34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
The polling that prompted the article lead for our discussion, however, suggests her view here is not popular with the electorate at large.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
If you think a Cambridge degree is proof that someone isn't stupid, that makes me pretty sure you didn't go to Cambridge.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
If you think a Cambridge degree is proof that someone isn't stupid, that makes me pretty sure you didn't go to Cambridge.
If it were PB's very own and self-acknowledged Brightest Guy in the Room Chris vs Suella in a debate, you would get destroyed in 0.75 seconds.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
Would "unwise" be a better fit?
Agree that Braverman's CV is not that of a stupid person. But that means that she knows what she is doing and how much fire she is playing with. And yet she still does it.
(And I think there is a chunk of playing going on, rather than the Powellite thing of failing to get off the logic train before it went somewhere dark and dangerous.)
History is full of intelligent fools; one of the instincts of old-school Conservativism is not to trust such people.
Unwise is right but, as you say, given she is not stupid then I do not know if she is malevolent as such but her policy outlook certainly is.
There are lots of people who obtain excellent academic or professional qualifications, who nonetheless you might call stupid politically - I think it was Orwell who said there are some ideas so stupid only an intellectual would believe them.
Now, Braverman is no intellectual in the sense that Powell was or some of the ludicrous Professors contorting themselves to excuse Hamas - she's someone who did well academically, passed her exams, and had a bit of a middling law career, but was intensely politically ambitious from a young age. Meaning she's risen very high.
But just as you get consultant doctors who believe some complete claptrap but are obviously intelligent enough to have successfully studied medicine, so you have got someone who is obviously studious and ambitious - but has all the wider political understanding and antennae of a gnat. Such that she can screw up a situation where the public are broadly sympathetic to the Tories on - in not particularly wanting to see unpleasant scenes on the streets every weekend - by completely missing the point and blundering in with statements of idiocy.
There is a huge double standard from politicians / media who basically bang on day after day about how crap the police, particularly the MET are, racist, sexist, misogynists, etc, then the Home Secretary says something and now its all pearl clutching of how can anybody say our police are biased, they do excellent work in difficult circumstances...
When the police have been taking advise from race grifters and antisemites, who tell them nonsense like screaming about Jihadi was really a discussion of personal struggle, flags used by various Islamists groups are really just the printing of a call to prayer on a flag, etc
The thing about Braverman, I think she is a rubbish politician in the sense of if your goal is to win power (not actually effect positive change). There are ways of messaging, or getting outriders to message that you think they things, without running into this issue. Then we get several days about ohhh bad / inappropriate words were said, etc etc etc and distracts from the actual issue at hand.
Given that the police have taken advice that multiple proven instance of rape aren’t rape, withheld evidence from defence lawyers and tried to arrest people for holding candles and carrying signs saying “Remember Tibet”…
Why, there is nearly no advice that the police could take that would surprise me.
As to whining about politicians complaining about the police - every single politician now whining about that has multiple posts on Twatter complaining about the police. I’ll bet money on that.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
I feel that the nature of whipping as it is done in Parliament is, in part, why sexual assault and bullying flourishes. It is known that whips actively try to find this information and use it to corral votes - what incentive is there to therefore treat sexual assault seriously when it is better as leverage rather than being investigated independently? If a whip needs to get a vote past a certain threshold and has this kind of information, are they not incentivised to belittle and bully until they get the votes? That MPs are treated in this manner, and it is considered normal, is why they then treat their subordinates in a similar manner.
Whipping needs reforming - end of. But if you're doing that, other things can be reformed at the same time for much the same reason. Physically walking through doors that we know you can be pushed or dragged through? End it. The kind of jeering and heckling of colleagues, and opposition MPs should be considered colleagues, that we see in the House? End it. Actually enforce the rules of the House and hold MPs and Ministers account for lying in the House - we know it is happening and it is ridiculous that MPs who say so are more likely to be punished than MPs who do so.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
She's doing the MAGA thing of campaigning as if she is opposition when she is in office.
I think she wants to get sacked and will keep saying increasingly high viz, low rent things until it happens. We've had the demonizing of migrants, homeless people, lawyers, anyone vaguely wealthy and left wing, the smearing of peaceful political protest as 'hate marching'; and now she's writing motormouth opinion pieces about the police as if she's some sort of unHerd pundit rather than the Home Secretary in whose domain we find the police. The mind boggles at where she might end up if Sunak fails to oblige. I can see her going for a bit of 'poor people shouldn't breed' or 'bring back the noose' action. Whatever, it's a transparent leadership pitch for LOTO, isn't it. She's 7/1 in the betting. That has to be a stonking back or lay but I can't decide which.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
Indeed. A bit sad when you think about it. The powers of the Whips are known and have been for some time, but if they did this in normal society they'd be arrested. I know one should not look at the sausage machine, but one does and it always saddens me.
I speculated yesterday on what might drive Gaza out of the news. Well it seems to have faded rather more quickly than expected. The major global titles are carrying far less of it today, and social media also seems to be losing interest, if anything moving back towards more focus on Ukraine. Whilst you could argue the Braverman thing is ultimately about Israel-Palestine, it's not really. It's domestic politics.
The war continues but global attention is shifting. Probably good news for Netanyahu that it's happened so fast.
We will know for sure when Barty changes his profile pic back to England + Ukraine flags, rather than England + Israel as he has now.
When/if Iran and/or Hezbollah start to get properly involved then the middle east will regain its prominence especially if the impact is on oil and other commodity pricing.
Pretty clear Hezbollah intend to stay out of it. They're watching what's happening to Hamas, and saying you're on your own mate.
I was perchance perusing the Daily Mail today - it seems that Rishi and Suella have powers we can only dream of.
It took me a minute...
"killers to face their victims"
No: he means bringing back capital punishment, with the Home Office person discreetly sizing up the candidate as regards mass and rope length required.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
Indeed. A bit sad when you think about it. The powers of the Whips are known and have been for some time, but if they did this in normal society they'd be arrested. I know one should not look at the sausage machine, but one does and it always saddens me.
I’d say Suella Braverman is a bit like Ann Coulter, in deliberately saying provocative things. Coulter is not stupid, for stupid people don’t get to edit the Michigan Law Review. The Michigan Law School is probably the best in the USA.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Many of those in tents are people who are mentally fragile. Taking their tents away would probably drive several to suicide. Perhaps that is what the ghastly Braverman wants.
She'd have to weigh the likely effect on her political career before deciding that.
She's an intelligent woman, as Leon assures us; no doubt she already has.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
Would "unwise" be a better fit?
Agree that Braverman's CV is not that of a stupid person. But that means that she knows what she is doing and how much fire she is playing with. And yet she still does it.
(And I think there is a chunk of playing going on, rather than the Powellite thing of failing to get off the logic train before it went somewhere dark and dangerous.)
History is full of intelligent fools; one of the instincts of old-school Conservativism is not to trust such people.
Unwise is right but, as you say, given she is not stupid then I do not know if she is malevolent as such but her policy outlook certainly is.
There are lots of people who obtain excellent academic or professional qualifications, who nonetheless you might call stupid politically - I think it was Orwell who said there are some ideas so stupid only an intellectual would believe them.
Now, Braverman is no intellectual in the sense that Powell was or some of the ludicrous Professors contorting themselves to excuse Hamas - she's someone who did well academically, passed her exams, and had a bit of a middling law career, but was intensely politically ambitious from a young age. Meaning she's risen very high.
But just as you get consultant doctors who believe some complete claptrap but are obviously intelligent enough to have successfully studied medicine, so you have got someone who is obviously studious and ambitious - but has all the wider political understanding and antennae of a gnat. Such that she can screw up a situation where the public are broadly sympathetic to the Tories on - in not particularly wanting to see unpleasant scenes on the streets every weekend - by completely missing the point and blundering in with statements of idiocy.
I think the academic blinkers most need to get into the highly selective institutions mean that they select for a specific kind of high achieving/conforming earnestness. I would also put Sunak in this set.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
I’d say Suella Braverman is a bit like Ann Coulter, in deliberately saying provocative things. Coulter is not stupid, for stupid people don’t get to edit the Michigan Law Review. The Michigan Law School is probably the best in the USA.
That then begs the question what Braverman's game-plan is.
She presumably wants to be PM but her actions have been so cruel, divisive and self-serving that she must be putting off MPs, party activists and public alike. You do not win elections by playing to the 20%.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
I feel that the nature of whipping as it is done in Parliament is, in part, why sexual assault and bullying flourishes. It is known that whips actively try to find this information and use it to corral votes - what incentive is there to therefore treat sexual assault seriously when it is better as leverage rather than being investigated independently? If a whip needs to get a vote past a certain threshold and has this kind of information, are they not incentivised to belittle and bully until they get the votes? That MPs are treated in this manner, and it is considered normal, is why they then treat their subordinates in a similar manner.
Whipping needs reforming - end of. But if you're doing that, other things can be reformed at the same time for much the same reason. Physically walking through doors that we know you can be pushed or dragged through? End it. The kind of jeering and heckling of colleagues, and opposition MPs should be considered colleagues, that we see in the House? End it. Actually enforce the rules of the House and hold MPs and Ministers account for lying in the House - we know it is happening and it is ridiculous that MPs who say so are more likely to be punished than MPs who do so.
Give them desks with electronic voting. The lobby palaver is pathetic.
I’d say Suella Braverman is a bit like Ann Coulter, in deliberately saying provocative things. Coulter is not stupid, for stupid people don’t get to edit the Michigan Law Review. The Michigan Law School is probably the best in the USA.
That then begs the question what Braverman's game-plan is.
She presumably wants to be PM but her actions have been so cruel, divisive and self-serving that she must be putting off MPs, party activists and public alike. You do not win elections by playing to the 20%.
How can she get to the final two who go to membership now?
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
The polling that prompted the article lead for our discussion, however, suggests her view here is not popular with the electorate at large.
No, you’re right - although 36% is a lot better than what the Tories are polling currently as has been pointed out on here - but my point was that not every point she makes is going to necessarily be in tune with 50%+1 of the electorate. But the offering generally could be in tune with enough people that she becomes a political force in her own right.
The point again - you don’t have to agree with everything a politician says to be inclined to vote for them.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
The single most scandalous detail that has come out of House GOP impeachment charade is (Per Grassley) Bill Barr's DOJ shut down a Burisma corruption investigation and days later, set up a way to inject Burisma allegations into Hunter Biden investigation. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1722608774706536764
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
She's doing the MAGA thing of campaigning as if she is opposition when she is in office.
I think she wants to get sacked and will keep saying increasingly high viz, low rent things until it happens. We've had the demonizing of migrants, homeless people, lawyers, anyone vaguely wealthy and left wing, the smearing of peaceful political protest as 'hate marching'; and now she's writing motormouth opinion pieces about the police as if she's some sort of unHerd pundit rather than the Home Secretary in whose domain we find the police. The mind boggles at where she might end up if Sunak fails to oblige. I can see her going for a bit of 'poor people shouldn't breed' or 'bring back the noose' action. Whatever, it's a transparent leadership pitch for LOTO, isn't it. She's 7/1 in the betting. That has to be a stonking back or lay but I can't decide which.
Though the Times is much debauched (if not to Tele levels), I’m slight surprised they published Sweller’s piece. Long term strategy of giving enough rope or just platforming whoever is the gross politician of the day for views? Probably the latter I fear.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
I’d say Suella Braverman is a bit like Ann Coulter, in deliberately saying provocative things. Coulter is not stupid, for stupid people don’t get to edit the Michigan Law Review. The Michigan Law School is probably the best in the USA.
That then begs the question what Braverman's game-plan is.
She presumably wants to be PM but her actions have been so cruel, divisive and self-serving that she must be putting off MPs, party activists and public alike. You do not win elections by playing to the 20%.
I'd say her game-plan is building a brand that becomes a shoo-in for the next leadership ballot of the members, ie if she makes the run-off she wins.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
The polling that prompted the article lead for our discussion, however, suggests her view here is not popular with the electorate at large.
No, you’re right - although 36% is a lot better than what the Tories are polling currently as has been pointed out on here - but my point was that not every point she makes is going to necessarily be in tune with 50%+1 of the electorate. But the offering generally could be in tune with enough people that she becomes a political force in her own right.
The point again - you don’t have to agree with everything a politician says to be inclined to vote for them.
Yes, you can have some individually unpopular policies while still being popular overall. However, I recall some previous polling the last time Braverman said something outrageous that looked the same as this. I don't see any evidence that Braverman as a general offering is popular with the electorate. (With Tory party members, maybe, but they're not the electorate.)
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
Home made porn usually explains it.
You can record in 4K HD at 60 fps with an iPhone.
Awesome quality.
If a Tory MP is involved, I would have thought the lower the resolution the better.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Quite
The most idiotic accusation is that Braverman is “stupid” - it’s even been made on here
Look at her CV. Oxbridge, Sorbonne etc
She is not “stupid”. It is permissible to loathe her but claiming she is some kind of ignorant bigot like Corbyn is plainly wrong
Would "unwise" be a better fit?
Agree that Braverman's CV is not that of a stupid person. But that means that she knows what she is doing and how much fire she is playing with. And yet she still does it.
(And I think there is a chunk of playing going on, rather than the Powellite thing of failing to get off the logic train before it went somewhere dark and dangerous.)
History is full of intelligent fools; one of the instincts of old-school Conservativism is not to trust such people.
Unwise is right but, as you say, given she is not stupid then I do not know if she is malevolent as such but her policy outlook certainly is.
There are lots of people who obtain excellent academic or professional qualifications, who nonetheless you might call stupid politically - I think it was Orwell who said there are some ideas so stupid only an intellectual would believe them.
Now, Braverman is no intellectual in the sense that Powell was or some of the ludicrous Professors contorting themselves to excuse Hamas - she's someone who did well academically, passed her exams, and had a bit of a middling law career, but was intensely politically ambitious from a young age. Meaning she's risen very high.
But just as you get consultant doctors who believe some complete claptrap but are obviously intelligent enough to have successfully studied medicine, so you have got someone who is obviously studious and ambitious - but has all the wider political understanding and antennae of a gnat. Such that she can screw up a situation where the public are broadly sympathetic to the Tories on - in not particularly wanting to see unpleasant scenes on the streets every weekend - by completely missing the point and blundering in with statements of idiocy.
I think this is about right. She's not playing some 4D chess here. She's genuinely crap at politics, and likely has some equally crap spads around her as well. She's just very fortunate that after 13 years the Tories have reached the bottom of the barrel, and 'most anyone with any dignity or decency on their benches is leaving government well alone.
Sunak is similar. Not obviously thick or anything like that, but being a political success is about much more than baseline intelligence. I can't be doing with Spaffer at all, but absolutely cannot deny that he very effectively found a persona that struck a chord with many. Sunak has repeatedly demonstrated his crapness at politics.
I speculated yesterday on what might drive Gaza out of the news. Well it seems to have faded rather more quickly than expected. The major global titles are carrying far less of it today, and social media also seems to be losing interest, if anything moving back towards more focus on Ukraine. Whilst you could argue the Braverman thing is ultimately about Israel-Palestine, it's not really. It's domestic politics.
The war continues but global attention is shifting. Probably good news for Netanyahu that it's happened so fast.
We will know for sure when Barty changes his profile pic back to England + Ukraine flags, rather than England + Israel as he has now.
When/if Iran and/or Hezbollah start to get properly involved then the middle east will regain its prominence especially if the impact is on oil and other commodity pricing.
Pretty clear Hezbollah intend to stay out of it. They're watching what's happening to Hamas, and saying you're on your own mate.
I agree. I think the statement last Friday from their spiritual leader in Iran was all bluster but all piss and wind really.
They may get inadvertently dragged into it but they don't appear to have intention of getting involved.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
The more plausible explanation is that an MP decided to vote against Johnson. And explained it to Mad Nad & chums as blackmail.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
I tend to agree. I think I have a similar mind to Dorries, in that our imagination colours in all the gaps, so that we know *everything*, at any one time. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't truth in many of the revelations, just that the overall picture is 'her' truth.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
I tend to agree. I think I have a similar mind to Dorries, in that our imagination colours in all the gaps, so that we know *everything*, at any one time. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't truth in many of the revelations, just that the overall picture is 'her' truth.
Most papers are running with this as the story now:
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
I tend to agree. I think I have a similar mind to Dorries, in that our imagination colours in all the gaps, so that we know *everything*, at any one time. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't truth in many of the revelations, just that the overall picture is 'her' truth.
Most papers are running with this as the story now:
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
The polling that prompted the article lead for our discussion, however, suggests her view here is not popular with the electorate at large.
No, you’re right - although 36% is a lot better than what the Tories are polling currently as has been pointed out on here - but my point was that not every point she makes is going to necessarily be in tune with 50%+1 of the electorate. But the offering generally could be in tune with enough people that she becomes a political force in her own right.
The point again - you don’t have to agree with everything a politician says to be inclined to vote for them.
Yes, you can have some individually unpopular policies while still being popular overall. However, I recall some previous polling the last time Braverman said something outrageous that looked the same as this. I don't see any evidence that Braverman as a general offering is popular with the electorate. (With Tory party members, maybe, but they're not the electorate.)
Maybe. It’s entirely plausible that she fails to become leader, or becomes leader and crashes and burns. My feeling is though, that she shouldn’t be underestimated.
No some bloke Ive never heard of but who thinks SKS is owned by big business.
It's the same old boring nonsense about enthusing turnout among core voters being more important than attracting swing voters. Though I am impressed by the way in which the writer conflated what you would think was the very core of electoral politics - convincing people who voted against you to change their mind and vote for you instead - with choosing up to big business.
Starmer's weakness isn't that he's trying to attract people to vote Labour who didn't do so last time, but that he isn't trying to change anyone's mind about anything, besides persuading everyone that Labour really isn't still led by a leftie fossilized in the 70s.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
Trump's big thing isn't so much the substance of what he says - it's that regardless of what he's saying, people think he is speaking for them.
Obviously (from a distance) he isn't - but 'giving those idiots in City Hall/Washington what for' is an appealing approach, which the establishment and the left tend to inadvertently help along, with their down-talking elitism (and particularly on the left in the US, telling people who aren't in great circumstances that they're bad for essentially existing).
"While the poor white remains / On the caboose of the train" as Dylan wisely sang in 'Only A Pawn In Their Game', one of the best and bravest protest songs of the sixties.
Of far greater concern than the blowjob story is the story about a Tory MP allegedly raping away whilst the party covered up his actions. This was discovered by Jake Berry whilst Chairman and he referred police to it when the Truss Government that he was part of fell: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67325120
It reflects well on the Truss Government that she both rescinded Dougie Smith's Downing Street pass, and that these issues were being investigated during her tenure.
I’d say Suella Braverman is a bit like Ann Coulter, in deliberately saying provocative things. Coulter is not stupid, for stupid people don’t get to edit the Michigan Law Review. The Michigan Law School is probably the best in the USA.
That then begs the question what Braverman's game-plan is.
She presumably wants to be PM but her actions have been so cruel, divisive and self-serving that she must be putting off MPs, party activists and public alike. You do not win elections by playing to the 20%.
You do win party leadership elections by playing to the 20% when your party is bumping along just above 20% in the polls.
I suspect her game-plan is (a) Sunak loses next GE, (b) Braverman becomes Tory leader, (c) wait for Starmer to slip up.
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
The polling that prompted the article lead for our discussion, however, suggests her view here is not popular with the electorate at large.
No, you’re right - although 36% is a lot better than what the Tories are polling currently as has been pointed out on here - but my point was that not every point she makes is going to necessarily be in tune with 50%+1 of the electorate. But the offering generally could be in tune with enough people that she becomes a political force in her own right.
The point again - you don’t have to agree with everything a politician says to be inclined to vote for them.
Yes, you can have some individually unpopular policies while still being popular overall. However, I recall some previous polling the last time Braverman said something outrageous that looked the same as this. I don't see any evidence that Braverman as a general offering is popular with the electorate. (With Tory party members, maybe, but they're not the electorate.)
Maybe. It’s entirely plausible that she fails to become leader, or becomes leader and crashes and burns. My feeling is though, that she shouldn’t be underestimated.
Indeed. We're talking about her. We aren't talking about Badenoch, Mordaunt, or any other Conservative MP. If her intent was to generate interest and keep her name in the frame, it's worked.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
The more plausible explanation is that an MP decided to vote against Johnson. And explained it to Mad Nad & chums as blackmail.
More spiteful rumblings from a deranged conspiracy theorist desperate for attention from a jaded public.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
The more plausible explanation is that an MP decided to vote against Johnson. And explained it to Mad Nad & chums as blackmail.
More spiteful rumblings from a deranged conspiracy theorist desperate for attention from a jaded public.
Anyway, enough about Suella Braverman.
What do we think of Nadine's book?
Sounds like a cross between Michael Dobbs and Jilly Cooper!
I’d say Suella Braverman is a bit like Ann Coulter, in deliberately saying provocative things. Coulter is not stupid, for stupid people don’t get to edit the Michigan Law Review. The Michigan Law School is probably the best in the USA.
That then begs the question what Braverman's game-plan is.
She presumably wants to be PM but her actions have been so cruel, divisive and self-serving that she must be putting off MPs, party activists and public alike. You do not win elections by playing to the 20%.
You do win party leadership elections by playing to the 20% when your party is bumping along just above 20% in the polls.
I suspect her game-plan is (a) Sunak loses next GE, (b) Braverman becomes Tory leader, (c) wait for Starmer to slip up.
The way to win Conservative Party leadership elections appears to be to become a darling of the members, by saying the things that no-one else dares to say, because they're too scared of the Blobby Woke Establishment. Then, when it's clear to MPs that you will win every head-to-head contest among the membership, you can attract enough MPs to get you onto the members ballot, keen to be seen to be supporting the winner.
I’d say Suella Braverman is a bit like Ann Coulter, in deliberately saying provocative things. Coulter is not stupid, for stupid people don’t get to edit the Michigan Law Review. The Michigan Law School is probably the best in the USA.
That then begs the question what Braverman's game-plan is.
She presumably wants to be PM but her actions have been so cruel, divisive and self-serving that she must be putting off MPs, party activists and public alike. You do not win elections by playing to the 20%.
You do win party leadership elections by playing to the 20% when your party is bumping along just above 20% in the polls.
If that's her strategy, it may be worth considering what 20% of 20% equates to, and how it compares to the 40+% that some here still fondly imagine won't be enough to win a general election.
Haley last night: "For everyone who is protesting on college campuses in favour of Hamas, let me remind you Hamas said death to Israel and death to America; they hate and would kill you too."
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Mmm. I'm struggling with "lifestyle choice." Partly because, with the homeless, there are two, almost contradictory, ways of thinking about the phrase. Are some people homeless because they have a lifestyle which causes them to make bad choices? Undeniably. Do some willingly choose homelessness as a lifestyle? Hard to see why. Dictionary definition "a choice a person makes about how to live and behave, according to their attitudes, tastes, and values."
Not sure that “lifestyle” really catches a toxic intersection of mental health issues, drink and drugs.
Not saying it does. But it is one uncharitable way of interpreting the phrase.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' hard and pressing actual question.
Your persistent faith in him losing in the end is admirable, but I fear very misplaced.
I have preordered the audiobook by Nadine Dorries for this revelation alone.
Tory whips blackmailed MPs into opposing Johnson
Dorries quotes an unnamed MP saying the whips have a video of another MP “being given oral sex by someone who most certainly is not his wife”. This MP was loyal to Johnson “until suddenly he surprised everyone” and wasn’t. “The thing is, information like this doesn’t always remain in the whips’ office,” the MP said.
Which is a description of a crime of literal blackmail, if true.
You have to wonder how such a video would come about. Granted that CCTV evidence of Matt Hancock's affair became public in a way that remains unexplained and highly dodgy.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
The more plausible explanation is that an MP decided to vote against Johnson. And explained it to Mad Nad & chums as blackmail.
More spiteful rumblings from a deranged conspiracy theorist desperate for attention from a jaded public.
Anyway, enough about Suella Braverman.
What do we think of Nadine's book?
From John Crace's digested read - he has read it so we don't have to:
"In my career as a bestselling writer of romantic fiction, it is always a relief when I get to the words “The End”. You are probably feeling the same right now. Believe me, it’s quite some feat to make such a ridiculous story so crushingly dull and repetitive. My editors say it’s all in the writing.
But sadly we are only on page 195 and there are still 140 to go as my work is not yet done."
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
The Mail comments section is, to put it mildly, not a representative sample.
Though it does tend to reflect the mood of the British Right
Good afternoon
Though that is not the road to government anymore than supporting Corbyn was for labour
People forget in 2017 Corbyn got 40% of the vote and a hung parliament and nearly became PM, even if Boris then trounced him in 2019.
If the government is unpopular and led by an uncharismatic PM, even a hard right or hard left leader has a chance to win
You win from the centre
Not always, Callaghan was the centrist candidate in 1979, not Thatcher. Neither Johnson nor Corbyn were centrist in 2019 and as stated Corbyn nearly beat the more centrist May in 2017
The Mail comments section is, to put it mildly, not a representative sample.
Though it does tend to reflect the mood of the British Right
Good afternoon
Though that is not the road to government anymore than supporting Corbyn was for labour
People forget in 2017 Corbyn got 40% of the vote and a hung parliament and nearly became PM, even if Boris then trounced him in 2019.
If the government is unpopular and led by an uncharismatic PM, even a hard right or hard left leader has a chance to win
You win from the centre
But you don't win Tory leadership elections from the centre, unless you mean the centre of Dagenham. Dagenham being, of course, three stops beyond Barking.
If anyone thinks that Suella has not crafted her message and approach with the utmost care really doesn't have a role commenting on politics.
Whether it is successful or not we shall see but dismissing her as stupid is one of the stupidest things I've seen written on here.
Braverman is intelligent and highly ambitious. She is also - it seems - somewhat naive and clumsy, her political experience is not profound
But she is obviously learning on the job. See how she has already improved her public speaking. And she correctly spotted that there is room and opportunity for a plain speaking right wing BME woman willing to take on the blob and the Woke
She is disliked by many, indeed derided. But so was Thatcher when she was the milk-snatcher
I’d say that’s where Braverman is on the Thatcher trajectory. Just past the milk-snatching
If Starmer screws up in his first term she could easily become PM as the nation thinks Fuck it why not
Re homelessness being a lifestyle choice, one comment. Over the years I have met several people who sustain a homeless and itinerant lifestyle in all weathers, often with a fairly regular circular route covering hundreds of miles, who are peaceful, not obviously addicted to substances and unthreatening, at least as far as my experience goes.
They all, I believe, have mental health issues and a past they don't generally want to talk about. They are usually intelligent and polite. I believe this group of people cannot live under a permanent roof, in the same way an addict can't live without some substance. It is by no means a lifestyle choice. A decent proportion have been in the armed forces.
(I have no doubt there are plenty of others who are useless chancers, vagabonds, wasters and sturdy beggars. But I like even them more than Braverman)
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' hard and pressing actual question.
Your persistent faith in him losing in the end is admirable, but I fear very misplaced.
If anyone thinks that Suella has not crafted her message and approach with the utmost care really doesn't have a role commenting on politics.
Whether it is successful or not we shall see but dismissing her as stupid is one of the stupidest things I've seen written on here.
Braverman is intelligent and highly ambitious. She is also - it seems - somewhat naive and clumsy, her political experience is not profound
But she is obviously learning on the job. See how she has already improved her public speaking. And she correctly spotted that there is room and opportunity for a plain speaking right wing BME woman willing to take on the blob and the Woke
She is disliked by many, indeed derided. But so was Thatcher when she was the milk-snatcher
I’d say that’s where Braverman is on the Thatcher trajectory. Just past the milk-snatching
If Starmer screws up in his first term she could easily become PM as the nation thinks Fuck it why not
Since 2007, Centrist leaders in democracies have not exactly covered themselves in glory, so voters will often switch to populists.
If SKS's government were to become seriously unpopular, it probably wouldn't matter much who the Conservative leader was.
Another point about her is (based on my experience of living in Kenton), that her views are entirely representative of the voters among whom she grew up. Kenton, like Queensbury, Canons Park, and Stanmore, is very much a place for people who have made it in life. Once, these wards were heavily Jewish, now heavily Indian, Many of the locals were expelled, or the children of people expelled, by African nationalist governments, who came to this country with little and worked their way up. After a flirtation with New Labour, these wards are again Conservative.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
In the (extremely unlikely) world where this happens - do we think the LD LOTO attacks SKS' Labour government from the right, or the left?
(Also, how quickly would the likes of HYUFD start advocating for PR?)
That poll is 100% for the birds
Whilst I accept that, FPTP does create a point where the Tories do just crater - not because they aren't the second biggest vote getter, but because where some of those votes are isn't useful. An outcome like this is possible, if highly unlikely, and I would be interested in thoughts about the political fallout from it.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
If anyone thinks that Suella has not crafted her message and approach with the utmost care really doesn't have a role commenting on politics.
Whether it is successful or not we shall see but dismissing her as stupid is one of the stupidest things I've seen written on here.
Braverman is intelligent and highly ambitious. She is also - it seems - somewhat naive and clumsy, her political experience is not profound
But she is obviously learning on the job. See how she has already improved her public speaking. And she correctly spotted that there is room and opportunity for a plain speaking right wing BME woman willing to take on the blob and the Woke
She is disliked by many, indeed derided. But so was Thatcher when she was the milk-snatcher
I’d say that’s where Braverman is on the Thatcher trajectory. Just past the milk-snatching
If Starmer screws up in his first term she could easily become PM as the nation thinks Fuck it why not
Since 2007, Centrist leaders in democracies have not exactly covered themselves in glory, so voters will often switch to populists.
If SKS's government were to become seriously unpopular, it probably wouldn't matter much who the Conservative leader was.
Another point about her is (based on my experience of living in Kenton), that her views are entirely representative of the voters among whom she grew up. Kenton, like Queensbury, Canons Park, and Stanmore, is very much a place for people who have made it in life. Once, these wards were heavily Jewish, now heavily Indian, Many of the locals were expelled, or the children of people expelled, by African nationalist governments, who came to this country with little and worked their way up. After a flirtation with New Labour, these wards are again Conservative.
My point is that the Tories will actually have a BETTER chance under her than under someone more centrist and collegial
Look at the apathy with which we greet Starmer. Yes Labour are miles ahead but that’s not enthusiasm for the opposition, it is (highly justified) contempt for the idiot Tories after Truss
We don’t expect Starmer to do much different apart from maybe be less chaotic
After five years of Starmerite tedium someone who says YES I AM DIFFERENT I WILL BE A RADICAL CHANGE could be super appealing
Not least because I reckon the culture wars are going to get worse not better. Eg the migration issue is only going to rise in salience, and Labour will be painfully Woke in office
Comments
Ha. Though those left behind are victims too.
"killers to face their victims"
Now, Braverman is no intellectual in the sense that Powell was or some of the ludicrous Professors contorting themselves to excuse Hamas - she's someone who did well academically, passed her exams, and had a bit of a middling law career, but was intensely politically ambitious from a young age. Meaning she's risen very high.
But just as you get consultant doctors who believe some complete claptrap but are obviously intelligent enough to have successfully studied medicine, so you have got someone who is obviously studious and ambitious - but has all the wider political understanding and antennae of a gnat. Such that she can screw up a situation where the public are broadly sympathetic to the Tories on - in not particularly wanting to see unpleasant scenes on the streets every weekend - by completely missing the point and blundering in with statements of idiocy.
Why, there is nearly no advice that the police could take that would surprise me.
As to whining about politicians complaining about the police - every single politician now whining about that has multiple posts on Twatter complaining about the police. I’ll bet money on that.
As to Braverman. Just bin her, FFS. End of.
I’d say maybe you don’t want her outside the tent pissing in, but that could genuinely be her next policy announcement.
Whipping needs reforming - end of. But if you're doing that, other things can be reformed at the same time for much the same reason. Physically walking through doors that we know you can be pushed or dragged through? End it. The kind of jeering and heckling of colleagues, and opposition MPs should be considered colleagues, that we see in the House? End it. Actually enforce the rules of the House and hold MPs and Ministers account for lying in the House - we know it is happening and it is ridiculous that MPs who say so are more likely to be punished than MPs who do so.
If he doesn’t sack her soon he risks not being able to reappoint her before the weekend.
His choice is whether it ends with any dignity
She presumably wants to be PM but her actions have been so cruel, divisive and self-serving that she must be putting off MPs, party activists and public alike. You do not win elections by playing to the 20%.
Whether it is successful or not we shall see but dismissing her as stupid is one of the stupidest things I've seen written on here.
The lobby palaver is pathetic.
Vivek Ramaswamy proposes building a wall along the border with Canada.
"So we gotta just skate to where the puck is going, not just where the puck is. Don’t just build the wall, build both walls!"
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1722445622752530857
The point again - you don’t have to agree with everything a politician says to be inclined to vote for them.
But the 'if true' is the crucial point. I have zero trust that anything that Dorries says in relation to Johnson is true, particularly where it's completely unverifiable. She strikes me as someone whose imagination runs well ahead of her critical faculties.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1722608774706536764
You can record in 4K HD at 60 fps with an iPhone.
Awesome quality.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/09/labour-narrow-election-victory-disaster-keir-starmer
Take that foreigners and choosers of this lifestyle.
Sunak is similar. Not obviously thick or anything like that, but being a political success is about much more than baseline intelligence. I can't be doing with Spaffer at all, but absolutely cannot deny that he very effectively found a persona that struck a chord with many. Sunak has repeatedly demonstrated his crapness at politics.
They may get inadvertently dragged into it but they don't appear to have intention of getting involved.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/11/09/suella-braverman-no-10-sign-off-protest-article-met-police/
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-politics-live-braverman-police-biased-right-wing-protesters-2742287
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/braverman-sunak-palestine-march-police-b2444331.html
Edit: this was in response to the original post which asked where I had heard this - hope this helped
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12728845/Suella-Braverman-police-Palestinian-march-Armistice-Day-Home-Secretary-Mark-Rowley.html#comments
Starmer's weakness isn't that he's trying to attract people to vote Labour who didn't do so last time, but that he isn't trying to change anyone's mind about anything, besides persuading everyone that Labour really isn't still led by a leftie fossilized in the 70s.
Obviously (from a distance) he isn't - but 'giving those idiots in City Hall/Washington what for' is an appealing approach, which the establishment and the left tend to inadvertently help along, with their down-talking elitism (and particularly on the left in the US, telling people who aren't in great circumstances that they're bad for essentially existing).
"While the poor white remains / On the caboose of the train" as Dylan wisely sang in 'Only A Pawn In Their Game', one of the best and bravest protest songs of the sixties.
It reflects well on the Truss Government that she both rescinded Dougie Smith's Downing Street pass, and that these issues were being investigated during her tenure.
I suspect her game-plan is (a) Sunak loses next GE, (b) Braverman becomes Tory leader, (c) wait for Starmer to slip up.
Anyway, enough about Suella Braverman.
What do we think of Nadine's book?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr
Though that is not the road to government anymore than supporting Corbyn was for labour
For which OTHER party could likely Labour voters see themselves voting? (5 November)
None 34%
Liberal Democrat 30%
Green 23%
An independent candidate 10%
Conservative 8%
Reform UK 6%
SNP 5%'
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1722617607164146119?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/09/trump-president-democracy-threat-media-journalism
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
But it is one uncharitable way of interpreting the phrase.
If the government is unpopular and led by an uncharismatic PM, even a hard right or hard left leader has a chance to win
Anti-Woke ain't working for wack GOPers.
"In my career as a bestselling writer of romantic fiction, it is always a relief when I get to the words “The End”. You are probably feeling the same right now. Believe me, it’s quite some feat to make such a ridiculous story so crushingly dull and repetitive. My editors say it’s all in the writing.
But sadly we are only on page 195 and there are still 140 to go as my work is not yet done."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/09/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-adolf-hitler
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
But she is obviously learning on the job. See how she has already improved her public speaking. And she correctly spotted that there is room and opportunity for a plain speaking right wing BME woman willing to take on the blob and the Woke
She is disliked by many, indeed derided. But so was Thatcher when she was the milk-snatcher
I’d say that’s where Braverman is on the Thatcher trajectory. Just past the milk-snatching
If Starmer screws up in his first term she could easily become PM as the nation thinks Fuck it why not
I wouldn't have remotely considered it, if it hadn't been for Braverman. But I think she has turned it into a question of principle.
https://twitter.com/leftiestats/status/1722607476611416117
In the (extremely unlikely) world where this happens - do we think the LD LOTO attacks SKS' Labour government from the right, or the left?
(Also, how quickly would the likes of HYUFD start advocating for PR?)
They all, I believe, have mental health issues and a past they don't generally want to talk about. They are usually intelligent and polite. I believe this group of people cannot live under a permanent roof, in the same way an addict can't live without some substance. It is by no means a lifestyle choice. A decent proportion have been in the armed forces.
(I have no doubt there are plenty of others who are useless chancers, vagabonds, wasters and sturdy beggars. But I like even them more than Braverman)
If SKS's government were to become seriously unpopular, it probably wouldn't matter much who the Conservative leader was.
Another point about her is (based on my experience of living in Kenton), that her views are entirely representative of the voters among whom she grew up. Kenton, like Queensbury, Canons Park, and Stanmore, is very much a place for people who have made it in life. Once, these wards were heavily Jewish, now heavily Indian, Many of the locals were expelled, or the children of people expelled, by African nationalist governments, who came to this country with little and worked their way up. After a flirtation with New Labour, these wards are again Conservative.
https://youtu.be/gS-4y7YAulM?si=kVQbZeFnUyr2JDah
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/11/younger-people-more-relaxed-alternatives-democracy-survey
Look at the apathy with which we greet Starmer. Yes Labour are miles ahead but that’s not enthusiasm for the opposition, it is (highly justified) contempt for the idiot Tories after Truss
We don’t expect Starmer to do much different apart from maybe be less chaotic
After five years of Starmerite tedium someone who says YES I AM DIFFERENT I WILL BE A RADICAL CHANGE could be super appealing
Not least because I reckon the culture wars are going to get worse not better. Eg the migration issue is only going to rise in salience, and Labour will be painfully Woke in office