as next Tory leader, brought to you by the same old senile racists who delivered you Liz Truss as PM
LOL! Thanks for pointing that out!
Yeah the Tories did so well when they chose a leader that didn't last as long as a fresh lettuce.....the voters came flocking and the Tories suddenly became dramatically more popular than Labour!
They are bound to make exactly the same mistake masterstroke, all over again!
She’s not going to replace Sunak this side of an election, why would she want to take over then be responsible for a tory wipeout?
1: She can claim she didn't have enough time to turn the tanker around, thanks to Inaction Man not circumventing those beastly judges as he promised her. If he'd been a proper Tory, and he'd kept his promises to Suella, then the boats would've been stopped and election victory assured, or some bullshit like that.
2: Even if that doesn't work, she's 'Former Prime Minister Suella Braverman' for the rest of time. Liz is doing nicely out of her speaking engagements, and still somehow appears to be influential in the party.
Binners has quite a good track record on this.
The Liz! Truss! thread in particular is worth a quick revisit if anyone needs a reminder.
The *members* will make the same mistake, because they all believe that Truss was brought down by the pinkos in the City, or the Civil Service, or ... whatever. Her genius plan would have worked, it wasn't given a chance.
The only thing that could stop them, is not allowing them the choice. As with Sunak's coronation. Whether there are 100 MPs prepared to support her...that may depend on the alternative, and the specific situation when they are called on to decide.
Binners has quite a good track record on this.
Three rules of modern British life: Mrs Binners for sports bets, Mr Binners for political bets, never drink in a flat-roof pub.
Worth remembering the groundswell of support for disgraced ex-pm Liz Truss at conference. She was a hit speaker. Her bizarre 'anti-growth coalition' conspiracy theories are actually more popular within the party structure than you might think. They are inward-looking, entrenched, and utterly barmy.
She might be focusing so much to appeal to the membership that she overlooks one fundamental issue - she needs to be on the voting slip for leadership, presumably after an election that could well wipe out many of her supporters. I'm not 100% sure she's massively well liked by fellow MPs in the Tory party, especially as it could be easy to blame her for rocking the boat so close to an election.
I wonder if the 100 MP rule applies if they only have 80? Of course they can just change their rules anyway...
He’ll have been picked up from Victoria in a car of some sort. Certain routes are always kept clear/made to be easily cleared, in case of emergencies etc. Many of the roads around Westminster were clear anyway. So he could just as easily have been driven, or even helicoptered in.
You may have confused London on a busy Saturday with Moscow in 1983, with its dedicated lanes down main roads for the Politburo.
presumably after an election that could well wipe out many of her supporters
Yeah, that's what I was suggesting. While it might be a struggle to get to 100 nominations this Autumn, it'll probably be even harder if the North kicks out many of the more unhinged useless Tory MPs up here who might be inclined to support her.
Of course, that 100 nominations requirement might have to be knocked down to 50 or so... if the parliamentary party are decimated at the election. [ here's hoping! ]
That letter is truely batshit!
Binners has quite a good track record on this.
You mean like me saying it looked likely that Braverman would be sacked on Monday and not after the the court's decision on Wednesday, whilst binners was claiming that she was in fact the real prime minister and totally in charge, with Sunak too weak to sack her? That sort of track record?
Everybody predicted that Liz Truss would win the leadership contest, because she was the frontrunner! No one predicted that she would only lasted 41 days before the Tory MPs sacked her
That letter is truely batshit!
To me at least, she is a truly disturbed individual. Sadistic. What makes a person behave like that, with zero compassion for other human beings? I know she's not alone amongst the tories, most of them are like that, but she is off the scale.
I wonder if the 100 MP rule applies if they only have 80?
The rules are announced by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee at the outset of the leadership election. The only aim is to whittle the contenders down to two to put in front of the members, or to one to avoid that inconvenience.
In terms of triggering the contest, it's letters from 15% of the Parliamentary Party, so the threshold falls along with the number of MPs, so the question is could there still be enough headbangers in safe seats to trigger it, even if the Red Wall neanderthals are gone?
That letter. Wow.
I do have to say that they _must_ have known she would do that, so why the hell not actually sack her and deny her that opportunity?
so why the hell not actually sack her and deny her that opportunity?
She would have resigned anyway tomorrow after the Rwanda decision. Sunak just trying to get on the front foot by dropping a massive, dead, old-Etonian cat in front of the media.
Re: rules above
she is a truly disturbed individual. Sadistic. What makes a person behave like that, with zero compassion for other human beings? I know she’s not alone amongst the tories, most of them are like that, but she is off the scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
All she can do is double down, to make any concession would mean admitting, at the very least, that she is in some way wrong.
She's not able to admit that, so double down it is!
You have to love that Suella thinks that Sunak looking at her letter of demands when she took the job is some sort if binding employment contract. He's a politician!FFS.
Did she get a pinky promise from him. Lol
As for this brain dump of a letter, id find the whole Tory infighting situation infinitely more amusing if the Tories were in opposition.
Id like a semblance of a working government rather than this raging at the world, zombie mess.
I'm practically willing the GE to happen asap through the power of thought alone.
God, I can't wait for boring politics to return.😁
In terms of triggering the contest, it’s letters from 15% of the Parliamentary Party, so the threshold falls along with the number of MPs, so the question is could there still be enough headbangers in safe seats to trigger it, even if the Red Wall neanderthals are gone?
Won't need it after the election, Rishi will have to fall on his sword.
Don't think the loons have enough numbers to force VONC before election.
She would have resigned anyway tomorrow after the Rwanda decision.
I haven't looked into the court case at all but Alistair Campbell was saying on his podcast that the there's a chance the govt might actually win.
You have to love that Suella thinks that Sunak looking at her letter of demands when she took the job is some sort if binding employment contract. He’s a politician!FFS.
Depends if she has something in writing.
Breaking promises to the plebs is one thing but I suspect doing so to a fellow tory mp would be rather frowned upon by the other tory mps.
I haven’t looked into the court case at all but Alistair Campbell was saying on his podcast that the there’s a chance the govt might actually win.
If you look at the letter, it details how Rishi has been useless in both scenarios, win or lose, giving her the opportunity to flounce either way.
^^ Yep, a very easy trap to set in truth.
The thing is, Sunak knew how this would play out but he's calculated, probably correctly, that she doesn't have enough support to get anywhere near a vonc. The public wont care about her letter. He knew full well she would scream and shout and there will be some political cost but it's manageable.
She may well be the next Tory leader but by then the election will be over/ lost and he'll be back in So Cal living his best life.
For Braverman being Tory Leader or PM is the top of the ladder, for him being PM was an interesting game to play because he had no need of a ladder. The gold plated lift has always been waiting for him. Being PM will have made him some good future contacts but it was never his end game in life.
The Rwanda case wouldn't have got as far as the supreme Court if there wasn't a possibility of the Gov winning.
It has now become something of a sideshow.
If the decision goes against the Gov, Starter will have yet another stick with which to beat sunak - but he needs to learn how to go in studs up after the pleasantries which could take the form of...good afternoon prime minister, I hope you're well and having an enjoyable and productive week.
Then, metaphorically, kick sunak in the balls.
he’s calculated, probably correctly, that she doesn’t have enough support to get anywhere near a vonc
This implies the man has political awareness that thus far hasn’t been much in evidence.
^^ I'm not sure if it's a lack of political awareness or just that fact he chased after and got a job that no sane person would want with the Tory party currently reenacting the fall of Rome. I think even the most savvy Tory leader would be in one mess or another because his party is absolutely and utterly divided. The only thing that unites the party is being terrified of being wiped out at the election but they all disagree on how to prevent that too. Lol
Ive got zero sympathy for him either way, if it wasn't so damaging for the country I'd think it's bloody hilarious. Be careful what you wish for etc etc.
Where does Jungle Nige fit in to all this? He was all over the Tory conference like a fungal skin infection on jabba the hutts arse. Spot of “humanisation” ont Telly and then lines up with Suella, Liz and Moggy for the (fentanyl withdrawal fever) dream ticket?
This implies the man has political awareness that thus far hasn’t been much in evidence.
He became prime minister.
This implies the man has political awareness that thus far hasn’t been much in evidence.
Getting where he has is pretty good evidence for it at least as far as internal tory politics are concerned.
Rwanda decision
there’s a chance the govt might actually win.
Well of course there is, judgement has not been passed yet. 😉
I can only see the court saying it's illegal for many obvious reasons, and then an appeal, because the tories, much like trump, don't like it when they are wrong.
This is also a very good reason for the seperation of judiciary from government.
I can only see the court saying it’s illegal for many obvious reasons, and then an appeal
Uhh...
Gov winning will be the worst outcome…for the govt.
I can’t believe they will want to win it quite frankly. Just imagine if they actually have to go through with the farce of deporting people to Rwanda. Just think for a minute about the actual process, the court cases, the press coverage, the demonstrations, the frickin cost of it all. It will be a massive disaster and the public, especially the racist nasty ones will very quickly get bored and move on leaving the rest of us to voice our disgust. It will become a massive albatross around the Tory neck.
No no - much better if it was blocked by the wokerati then it can become a far right martyr cause to rally around.
I reckon Suella wanted out before the decision either way - give the problem to little Rishi and the pig botherer.
no wonder Cleverly has been going around with a face on him since he got shifted from his interesting job where no one bothered him to having to invigilate a kindergarten
politecameraactionFree Member
Uhh…
Well, they could appeal to the ECHR, the very thing they are trying to ban...it wouldn't been the first, or even most recent demonstration of such hypocrisy.
Basically what Winston says.
If they win it'll become more obvious we're spending many many millions of pounds to ship only 200 poor people (iirc) a year for processing. Probably less than keeping them in the mythical 5 star hotels they're all living up in for a year.
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn't have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
Well, they could appeal to the ECHR
How? The purpose of the ECHR is to "protect people's human rights and basic freedoms", I don't think governments can ask the ECHR to overrule the decisions of their own courts?
If they win it’ll become more obvious we’re spending many many millions of pounds to ship only 200 poor people (iirc) a year for processing. Probably less than keeping them in the mythical 5 star hotels they’re all living up in for a year.
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn’t have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
Any sane person can see that this is just a political football, or hot potato or call it what you want.
The mere fact the asylum seakers are languishing in rusty flotillas or 5* hotels for months on end is just silly and a massive waste of money.
Process them quickly, and fairly, that would be far cheaper, but it doen't suit certain political agendas..
I am fairly sure that the european court can still rule against the government if the governments laws are incompatible with the ECHR. It has no teeth to enforce the ruling
As I have siad before the real issue withdrawing from the ECHR is that the declaration of human rights is enshrined in the acts that set up both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and this cannot be amended without permission from those parliaments. So even if the tories withdraw from it it will still apply in Scotland and Wales unless they take the nuclear option of closing both parliaments.
this sets up a huge constitutional issue and people in Scotland and wales would still be able to apply to the european court for protection under the convention
If they win it’ll become more obvious we’re spending many many millions of pounds to ship only 200 poor people (iirc) a year for processing.
Yup. That it seems completely incapable of scaling means its best used as a "we would do something but cant due to those nasty lefty woke judges". Even as a deterrent it would be useless unless migrants see a real risk of being sent there which given the numbers is unlikely.
I am surprised they dont just say their abandonment of net zero etc is part of their strategy since bad weather in the channel is about the only thing currently working for them.
I am fairly sure that the european court can still rule against the government if the governments laws are incompatible with the ECHR.
Of course they can. But governments can't ask the ECHR to overrule their own Supreme Court, AFAIK. Which is what was being suggested.
How? The purpose of the ECHR is to “protect people’s human rights and basic freedoms”, I don’t think governments can ask the ECHR to overrule the decisions of their own courts?
If the current UK gov is anything to go by, rights and basic freedoms of natural brits would outshadow, say people comming in on small boats, parachute, or hot air baloon, or floating in on small bits of wood, regardless of status.
I don't think it would be a strong legal argument, but it's the type of argument I can see the conservatives trying to use if it comes to the crunch, and why they seemingly want to get out of the ECHR.
ONly england not the UK
