Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Rishi Sunak’s impotence – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 3 in General
Rishi Sunak’s impotence – politicalbetting.com

In today's Playbook — Knives out for Suella Braverman as she returns to the Home OfficeTruss ally says she was known in govt as "leaky Sue" and accuses her of having "leaked OBR-sensitive information and then lied to the prime minister and the country about what happened" pic.twitter.com/lob6dt9wEn

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,304
    edited October 26
    First ejaculation - no, wrong !

    Too late.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    I think there are pills he can get for this problem.
    Seriously, this was the blood sacrifice he had to make to become PM. With braverman backing Boris he'd have probably run and won.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    Totally agree with @TSE

    It's a shockingly appalling appointment
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    Sunak must have been aware of the damage (unless he lives in a bubble), so he must have got something pretty important to put up with the day one damage. The price of coronation.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,546
    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,226
    Pound clinches six-week high on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's first full day in office

    City Latest: https://trib.al/pWXZG2W https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1585293604444114946/photo/1
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    edited October 26
    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? There is no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
  • Isn't the risk of betting on Boris that he ceases to be an MP sometime in the next few months?

    Though if he's still available, and Sunak is flondering in (say) late May 2024, the temptation to Bring Back Boris is going to be hard to resist.

    Wonder who the panic button choice is if it can't be BoJo?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,956
    edited October 26
    ping said:

    ping said:

    ping said:


    He comes from a pretty socially conservative community.

    Do we have any evidence Sunak isn’t homophobic?

    Guilty until proven innocent?

    Which “socially conservative community” are you referring to?

    - Southampton?
    - Winchester?
    - Oxford?
    - Stanford?
    - London?
    - Richmond?

    Do tell…..
    I come from a socially conservative community, I've been best man at three same sex weddings, fourth one next year.
    Yes, and you’re rather unusual. I have a lot of respect to you, for that.

    There’s a liberal blind spot when it comes to homophobia in immigrant communities. They’re happy to yell “racism” and throw gays under the bus.

    The gays should know their place, is the message.

    I expect better from my prime minister.
    Rishi Sunak was born in Hampshire.

    You've dropped the pretence and gone full-on racist now. If Rishi Sunak had ever expressed racism then that would be something to judge him on. The fact his parents weren't born in this country is not.

    Plenty of people born in this country of his parents age expressed homophobia in the 1960s too. The fact that you have nothing to call him homophobic by other than his "community" (Hampshire? Richmond?) speaks wonders.
    I don’t get your point? Britain used to be very homophobic? I know!

    Sunak’s government has literally just regurgitated the Lord Arran line from ‘67.

    “Any form of ostentatious behaviour or public flaunting would be utterly distasteful.”

    A lot of fake liberals on this site, happy to throw the queers under a bus. The reality is homophobia is rampant in most immigrant communities in Britain. Notable exceptions are the Irish and Jewish communities, although both are arguably not really immigrants at all - and both have secularised considerably.

    As I said, it’s a liberal blind spot.

    Consistent liberals like @TheScreamingEagles - especially those from an immigrant background, are rare.

    They reconcile this contradiction not by yelling “racist” at anyone who points it out, but by recognising the problem and trying to do something about it.

    Sunak ain’t a liberal. He fully stands behind Cleverlys comments. Screw the queers, is what he thinks. And the so called “liberals” are cheering him on.

    Take a good hard look at yourselves.
    WTF, no! That is not what was said. Who said anything about "distasteful"?

    What was said was Foreign Office advice that if you are travelling to another country that you have to be respectful of their laws which differ from our own. Just as visitors to this country have to be respectful of our laws. While also calling on Qatar to show flexibility too.

    There is nothing else that can be said on this matter. If anyone was proposing to import Qatar's laws here that would be appalling, but warning people who are travelling there that they need to respectful of the laws over there is what the Foreign Office has always done for very good reason! That's not illiberal and its not discriminatory.

    Qatar's laws are awful, repugnant and wrong. But they're also there laws and anyone who travels their and breaks the law while over their could get into serious local difficulty there, which unless you're deliberately doing so (like Peter Tatchell who has my admiration and respect) that is something most people should try to avoid.

    Your ranting about people from immigrant backgrounds is just depressing. I know many liberal people of minority backgrounds, and many illiberal people of white backgrounds. You can't judge people by the colour of their skin, especially people who were born in this country!

    And I've never seen homophobia in any of my Jewish friends. Attacking non-whites and then "Jews" and "Irish" too and complaining that people say "racism" ... ???
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    edited October 26

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203
    With all the reports of T-62 in combat in Ukraine, is anyone else wishing we had some classics to send there? A few hundred Centurions? Even a troop of Conquerors?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,546
    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    Well, yes, Sunak is definitely a big step up from the last two. And maybe he's calculating that Suella will blow herself up quite soon anyway. Quietly getting on with the job isn't her style.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,300
    Pulpstar said:

    I think there are pills he can get for this problem.
    Seriously, this was the blood sacrifice he had to make to become PM. With braverman backing Boris he'd have probably run and won.

    As a socially liberal, economically dry, moderate right winger, the Braverman appointment is utterly toxic to me. Everything else I could just about get on board with and potentially see my way to voting Conservative at the next election if their handling of the economy a) improves and b) appears more competent than Labour.

    But not with Braverman anywhere near government. It's hard to find an adequate description for her, fascist obviously isn't it, but it's certainly fascist-adjacent - the disrespect for the rule of law combined with the love of the police state and hatred of immgrants - there's something Trumpian about her that I find utterly toxic.

    A terrible move by Sunak, and one that keeps moderates like me firmly away from the Conservatives at the ballot box.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    FOR THE RECORD - I disassociate myself from the pathetic behavior and wretched judgement of my own dumb-ass US Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Seattle) regarding THIS total bullshit:

    Politico.com - House progressives retract Russia-diplomacy letter amid Dem firestorm
    Party lawmakers were blindsided by Monday's release of a letter calling for direct negotiations in Ukraine, according to several people familiar with the situation.

    Amid the pushback, Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) released a statement to clarify her support for Ukraine.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/25/house-progressives-russia-diplomacy-00063338

    House progressives on Tuesday retracted a letter calling on President Joe Biden to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia, less than 24 hours after it sparked intense backlash from other Democrats.

    The about-face comes as some Democratic lawmakers vent their fury that the letter backing talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin — originally drafted and signed in June — wasn’t recirculated before its public release on Monday. That release made it appear that the 30 House Democrats who signed on, all lawmakers in the roughly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, were urging the Biden administration to push for diplomacy immediately despite Russia’s engagement in war crimes and indications of a military escalation against Ukraine. . . .

    “The Congressional Progressive Caucus hereby withdraws its recent letter to the White House regarding Ukraine,” the caucus’ chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), said in a statement after POLITICO first reported that the retraction was imminent. “The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting.”

    Jayapal said she accepts “responsibility” for the embarrassing flub, adding that the timing of the letter caused a “distraction” and was “conflated” with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s recent suggestion that Republicans might pull back on Ukraine funding if they win control of the House.

    “The proximity of these statements created the unfortunate appearance that Democrats, who have strongly and unanimously supported and voted for every package of military, strategic, and economic assistance to the Ukrainian people, are somehow aligned with Republicans who seek to pull the plug on American support for President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian forces,” Jayapal added.

    A source familiar with the situation told POLITICO that Jayapal personally approved the letter’s release on Monday. Spokespeople for the Progressive Caucus and Jayapal’s personal office, asked for comment, referred back to the group’s statement without denying Jayapal’s direct involvement. . .

    SSI - Note that Rep. Jayapal don't need my humble vote in 2022; she's a shoe-in versus a total nothing of a Republican opponent, in one of the most GOP-allergic districts in the nation.

    HOWEVER, should she ever be in need of my vote in future - BITE ME!
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    Off to Sheffield for several pints before watching the mighty Owls tonight

    Expect to see some bloke in a tangle on the floor of the Bankers Draft muttering something about drag and being a good Muslim boy

    I’ve got it now! It only took me a year!

    Owls arn’t what you gave out free in your election campaign - they are your football team!

    Who are owls hunting tonight then? 🙂
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    Top story right now on Politico.com - Democrats scramble to avert shock Senate loss in Washington state
    Incumbent Patty Murray’s support has slipped in recent weeks, prompting outside groups to pour in millions to prevent a sleeper victory by Republican Tiffany Smiley.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/26/democrats-washington-patty-murray-senate-00063447

    Democrats are adding millions in television spending to boost Sen. Patty Murray, a sign that the party is employing a take-no-chances approach even in solidly blue Washington state.

    The 30-year veteran of the Senate is facing a challenge from Republican Tiffany Smiley, a political newcomer whose campaign has seized on quality-of-life issues, from urban crime and homelessness to inflation, to tarnish Murray. In recent public polling, Smiley has closed a sizable gap since this summer, when Murray led by 18 percentage points in an 18-candidate, all-party primary.

    A Seattle Times poll released last week showed Murray slipping slightly, from 51 percent in a July survey to 49 percent now, with Smiley’s support increasing from 33 percent this summer to 41 percent now. The poll also finds that Smiley has improved with independents in the state, capturing 50 percent of their support to Murray’s 34 percent.

    The national political environment currently favors Republicans in the midterms, and the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them. . . .

    SSI - You can say that (last line) again!

    While Patty (as she's universally known) is likely (IMHO) to prevail against Smiley (not yet - if ever - a household word) the possibility for a 1980-style upset, when entrenched Democratic incumbent and DC powerhouse Warren Magnuson lost what proved to be HIS last hurrah.

    > Republican goal at start was less to topple Sen. Murray and more to hold her down and force her to raise & spend money that might have otherwise gone to helping other Dems for US Senate; they certainly have achieved THAT goal, and may hit the jackpot also.

    > Rather than run one of their usual right-wing head-bangers or quasi-clapped-out apparatchiks, Republicans gambled on attractive non-politico from part of state that hasn't produced a (resident) governor in living memory - smart move!

    > Patty has run a pretty crappy campaign most featuring sub-standard TV ads that go out of their way to make her appear old and in the way, rather aided by fact the Senator has apparently not been to decent hair salon since (at least) the Obama administration.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    I guess he calculates that if he were to win (or partially recover) it is unlikely to be the economy. He is looking for other battlegrounds. We saw that at PMQs today. Smacks of weakness, but that's there reality of his predicament, so I can't blame him.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,124
    Reshuffle continues at Minister of State level.

    Old "Dudders" out at International Trade as is Big Alec Shelbrooke at MoD.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    That is the worst kind of tease. The title promised a bit of salacious tittle-tattle about Sunak's sex life (or lack of it).

    And all it "delivered" was that he was a weak politician who had relied on the support of a corrupt politician, and had no choice but to reward it. Give us a story about a man biting a dog rather than vice versa, for God's sake.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    I guess he calculates that if he were to win (or partially recover) it is unlikely to be the economy. He is looking for other battlegrounds. We saw that at PMQs today. Smacks of weakness, but that's there reality of his predicament, so I can't blame him.
    Quite so

    And now I am going shopping to buy ingredients for my Singapore Chicken Armageddon Laksa. Later
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Bojo leading the party next GE is not a very good proxy and not a bet I'd take. Then again I followed my own advice last week to "lay the arse off Sunak."

    Best outcome for Sunak is Lab get their scalp, he says soz Cruella but you gotta go, that's the ERG paid off, Penny to HS.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Iranian Colonel Mehdi Molashahi, who was in charge of delivering drones to Russia, was shot dead by "unknown gunmen" in Zahedan.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    We have excellent evidence: the fact that he gave her the job.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,956
    edited October 26
    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Sunak's selling point is supposed to be his integrity. Selling that, when the MPs are backing him overwhelmingly already, to restore to office someone who was literally just sacked for breaching security regulations is not a good starting point.

    The grown up thing to do is to show why he is the right person for the job, not sell your integrity out for it.

    The MPs would have backed him still, anyway, overwhelmingly as they already were.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    edited October 26

    Iranian Colonel Mehdi Molashahi, who was in charge of delivering drones to Russia, was shot dead by "unknown gunmen" in Zahedan.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that this Ukraine crisis is hotting up?

    (I do not mean today's sabre rattling by Putin)
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451
    There might not be a betting market on how short Braverman's stint is, but Hills have a next to leave the Cabinet market. She is favourite unsurprisingly at 4/1. I don't like markets like this much as if there is a reshuffle you can get multiple-way dead heats. but if she's out in disgrace she might go alone.

    Wallace is biggest at 25/1. Wonder if Sunak might upset him enough over Ukraine/MoD budgets for him to resign.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
  • MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    There are other credible ERG people who could be offered a job instead of her, when she's literally just been sacked for breaching security rules. Steve Baker for instance could have been a very good appointment and would be a branch out to the ERG wing of the party. The idea it was her or bust is just excuse making.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited October 26
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    I guess he calculates that if he were to win (or partially recover) it is unlikely to be the economy. He is looking for other battlegrounds. We saw that at PMQs today. Smacks of weakness, but that's there reality of his predicament, so I can't blame him.
    Quite so

    And now I am going shopping to buy ingredients for my Singapore Chicken Armageddon Laksa. Later
    Quite interesting.

    I'm doing my first lot of home made dumplings today, with a slow cooked chicken something something something.

    The most difficult question was whether there is any difference between savoury dumpling dough and sweet dumpling dough, Apparently not.

    Whether I get dough! or doh! remains to be seen.

    Incidentally, does anyone have a good recipe for striploin of cheval?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Yes, that was the risk. Appointing her was a price worth paying to avoid it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    I read @TheScreamingEagles can't stop his imagination from creating vivid mental pictures on the previous thread.

    I wish that hadn't made me consider a scenario of Thérèse Coffey having sweaty candlelit coitus with a very drunk Marc Francois.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    OT - Clearly and for what it's worth (less than 2¢) yours truly misjudged seriousness and political optics of putting Braverman back in Home Office. Clearly!

    Most charitable interpretation for Rishi Sunak, beyond simple immediate political expediency, is that the Prime Minister maybe giving her more than enough rope to hang herself, as a cabinet minister and AND as a future rival.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,226
    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think there are pills he can get for this problem.
    Seriously, this was the blood sacrifice he had to make to become PM. With braverman backing Boris he'd have probably run and won.

    As a socially liberal, economically dry, moderate right winger, the Braverman appointment is utterly toxic to me. Everything else I could just about get on board with and potentially see my way to voting Conservative at the next election if their handling of the economy a) improves and b) appears more competent than Labour.

    But not with Braverman anywhere near government. It's hard to find an adequate description for her, fascist obviously isn't it, but it's certainly fascist-adjacent - the disrespect for the rule of law combined with the love of the police state and hatred of immgrants - there's something Trumpian about her that I find utterly toxic.

    A terrible move by Sunak, and one that keeps moderates like me firmly away from the Conservatives at the ballot box.
    By all accounts she's not going to be anywhere near government come the election, though.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    JohnO said:

    Reshuffle continues at Minister of State level.

    Old "Dudders" out at International Trade as is Big Alec Shelbrooke at MoD.

    JRM for Governor of South Shetlands and Minister Plenipotentiary to Kerguelen?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968

    Top story right now on Politico.com - Democrats scramble to avert shock Senate loss in Washington state
    Incumbent Patty Murray’s support has slipped in recent weeks, prompting outside groups to pour in millions to prevent a sleeper victory by Republican Tiffany Smiley.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/26/democrats-washington-patty-murray-senate-00063447

    Democrats are adding millions in television spending to boost Sen. Patty Murray, a sign that the party is employing a take-no-chances approach even in solidly blue Washington state.

    The 30-year veteran of the Senate is facing a challenge from Republican Tiffany Smiley, a political newcomer whose campaign has seized on quality-of-life issues, from urban crime and homelessness to inflation, to tarnish Murray. In recent public polling, Smiley has closed a sizable gap since this summer, when Murray led by 18 percentage points in an 18-candidate, all-party primary.

    A Seattle Times poll released last week showed Murray slipping slightly, from 51 percent in a July survey to 49 percent now, with Smiley’s support increasing from 33 percent this summer to 41 percent now. The poll also finds that Smiley has improved with independents in the state, capturing 50 percent of their support to Murray’s 34 percent.

    The national political environment currently favors Republicans in the midterms, and the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them. . . .

    SSI - You can say that (last line) again!

    While Patty (as she's universally known) is likely (IMHO) to prevail against Smiley (not yet - if ever - a household word) the possibility for a 1980-style upset, when entrenched Democratic incumbent and DC powerhouse Warren Magnuson lost what proved to be HIS last hurrah.

    > Republican goal at start was less to topple Sen. Murray and more to hold her down and force her to raise & spend money that might have otherwise gone to helping other Dems for US Senate; they certainly have achieved THAT goal, and may hit the jackpot also.

    > Rather than run one of their usual right-wing head-bangers or quasi-clapped-out apparatchiks, Republicans gambled on attractive non-politico from part of state that hasn't produced a (resident) governor in living memory - smart move!

    > Patty has run a pretty crappy campaign most featuring sub-standard TV ads that go out of their way to make her appear old and in the way, rather aided by fact the Senator has apparently not been to decent hair salon since (at least) the Obama administration.

    I don't see Washington as being in danger.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    On Topic. What are you saying is Sunak’s impotency and weakness - a divided party he has inherited, or the personality traits of an insecure man regardless of whatever position he is in?

    “It is a weakness of Sunak that he had to reappoint Braverman to keep the ERG/Spartan Brexiteers onside given than he has inherited a majority of circa 70, a powerful PM would have left Braverman on the backbenches in disgrace.”

    But did he have to appoint her, that is the question? The answer is surely not? She might have backed Boris then, so what, what difference would it have made, so why make the deal with her?

    No I think he’s in stronger position than he thinks he is, probably a better politician than he thinks he is, he just acts insecure.

    Becuase there is a pattern developing here. He had done the Suella deal, how many other needless and pointless deals did he make with others? Cleverley? Shapps? Gove?

    And then today, in complete contrast to no smiles Tuesday a smiley smiley yah boo PMQs to play to the party not the country.

    Is he actually in an insecure political situation, or just awake all night fretting that he is and allowing such thoughts to lead to bad decision making?

    Quite a contrast from the brass neck of Truss.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.

    He should make it an absolute priority.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    There are other credible ERG people who could be offered a job instead of her, when she's literally just been sacked for breaching security r ules. Steve Baker for instance could have been a very good appointment and would be a branch out to the ERG wing of the party. The idea it was her or bust is just excuse making.
    No, because he already had Steve Baker on side. Getting the endorsement from Braverman was the difference between the fat sack of shit getting onto the members and not. It's a high price, no doubt, but look at what he's got in return - a united party with him at the head of it. It was the cost of doing business. Just as we "abhor" when British industrial companies get involved in bribery scandals in the Middle East or Africa but it's all for show and the UK based workers who benefit from the contracts don't give a flying fuck that it was BAe systems that won the bidding war with the corrupt country rather than Thales. We recognise that this is the cost of doing business, Rishi was smart enough to do it as well and not get into a street fight with Boris he would inevitably have lost and, for all that, we'd still end up with Braverman as HS because Boris would also owe her.

    It's a small price to pay.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    It's interesting that people are assuming that Sunak's own views are not aligned with Braverman's and that he's just tolerating her as a token "right-winger".
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865

    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    Well, yes, Sunak is definitely a big step up from the last two. And maybe he's calculating that Suella will blow herself up quite soon anyway. Quietly getting on with the job isn't her style.
    OR she actually solves the Dinghy People Problem. Fuck knows how, but she seems committed to doing it. And in the end it HAS to be solved, we can't have 1000+ people arriving on our beaches every day, and with the potential for many more

    If Braverman manages to do this (and I don't fancy her chances, it is so fiendishly difficult) then no one will care about her gaffes and fibs, and Sunak will get a surge of new support (esp in the Red Wall)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    It's a hell of a price, a torpedo direct hit on day one. My hunch is that there was probably a better way.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    "If Sunak doesn’t do what Braverman she will destabilise him like " ?

    Ok we get the drift but I would love to know the end of that simile. Does it involve step-moms at all?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,865

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.

    He should make it an absolute priority.
    Yup. If they succeed, that is Farage done for. It's his last big issue, but it is big
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Sunak's selling point is supposed to be his integrity. Selling that, when the MPs are backing him overwhelmingly already, to restore to office someone who was literally just sacked for breaching security regulations is not a good starting point.

    The grown up thing to do is to show why he is the right person for the job, not sell your integrity out for it.

    The MPs would have backed him still, anyway, overwhelmingly as they already were.
    Maybe that was one honest declaration too much. He perhaps believed that he had exhausted his honesty resources by telling us all in the hustings how fucked we are and he couldn't stomach one more display of integrity by telling Suella to do one and hence scupper his PM chances.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,600
    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    Sorry you seem to be taking Rishi's shit cabinet of no talent so hard, but there's no need for completely unjustified slurs on Tory members - they wanted Badenoch; Rishi's lack of popularity had nothing to do with his race.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    It's a hell of a price, a torpedo direct hit on day one. My hunch is that there was probably a better way.
    A very high price, but the alternative was Boris as PM next Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday. So I ask you, what is that better way?
  • "If Sunak doesn’t do what Braverman she will destabilise him like " ?

    Ok we get the drift but I would love to know the end of that simile. Does it involve step-moms at all?

    Ooops

    she did to Truss.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    Sean_F said:

    Top story right now on Politico.com - Democrats scramble to avert shock Senate loss in Washington state
    Incumbent Patty Murray’s support has slipped in recent weeks, prompting outside groups to pour in millions to prevent a sleeper victory by Republican Tiffany Smiley.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/26/democrats-washington-patty-murray-senate-00063447

    Democrats are adding millions in television spending to boost Sen. Patty Murray, a sign that the party is employing a take-no-chances approach even in solidly blue Washington state.

    The 30-year veteran of the Senate is facing a challenge from Republican Tiffany Smiley, a political newcomer whose campaign has seized on quality-of-life issues, from urban crime and homelessness to inflation, to tarnish Murray. In recent public polling, Smiley has closed a sizable gap since this summer, when Murray led by 18 percentage points in an 18-candidate, all-party primary.

    A Seattle Times poll released last week showed Murray slipping slightly, from 51 percent in a July survey to 49 percent now, with Smiley’s support increasing from 33 percent this summer to 41 percent now. The poll also finds that Smiley has improved with independents in the state, capturing 50 percent of their support to Murray’s 34 percent.

    The national political environment currently favors Republicans in the midterms, and the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them. . . .

    SSI - You can say that (last line) again!

    While Patty (as she's universally known) is likely (IMHO) to prevail against Smiley (not yet - if ever - a household word) the possibility for a 1980-style upset, when entrenched Democratic incumbent and DC powerhouse Warren Magnuson lost what proved to be HIS last hurrah.

    > Republican goal at start was less to topple Sen. Murray and more to hold her down and force her to raise & spend money that might have otherwise gone to helping other Dems for US Senate; they certainly have achieved THAT goal, and may hit the jackpot also.

    > Rather than run one of their usual right-wing head-bangers or quasi-clapped-out apparatchiks, Republicans gambled on attractive non-politico from part of state that hasn't produced a (resident) governor in living memory - smart move!

    > Patty has run a pretty crappy campaign most featuring sub-standard TV ads that go out of their way to make her appear old and in the way, rather aided by fact the Senator has apparently not been to decent hair salon since (at least) the Obama administration.

    I don't see Washington as being in danger.
    Wasn't until quite recently. Though yours truly did point out on several occasions the potential for upset, given that WA State voters do have form in this regard, namely defeat of Democratic Sen. Warren Magnuson (first elected to Senate in 1944) in the 1980 election. Due to the Reagan landslide BUT also to his own long-in-toothness in office.

    Very similar to Patty's situation in 2022.
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 300
    Disappointed not to see Julian Smith return to the Cabinet… as a neighbouring MP and steadfast supporter of Sunak, I had thought he would return to NI job… can only assume that Heaton-Harris remains in the job to keep ERG on board as talks progress with EU and it becomes clear that significant alignment and the role of ECJ are part of the long term compromise…
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,326
    edited October 26

    "If Sunak doesn’t do what Braverman she will destabilise him like " ?

    Ok we get the drift but I would love to know the end of that simile. Does it involve step-moms at all?

    In Birmingham this is a complete sentence. Especially if you spell it 'loike'.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.

    He should make it an absolute priority.
    But the finest brains in the Conservative Party have been trying to solve the Dinghy issue and come up with nothing that works so far. what is going to change now? i dont think anyone with even half an idea would have to wait until they were Home Secretary before raising it at the Cabinet table or elsewhere. So I'm expecting no solution.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    Sorry you seem to be taking Rishi's shit cabinet of no talent so hard, but there's no need for completely unjustified slurs on Tory members - they wanted Badenoch; Rishi's lack of popularity had nothing to do with his race.
    I've been a member of the party for 10 out of the last 11 years. I've been to countless events, I've donated thousands to the party for local and national campaigns. I've met thousands of members at the conference and other events. Anyone who wants to come at me and say there's no racism among the members (especially the older ones) can go fuck themselves tbh.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.

    He should make it an absolute priority.
    But the finest brains in the Conservative Party have been trying to solve the Dinghy issue and come up with nothing that works so far. what is going to change now? i dont think anyone with even half an idea would have to wait until they were Home Secretary before raising it at the Cabinet table or elsewhere. So I'm expecting no solution.
    The finest?
  • Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    Well, yes, Sunak is definitely a big step up from the last two. And maybe he's calculating that Suella will blow herself up quite soon anyway. Quietly getting on with the job isn't her style.
    OR she actually solves the Dinghy People Problem. Fuck knows how, but she seems committed to doing it. And in the end it HAS to be solved, we can't have 1000+ people arriving on our beaches every day, and with the potential for many more

    If Braverman manages to do this (and I don't fancy her chances, it is so fiendishly difficult) then no one will care about her gaffes and fibs, and Sunak will get a surge of new support (esp in the Red Wall)
    Braverman is also involved in proposing legislation that could lead to anyone who had attended a "noisy" protest being electronically tagged for a year, as I posted this morning. She's even more of a danger to all our liberties than Patel was.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,736
    Jonathan said:

    Iranian Colonel Mehdi Molashahi, who was in charge of delivering drones to Russia, was shot dead by "unknown gunmen" in Zahedan.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that this Ukraine crisis is hotting up?

    (I do not mean today's sabre rattling by Putin)
    Maybe. Although there is this in contrast:

    "Russia is not going to use nukes," the Kremlin's Ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin tells me in an exclusive interview, on a day when Russia is conducting military nuclear training drills.

    https://twitter.com/amanpour/status/1585274663386636291?s=20&t=UroPwnVQXmDZc6XnJbi_KQ
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461

    On Topic. What are you saying is Sunak’s impotency and weakness - a divided party he has inherited, or the personality traits of an insecure man regardless of whatever position he is in?

    “It is a weakness of Sunak that he had to reappoint Braverman to keep the ERG/Spartan Brexiteers onside given than he has inherited a majority of circa 70, a powerful PM would have left Braverman on the backbenches in disgrace.”

    But did he have to appoint her, that is the question? The answer is surely not? She might have backed Boris then, so what, what difference would it have made, so why make the deal with her?

    No I think he’s in stronger position than he thinks he is, probably a better politician than he thinks he is, he just acts insecure.

    Becuase there is a pattern developing here. He had done the Suella deal, how many other needless and pointless deals did he make with others? Cleverley? Shapps? Gove?

    And then today, in complete contrast to no smiles Tuesday a smiley smiley yah boo PMQs to play to the party not the country.

    Is he actually in an insecure political situation, or just awake all night fretting that he is and allowing such thoughts to lead to bad decision making?

    Quite a contrast from the brass neck of Truss.

    Rather lacking in evidence or known facts. A bit too Gypsy Rose Lee I think
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,956
    edited October 26
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Sunak's selling point is supposed to be his integrity. Selling that, when the MPs are backing him overwhelmingly already, to restore to office someone who was literally just sacked for breaching security regulations is not a good starting point.

    The grown up thing to do is to show why he is the right person for the job, not sell your integrity out for it.

    The MPs would have backed him still, anyway, overwhelmingly as they already were.
    Maybe that was one honest declaration too much. He perhaps believed that he had exhausted his honesty resources by telling us all in the hustings how fucked we are and he couldn't stomach one more display of integrity by telling Suella to do one and hence scupper his PM chances.
    And he got 43% still and since then markets had moved in a way that was basically "I told you so" for him which ousted his opponent. The MPs were overwhelmingly on his side, and the members would have been too if it had gotten that far, which it probably wouldn't have.

    Normally its 1984 our politicians take as an instruction manual, not a warning - this time its Faust.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    Jonathan said:

    Iranian Colonel Mehdi Molashahi, who was in charge of delivering drones to Russia, was shot dead by "unknown gunmen" in Zahedan.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that this Ukraine crisis is hotting up?

    (I do not mean today's sabre rattling by Putin)
    I don't know. The Iranian involvement is concerning, and has that potential, but other developments suggest that power players in Russia are starting to look at a post-war power struggle.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,452
    edited October 26
    How do we know Braverman isn't there because Sunak agrees with her approach?
    We don't.
    We know precious little apart from the economy, but he was very hawkish on immigration in his leadership campaign.

    Edit.
    I see ping has been thinking similarly.
  • KeystoneKeystone Posts: 90
    On topic - why is appointing Braverman a sign of weakness?

    She is the Princess over the Water for the ERG, so it makes sense to hug her close.

    And by appointing her to the Home Office, she will have to carry out policies that will alienate potential supporters.

    Plus - the Home Office is a difficult brief for even the most efficient and competent ministers.

    Perhaps Sunak is just giving her enough rope to hang her with.

    Put it another way - is there any way that Braverman could conceivably enhance her reputation in the Home Office?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Sunak's selling point is supposed to be his integrity. Selling that, when the MPs are backing him overwhelmingly already, to restore to office someone who was literally just sacked for breaching security regulations is not a good starting point.

    The grown up thing to do is to show why he is the right person for the job, not sell your integrity out for it.

    The MPs would have backed him still, anyway, overwhelmingly as they already were.
    Maybe that was one honest declaration too much. He perhaps believed that he had exhausted his honesty resources by telling us all in the hustings how fucked we are and he couldn't stomach one more display of integrity by telling Suella to do one and hence scupper his PM chances.
    And he got 43% still and since then markets had moved in a way that was basically "I told you so" for him which ousted his opponent. The MPs were overwhelmingly on his side, and the members would have been too if it had gotten that far, which it probably wouldn't have.

    Normally its 1984 our politicians take as an instruction manual, not a warning - this time its Faust.
    Rishi was probably thinking "fool me once" wrt to the members. Had Rishi Sunak been Richard Smith when he faced up to Liz Truss he would have walked it. Paying that price to avoid the members ballot was the right thing to do, I say that as a paying member who would have had a vote.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540

    With all the reports of T-62 in combat in Ukraine, is anyone else wishing we had some classics to send there? A few hundred Centurions? Even a troop of Conquerors?

    Think we might have enough trouble reactivating the Challengers that are in storage. The thought of trying to get older Centurions or Conquerors running would probably give the relevant military engineers more than a few sleepless nights.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    It's a hell of a price, a torpedo direct hit on day one. My hunch is that there was probably a better way.
    A very high price, but the alternative was Boris as PM next Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday. So I ask you, what is that better way?
    * Reform the home office, split it in two and offer her the lesser job. You keep your word.
    * Take the hit of "breaking your word", publicly condemn security breaches, appoint another Ergonaut and basically accept she is going to be disloyal anyway so why not face it when you are strongest.
    * Make her Party Chair.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    edited October 26
    dixiedean said:

    How do we know Braverman isn't there because Sunak agrees with her approach?
    We don't.
    We know precious little apart from the economy, but he was very hawkish on immigration in his leadership campaign.

    Edit.
    I see ping has been thinking similarly.

    Also very possibly the case - good points both.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    dixiedean said:

    How do we know Braverman isn't there because Sunak agrees with her approach?
    We don't.
    We know precious little apart from the economy, but he was very hawkish on immigration in his leadership campaign.

    Edit.
    I see ping has been thinking similarly.

    Sunak also complained about "political correctness" in the handling of grooming gangs.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,956
    edited October 26
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Sunak's selling point is supposed to be his integrity. Selling that, when the MPs are backing him overwhelmingly already, to restore to office someone who was literally just sacked for breaching security regulations is not a good starting point.

    The grown up thing to do is to show why he is the right person for the job, not sell your integrity out for it.

    The MPs would have backed him still, anyway, overwhelmingly as they already were.
    Maybe that was one honest declaration too much. He perhaps believed that he had exhausted his honesty resources by telling us all in the hustings how fucked we are and he couldn't stomach one more display of integrity by telling Suella to do one and hence scupper his PM chances.
    And he got 43% still and since then markets had moved in a way that was basically "I told you so" for him which ousted his opponent. The MPs were overwhelmingly on his side, and the members would have been too if it had gotten that far, which it probably wouldn't have.

    Normally its 1984 our politicians take as an instruction manual, not a warning - this time its Faust.
    Rishi was probably thinking "fool me once" wrt to the members. Had Rishi Sunak been Richard Smith when he faced up to Liz Truss he would have walked it. Paying that price to avoid the members ballot was the right thing to do, I say that as a paying member who would have had a vote.
    Rishi was rejected by the members because of what he did as Chancellor, not because of his skin colour. He was overwhelming favourite of the members in the polls for years, until he raised taxes

    Either way though, unless he vehemently agrees with Braverman or thinks its OK to flout the rules, its a bad sign to reappoint a security risk just days after a sacking.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    How do we know Braverman isn't there because Sunak agrees with her approach?
    We don't.
    We know precious little apart from the economy, but he was very hawkish on immigration in his leadership campaign.

    Edit.
    I see ping has been thinking similarly.

    Also very possibly the case - good points both.
    It's the most likely scenario.

    Rishi likes and wants a culture warrior headbanger in the HO generating headlines for the Mail to distract from economy.

    Even better, a deeply flawed one who he can get rid of when he needs to. Rishi is a not a compassionate Conservative, wet. He was once Boris' right hand man.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Sunak's selling point is supposed to be his integrity. Selling that, when the MPs are backing him overwhelmingly already, to restore to office someone who was literally just sacked for breaching security regulations is not a good starting point.

    The grown up thing to do is to show why he is the right person for the job, not sell your integrity out for it.

    The MPs would have backed him still, anyway, overwhelmingly as they already were.
    Maybe that was one honest declaration too much. He perhaps believed that he had exhausted his honesty resources by telling us all in the hustings how fucked we are and he couldn't stomach one more display of integrity by telling Suella to do one and hence scupper his PM chances.
    And he got 43% still and since then markets had moved in a way that was basically "I told you so" for him which ousted his opponent. The MPs were overwhelmingly on his side, and the members would have been too if it had gotten that far, which it probably wouldn't have.

    Normally its 1984 our politicians take as an instruction manual, not a warning - this time its Faust.
    Rishi was probably thinking "fool me once" wrt to the members. Had Rishi Sunak been Richard Smith when he faced up to Liz Truss he would have walked it. Paying that price to avoid the members ballot was the right thing to do, I say that as a paying member who would have had a vote.
    Rishi was rejected by the members because of what he did as Chancellor, not because of his skin colour. He was overwhelming favourite of the members in the polls for years, until he raised taxes.
    He was favourite with 30-40% and he got 43%. The older racist members voted on that basis and would have done again. You may not see it, but I do, all the time. "You're one of the good ones" and such from those dinosaurs. Hopefully they fuck off to Refuk over the next few months when it becomes clear that all they can do stand there impotent with rage as an Indian is PM of "their" country.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    I watched PMQs. Rishi did fine, but Starmer took the win.

    Rishi has obviously decided to go for Johnsonian bluster, and has a certain schoolboyish energy that can power him through. He is vulnerable on detail, though, because the Tory record is so poor.

    Starmer still needs to get his adenoids unblocked FFS.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.

    He should make it an absolute priority.
    But the finest brains in the Conservative Party have been trying to solve the Dinghy issue and come up with nothing that works so far. what is going to change now? i dont think anyone with even half an idea would have to wait until they were Home Secretary before raising it at the Cabinet table or elsewhere. So I'm expecting no solution.
    The finest?
    Finest brains in the Conservative Party...

    It is however a completely impossible task given how international law works - remember that the EU / Africa side of things works because those in Libya have a major incentive (slave labour) to return people to the African side of the med.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,474

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.
    The tory party will have to learn the difference between activity and progress to do that. They just do stupid shit (PUT THE NAVY IN CHARGE! RWANDA!) that can't possibly work but might generate a favourable headline in the Mail/Express for one day.

    They must know Rwanda, etc. isn't going to work so all they are trying do is manage the political fallout not the actual problem. Until that shift in focus happens nothing will change.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,452

    dixiedean said:

    How do we know Braverman isn't there because Sunak agrees with her approach?
    We don't.
    We know precious little apart from the economy, but he was very hawkish on immigration in his leadership campaign.

    Edit.
    I see ping has been thinking similarly.

    Sunak also complained about "political correctness" in the handling of grooming gangs.
    And reached swiftly for the "Labour wants unlimited immigration" line at PMQ'S.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    I'm in that London.

    Continuing my tour of the nation's Travelodges.

    Braverman is still in post I see. Give it time...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,600
    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.
    The tory party will have to learn the difference between activity and progress to do that. They just do stupid shit (PUT THE NAVY IN CHARGE! RWANDA!) that can't possibly work but might generate a favourable headline in the Mail/Express for one day.

    They must know Rwanda, etc. isn't going to work so all they are trying do is manage the political fallout not the actual problem. Until that shift in focus happens nothing will change.
    That's very astute.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    Sorry you seem to be taking Rishi's shit cabinet of no talent so hard, but there's no need for completely unjustified slurs on Tory members - they wanted Badenoch; Rishi's lack of popularity had nothing to do with his race.
    I've been a member of the party for 10 out of the last 11 years. I've been to countless events, I've donated thousands to the party for local and national campaigns. I've met thousands of members at the conference and other events. Anyone who wants to come at me and say there's no racism among the members (especially the older ones) can go fuck themselves tbh.
    If you are that stupid then you deserve all you get
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I wonder if it was even true that Braverman had much clout in the contest. Truss supporters (and therefore in many cases Boris supporters) seem to be as furious as anyone else with the reappointment, as indicated in the two tweets @TSE has shown.

    It's not Truss people, it was the ERG and Boris people that she brought with her, she denied Boris the opportunity to take it to a members vote. Had Rishi not done the deal we'd all be nervous about the result of the old racists getting a chance to bring Boris back and inevitably on Monday Boris would be meeting KC to become PM and Suella would be back as HS.

    She gets the job either way, the difference is that we've got a proper grown up in charge as PM rather than the fat sack of shit.
    Sorry you seem to be taking Rishi's shit cabinet of no talent so hard, but there's no need for completely unjustified slurs on Tory members - they wanted Badenoch; Rishi's lack of popularity had nothing to do with his race.
    I've been a member of the party for 10 out of the last 11 years. I've been to countless events, I've donated thousands to the party for local and national campaigns. I've met thousands of members at the conference and other events. Anyone who wants to come at me and say there's no racism among the members (especially the older ones) can go fuck themselves tbh.
    I think there's a good chance that the Liar King would still have failed to reach 100 nominations, and a good chance he would still have lost had he done so, but why take the chance?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    I'd missed Yvette Cooper's intervention. She's very good. This clearly doesn't make Sunak the honest John we thought him to be. Loosing his good name seems a high price to pay even if it goes no further....

    "who steals my purse steals trash.
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed"
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045

    I'm in that London.

    Continuing my tour of the nation's Travelodges.

    Braverman is still in post I see. Give it time...

    Do you think political attacks from the left are going to have any effect in removing her from her position?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    If Sunak decided that Braverman was the kingmaker and that he had to give her whatever price she demanded, then the Tory party is dead, and may it rest in peace.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    One can see that Rishi needed to take the gamble of the Braverman appointment to win the race.

    That’s fine, but it doesn’t say great things about the Tory Party. Conversely, Starmer has managed to ease out the conspicuous nutters from the Labour front bench.

    And, whatever the calculation behind Braverman, that doesn’t explain Raab, who was effectively sacked for incompetence before, and is now back to the horror of civil servants.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,620

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    All that plus she is deadly serious - it seems - about stopping the Dinghy People. And Patel has failed at this, so why not give Suella a go

    NB today Sunak mentioned "controlling our borders" AGAIN. He knows it is totemic and he knows that if he can halfway solve the issue he could get a big boost in the polls. Which he urgently needs, given these enormous Labour leads
    Ending the boats would do more to kill off Reform/Restore/Renew/Farage that anything else I can think of and move some WNV/DKs back into his camp.

    He should make it an absolute priority.
    But the finest brains in the Conservative Party have been trying to solve the Dinghy issue and come up with nothing that works so far. what is going to change now? i dont think anyone with even half an idea would have to wait until they were Home Secretary before raising it at the Cabinet table or elsewhere. So I'm expecting no solution.
    The reason they have not come up with a solution is that their ideology and that of their supporters means they only try to deal with one half of the issue which is the (failing) dam. They have not even tried to seriously address the other half which is giving refugees and asylum seekers a legitimate way to enter the country. Every possible barrier is put in the way of people trying to claim asylum and every 'solution' involves more, costlier and impracticable ways to prevent entry. If we spent half as much time and effort trying to find ways to process and allow in a reasonable number of legitimate asylum seekers and refugees then we would have far more support and far more success in dealing with those who do not deserve to be granted asylum.

  • novanova Posts: 468
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    Sunak's selling point is supposed to be his integrity. Selling that, when the MPs are backing him overwhelmingly already, to restore to office someone who was literally just sacked for breaching security regulations is not a good starting point.

    The grown up thing to do is to show why he is the right person for the job, not sell your integrity out for it.

    The MPs would have backed him still, anyway, overwhelmingly as they already were.
    Maybe that was one honest declaration too much. He perhaps believed that he had exhausted his honesty resources by telling us all in the hustings how fucked we are and he couldn't stomach one more display of integrity by telling Suella to do one and hence scupper his PM chances.
    And he got 43% still and since then markets had moved in a way that was basically "I told you so" for him which ousted his opponent. The MPs were overwhelmingly on his side, and the members would have been too if it had gotten that far, which it probably wouldn't have.

    Normally its 1984 our politicians take as an instruction manual, not a warning - this time its Faust.
    Rishi was probably thinking "fool me once" wrt to the members. Had Rishi Sunak been Richard Smith when he faced up to Liz Truss he would have walked it. Paying that price to avoid the members ballot was the right thing to do, I say that as a paying member who would have had a vote.
    Rishi was rejected by the members because of what he did as Chancellor, not because of his skin colour. He was overwhelming favourite of the members in the polls for years, until he raised taxes.
    He was favourite with 30-40% and he got 43%. The older racist members voted on that basis and would have done again. You may not see it, but I do, all the time. "You're one of the good ones" and such from those dinosaurs. Hopefully they fuck off to Refuk over the next few months when it becomes clear that all they can do stand there impotent with rage as an Indian is PM of "their" country.
    There was an interesting members poll from yougov when it was Rishi v Truss.

    Truss' supporters were something like 86%-8% in favour of Rwanda, while Rishi's were 53%-40%.

    Could well be nothing to do with Rishi's race, and simply that she was seen as the candidate of the right-right, but that's one hell of a difference.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    dixiedean said:

    How do we know Braverman isn't there because Sunak agrees with her approach?
    We don't.
    We know precious little apart from the economy, but he was very hawkish on immigration in his leadership campaign.

    Edit.
    I see ping has been thinking similarly.

    Sunak also complained about "political correctness" in the handling of grooming gangs.
    Uncontroversially.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    If Sunak decided that Braverman was the kingmaker and that he had to give her whatever price she demanded, then the Tory party is dead, and may it rest in peace.
    Isn't this just normal politics? Mrs Thatcher had to keep Heseltine in the cabinet for many years even though she didn't agree with him on many things because he represented an important faction in the party at that time.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    If Sunak decided that Braverman was the kingmaker and that he had to give her whatever price she demanded, then the Tory party is dead, and may it rest in peace.
    Isn't this just normal politics? Mrs Thatcher had to keep Heseltine in the cabinet for many years even though she didn't agree with him on many things because he represented an important faction in the party at that time.
    Was Heseltine an incompetent security threat?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    Well worth listening to. James O'Brien ....The facts real and invented

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1lRkbkXQ4g
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    If Sunak decided that Braverman was the kingmaker and that he had to give her whatever price she demanded, then the Tory party is dead, and may it rest in peace.
    Isn't this just normal politics? Mrs Thatcher had to keep Heseltine in the cabinet for many years even though she didn't agree with him on many things because he represented an important faction in the party at that time.
    There are other people in the faction other than one just sacked six days ago for being a security risk.

    If she'd been sacked a year ago, then a second chance would be fair enough, but six days ago? Its taking the piss.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045

    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    If Sunak decided that Braverman was the kingmaker and that he had to give her whatever price she demanded, then the Tory party is dead, and may it rest in peace.
    Isn't this just normal politics? Mrs Thatcher had to keep Heseltine in the cabinet for many years even though she didn't agree with him on many things because he represented an important faction in the party at that time.
    Was Heseltine an incompetent security threat?
    The reason the left don't like Braverman isn't because she was involved in a minor security breach.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,697
    FPT:

    "I think you were in Arizona a shade late for the Big Sandy Shoot - the world's largest festival to the machine gun. That would be a place to go people watching...."

    I'm glad I wasn't there!
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,226
    Roger said:

    Well worth listening to. James O'Brien

    Again, seems implausible.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.

    Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.

    Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.

    So why didn’t he conveniently forget to appoint her after he got the job? The no dishonour in not responding to blackmail.

    My hunch is that the coronation is most of it, but not all. I think he likes having a right winger in the HO feeding headlines to the Mail.
    Because he'd have 90-100 MPs rebelling from day one.

    He gave his word, that may not mean anything to you but clearly it does to him.
    We have no evidence of that he gave his word. If you do, please share. I am not sure 90-100 MPs would have rebelled.
    She gave him her considerable support and now she has the job. He gave his word. That's all there is to it. He rightly recognised she was the kingmaker and she named her price.
    If Sunak decided that Braverman was the kingmaker and that he had to give her whatever price she demanded, then the Tory party is dead, and may it rest in peace.
    Isn't this just normal politics? Mrs Thatcher had to keep Heseltine in the cabinet for many years even though she didn't agree with him on many things because he represented an important faction in the party at that time.
    Was Heseltine an incompetent security threat?
    The reason the left don't like Braverman isn't because she was involved in a minor security breach.
    Yes, but that’s why she was sacked.
    You can’t wish it away just because you like the cut her her jib(berish).
This discussion has been closed.