Categories
The voters back Sunak’s decision to sack Braverman including Tory voters – politicalbetting.com
The voters back Sunak’s decision to sack Braverman including Tory voters – politicalbetting.com
Britons think Rishi Sunak was right rather than wrong to sack Suella Braverman as home secretaryRight to sack her: 57% (44% of Con 2019 voters)Wrong to sack her: 20% (39% of Con 2019 voters)https://t.co/TSo5qFluu6 pic.twitter.com/wzs8slzhJs
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's been a big day for Home Office, which is saying goodbye to Suella Braverman for a second time, and hello to a new home secretary for the fourth time in 14 months
Sources I spoke to are pretty happy, with one calling Braverman a "incompetent moron"
Like the Conservative Party if they get what they deserve.
ESTHER McVey has made a shock return to the Cabinet as Rishi Sunak's "common sense tsar" tasked with tackling the scourge of wokery, The Sun understands
In other #reshuffle news a @UKLabour source tells me up to 17 frontbenchers expect to be sacked on Weds for backing @SNP on the #Gaza ceasefire vote. They say unless @Keir_Starmer uses the words “immediate ceasefire” they can’t vote with Labour and expect to be fired.
"I think all those things were dealt with by the Treasury Select Committee and there were other inquiries at the time. As far as I’m concerned that was all dealt with and in the past”.
LOL
So that’s fine then. It’s in the past.
Turns out he's been to more big time games (at least IF you count the Ivy League as "big time") than yours truly!
CORRECTION - University of Connecticut is NOT in the Ivy League (Harvard, Yale, etc.) and is indeed a big-time sports school.
Seriously? I thought she was long gone...
It is about time that Sunak got rid of the odious Braverman. Bringing her back once she stood down is something that shows flaws in his judgement, but he must be well down the Barrel of Talent if he needs McVey and Cameron onboard.
It is why I try and remain humble and modest.
Definitely the left hand side of the bell curve.
The Rest is Politics had over 100,000 viewers.
Political Currency... dunno but they also had one.
Yes it's voodoo, but its acrrued 93,000 votes, now, and it is running 63/37 in terms of disapprove/approve of the Braverman sacking
Telegraph readers will be hardcore Tories: the activists and members. Sunak has clearly alienated a large chunk of the Tory right, and this is presumably why he has appointed a "Common Sense Tsar" (again: CRINGE) to lead the fight on the Woke and try and soothe the anger of the right
Will it work? I am politely skeptical
Suella Suella went bezerky
Voted like a Christmas turkey
A braver man missed Kipling and Dickens
But Rishi's down to Christmas chickens
Up to 17 frontbenchers trying to fcuk up a 20 point lead in the polls.
I'm 20 points ahead with a year to go before I'm PM will be his conclusion.
Which is, or was, a continuation of the tradition of aristocratic dominance of the UK Foreign Office, which was/is mirrored by US State Department, and for (much the) same reason - money, honey.
ADDENDUM - Meant to also say, that for all his faults (the Stanley Baldwin of our times?) David Cameron strikes me as a good pick for Foreign Secretary. Certainly will be seen in that light (mostly) outside the UK.
However 20% of voters saying he was wrong to sack her gives a significant pool for ReformUK to fish in to attract rightwing Tory voters disillusioned with the direction of the Sunak government now
If you think in terms of party management, Rishi does seem to be risking the wrath of the various self-appointed Whatsapp research groups, but it is hard to see what appeal there is for ambitious backbenchers. Maybe when we see all the junior appointments.
If 2019 Conservative voters back the decision to sack her by only a very marginal 44% to 39%, remember that only about half of those still say that they would vote Conservative in an election tomorrow. So I would then expect the hard core who were still standing by the Tories in 2023 to be against the decision. And so I would expect the opinion amongst party members and the likes of Telegraph readers to be much more firmly against.
as well
Once went away
Now she is back, in a political thriller
Let's hope her necklace implies "vanilla"
EDIT: I see the joke has been made. Apologies for lack of originality.
What was the exact wording of the question? (Not being Telegraph subscriber.)
AND also what was the tenor of the article(s) that accompanied this reader survey?
Tried to steer
Around history
But inconsistently
The fit one
Stocky has spoken
Pecker’s awoken
‘Defence’ is responsible for war: Health for sickness; the Treasury for debt.
McVey and ‘Common Sense’ are thus a perfect match.
Looks like a farmer
So he wore shades on a foreign trip to Israel to allay that impression, and he was
Eyeless, in Gaza
But political polyfiller.
Enough is enough, I have submitted my vote of no confidence letter to the Chairman of the 1922. It is time for Rishi Sunak to go and replace him with a 'real' Conservative party leader.
Or "Shah"?
Overall a fan of his tenure as PM even as someone who voted remain (I was never a die hard remainder, but thought it would be better to stay in than leave).
https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1724106414115950756
Not sure I’d go that close to it.
Re Cameron and the Lords.
Remove the really weird rule, presumably dating from the 11th century or somesuch, that no Lord is allowed to speak on the floor of the Commons.
Allow Lords to speak and take questions from the Commons. And while you’re at it you could allow members of the Commons to take questions in the Lords.
No real reason I can see why that isn’t allowed, other than archaic tradition.
Blundered
Actually as far as I can recall that's not been true at any time
But he has a handle that's terrbily difficult to find something to rhyme
With.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cj1roa856Q
Someone is scared of the negative power of the c-word...
So Tsar fits perfectly.
Excerpts from wiki:
Czar, sometimes spelled tsar, is an informal title used for certain high-level officials in the United States and United Kingdom, typically granted broad power to address a particular issue.
> In the United States, czars are generally executive branch officials appointed by the head of the executive branch (such as the president for the federal government, or the governor of a state). Some czars may require confirmation with Senate approval or not. Some appointees outside the executive branch are called czars as well. Specific instances of the term are often a media creation.
> In the United Kingdom, the term is more loosely used to refer to high-profile appointments who devote their skills to one particular area.
> During the tenure of [early 20th-century US House Speaker] Joseph Gurney Cannon, he was sometimes referred to as Czar Cannon . . .
> During the latter stages of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to run the War Industries Board. This position was sometimes dubbed the "industry czar".
> In the United States, the term czar has been used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials since at least the 1930s and then the 1940s under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
& etc., etc., etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_(political_term)
SSI - editorial comment: this is one of the most wretchedly written wiki articles I have ever encountered.