With their history, it would frankly be incredible if most Jews DIDN’T care about Israel
Of course, Israel is the only nation in the world with a Jewish majority, therefore the only nation in the world Jews can truly be safe
Is the only place that members of a particular religious, ethnic or ethno-religious group can truly be safe in a nation where they are a majority? That view is both depressingly pessimistic and harks back to a some 19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos that I thought we had long since abandoned.
We should make the world safe for all minorities and majorities.
What does it mean to make the world safe for majorities if you deny their right to remain majorities?
I would want to interrogate what you mean. Individuals have rights. Individuals have the right to safety and to be allowed to express their identities. What does it mean to say a group has the right to remain a majority?
Let's say you follow religion X and you live in a country that has a majority of other people who follow religion X. What happens if a bunch of your countrymen convert to a different religion or abandon any religion (as is happening with Christianity in the UK)? What does a "right to remain [a] majorit[y]" mean in that situation? Do you get to force your countrymen to not change religion? Do you get to expel them? What happens if your coreligionists just happen to have fewer kids and a minority group are a bit more fecund, until one day you are in the minority? Should your "right to remain [a] majorit[y]" mean you get to decide how many kids other people have?
It seems to be illiberal and undemocratic to state that a nation state must retain a certain religious or ethnic majority.
I guess you may be alluding to ideas around abolishing the Israeli state, subsuming it into some larger Israel/Palestine single state. That raises different questions. I think the people of Israel should get to decide what happens to them, so I would not want to see any change in the nation that is not supported by democratic majority. So, to take a different example, if Moldovans want to merge with Romania and cease to be the Republic of Moldova (and Romanians agree), then that should happen, and if Moldovans don't want to merge with Romania and they want Moldova to continue as a separate country, then that should happen.
Agree with this. I have long held that the Nation State is the best guarantee of democracy and stability for the people living within its boundaries. But that does not mean that any individual Nation State has a right to continue to exist if that is not what the people want. It can either merge into a larger nation state or split into a number of smaller ones that reflect the wishes of its communities.
I do think that a set of very basic international rules - such as those covered by the war crimes and crimes against humanity laws which have been discussing - should also exist and Nation States should be held to account against them. This should, in theory at least, offer the sorts of protection we want to see for minorities, whther they are religious, racial or gender based.
I also like a bit of Nation State but I feel it's a good thing not a bad thing if certain fundamentals (over and above those you reference regarding war and atrocities) are enshrined somewhere superior to it. An example would be the right of girls to go to school. Or (still on gender equality but more relevant to the western world) female reproductive rights - a minimum threshold there such that (eg) a country cannot outright prohibit abortion.
Of course a supranational body can't 100% enforce such principles on a recalcitrant or dissenting Nation State, nevertheless I think the more we introduce and support such structures, and the more teeth they have, the better. This should be the direction of travel imo rather than leaving them, ignoring them, defanging them, or generally giving them the proverbial finger and saying "nope, what the elected politicians of a country say goes as regards that country, end of".
One would need a world army/gendarmerie to enforce such things, and I see no appetite to create one.
Ok but ideal world direction of travel, I mean. Also even if not enforceable it's good if you can put friction in the way of elected politicians wanting to do grim things that violate fundamental human rights like outright bans on abortion.
Thought experiment: Imagine Leeds City Council wants to ban abortion in Leeds in response to voter demand in Leeds. That's democratic yes? Course it is. The people of Leeds have spoken. But what we say to Leeds City Council is: Sorry, you can't do that. There's a higher body (Westminster) that forbids it.
Now ratchet up a notch. Westminster wants to ban abortion in the UK in response to voter demand in the UK. Democratic? Again yes. Very much so. But what we should imo be saying to Westminster is as before for Leeds: Sorry, you can't do that. There's a higher body that forbids it. Same thing. Same principle.
In this case the 'higher body' could be national (Supreme Court) or (better) international. Course national leaders could still do shit like banning abortion at the end of the day (because like you say they control the police and the army) but we've put some friction in there. We've made it harder for them.
Why would I wish to do so? I’m not my brother’s keeper.
Jesus didn't annoint the Nation State as the boundary of a person's desire for a better world.
It was Cain, not Jesus, who had views on being his brother's keeper.
I remember long ago a chap called Enoch Powell writing an article in which he made the point (not entirely wrong I feel) that although Cain was not a wholly satisfactory ethical commentator, his views on not being his brother's keeper were pretty sound.
Jesus, of course, according to Matthew claimed a literal universal sovereignty and jurisdiction.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
- the team is ALWAYS bigger than the individual - it's always important to go with dignity, even if you don't think it's your fault
A bit late for that. I would imagine that she considers herself loyal to the true conservative team and it is dignified to challenge a usurper PM.
Yes I think that’s right. And she has a point. Sunak is unelected and has no mandate - his only mandate is from the winning manifesto of 2019
She’s arguing that the manifesto is bigger than him
As I said yesterday all Sunak has done is bring forward the Tory civil war so it now happens before the election, in public, and meanwhile his asinine promotion of Cameron is likewise unraveling - and will only get worse as people scrutinise his finances as he squats, unelected, in the Lords
Sunak made a howling error - despite all the praise he got oh here
it all dates back to the fault line created by Brexit. It's incurable
Brexit is not a fault line, its history. Its done, we've moved on.
Even Keir Starmer has moved on, its only diehards like you and Scott that haven't.
The next election will not be decided by Brexit..
I appreciate you’re a pugnacious, dogmatic libertarian, pouring thousands of words out a day on here of your simplistic sub-Randian ‘solutions’ to the most complex and intractable problems that have baffled minds far greater than ours, and if that floats your boat then fair enough. You crack on.
But to look at the shit show that your precious Brexit has made of the country, the lies that were told to get the referendum won and the associated catastrophic decline in the quality of governance we have been unfortunate to witness since 2016, and deny that it is a fracture is simply insanity.
Brexit will never go away. Because you can’t deny the reality that it is failing everyone except the super rich - for whom you are a most enthusiastic useful idiot - who lied so hard to barely get it over the line so they can more successfully pilfer the country. Which is precisely what they have done and are doing.
It isn't failing for those who voted to end free movement and get higher wages.
Most of the richest, certainly if they were graduates and the big corporations backed Remain
It turns out that Stuart Rose was right. Cut off from a pool of biddable labour, British employers had to raise wages for the lowest paid and start investing.
Except immigration is higher than ever in the last 2 years, nearly a million. So that pool of biddable Labour is rapidly growing.
Indeed it looks more like more immigration spurs more employment!
Another Brexit success.
So increased immigration has driven up wages, and that is a Brexit success?
Saw that earlier. Truly shocking. What has this country become?
Poor and broken.
It's not at all poor. What it has become is nasty and uncaring.
But that's the country, not the population - most of whom would abhor the way this man has been treated.
The country has become what it is because it's been led by small-minded zealots who are only worried about their own, their family's and their friends' wealth accumulation.
And yet simultaneously we are spending a fortune in both relative and absolute terms compared with almost any previous point in our history. How can the economy have grown so much over the decades, the tax take soar, and yet something as basic as a minimum standard of care is not affordable? It's not a lack of productivity, or no growth, public meanness, or the taxman not collecting tax. A huge amount of wealth goes into the system, yet what we get for that wealth is inadequate. The state is broken, the old model is outdated, and nobody dare reform it for fear of the electoral consequences.
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Saw that earlier. Truly shocking. What has this country become?
Poor and broken.
It's not at all poor. What it has become is nasty and uncaring.
But that's the country, not the population - most of whom would abhor the way this man has been treated.
The country has become what it is because it's been led by small-minded zealots who are only worried about their own, their family's and their friends' wealth accumulation.
And yet simultaneously we are spending a fortune in both relative and absolute terms compared with almost any previous point in our history. How can the economy have grown so much over the decades, the tax take soar, and yet something as basic as a minimum standard of care is not affordable? It's not a lack of productivity, or no growth, public meanness, or the taxman not collecting tax. A huge amount of wealth goes into the system, yet what we get for that wealth is inadequate. The state is broken, the old model is outdated, and nobody dare reform it for fear of the electoral consequences.
Due to the malevolent incompetence of those at senior levels, who are in charge of delivering services (and their private sector equivalents).
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 3h The best bit in Braverman's letter is where she says she was prepared to accept Sunak despite him having no public mandate as long as he agreed to her secret deal the public didn't even know about.
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make “Rwanda” a policy
My suspicion is that they wanted the credit for trying Rwanda, but they wanted to get knocked back, so they wouldn’t have to do it. Then they could go to the voters and say ooh look we tried vote for us to really do it next time!
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make it a policy
She’s run her mouth far too often, for me to believe her on that. She was angling to get sacked.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make it a policy
She’s run her mouth far too often, for me to believe her on that. She was angling to get sacked.
Suella. Honestly, does anyone give a shit what she thinks? Good riddance.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
I doubt it will help the Tories' prospects, but it does rather reveal Braverman as an embittered schemer who was probably planning all this for ages, so Rishi might even garner some sympathy on that front. The really deadly resignations are those in the manner of Sir Geoffrey Howe, who everyone thought was a good egg driven to distraction by his leader's creeping megalomania. Braverman's screed rather regurgitates what we already knew about both participants, none of it good.
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
Well I was just speculating. But generally scything off extremists is helpful in British politics, as most people are decent folk and elections won in the centre ground. Suella is a loon. It’s true that Sundance was stupid to hire her in the first place but I doubt he’ll lose much sleep over her whining tonight.
What's disturbing about the letter is the dirty deal that she and Sunak did before his election. 'Support me and I'll make you Home Secretary and I'll abide by all your conditions' It also implies that he couldn't sack her however incompetent she turned out to be.
So both of them were part of a sleazy Faustian pact that involved anointing themselves Home Secretary and Prime Minister in their own self interest and in secret.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
In R4 earlier they said they'd asked No.10 about that and told it wasn't ready to be published 'today'. We'll see if that turns into the 12th of Never.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make it a policy
She’s run her mouth far too often, for me to believe her on that. She was angling to get sacked.
I haven't been following the hilarity over this letter, but I have read it, and the biggest issue with it is exactly that: she's gone off-piste far too much, and has had the political instincts of a drunken amoeba. Frankly, she was cr@p at the job.
Whilst I reckon the being HS is the second-hardest job in government, after being PM, she did it very poorly.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make it a policy
She’s run her mouth far too often, for me to believe her on that. She was angling to get sacked.
Both things can be true. She’s clearly very ambitious and she fancies her chances as leader. She decided she was getting nowhere with policy - because of being thwarted and blocked - so she chose getting sacked as the best alternative career move. Detaches her from the election defeat and positions her as a pivotal figure on the right
Also allows her to send THE LETTER - which she obviously enjoyed writing
I like ruthlessly ambitious politicians. They’re fun
And this is not a partisan thing. I admired Mandelson, Salmond and Sturgeon for the same reasons. Mandelson and Salmond would both have made excellent UK prime ministers
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
As an ex-minister would the distribution of ministerial documents be another breach of the ministerial code, which I believe still applies to her?
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make it a policy
She’s run her mouth far too often, for me to believe her on that. She was angling to get sacked.
Both things can be true. She’s clearly very ambitious and she fancies her chances as leader. She decided she was getting nowhere with policy - because of being thwarted and blocked - so she chose getting sacked as the best alternative career move. Detaches her from the election defeat and positions her as a pivotal figure on the right
Also allows her to send THE LETTER - which she obviously enjoyed writing
I like ruthlessly ambitious politicians. They’re fun
And this is not a partisan thing. I admired Mandelson, Salmond and Sturgeon for the same reasons. Mandelson and Salmond would both have made excellent UK prime ministers
Reminds me of Hunter S. Thompson revelling in his delight at how corrupt he found the Clintons. I remember a bit along the lines of "The most fun I've had since Tricky Dicky was running."
Due to the malevolent incompetence of those at senior levels, who are in charge of delivering services (and their private sector equivalents).
We spend way too much time in this country focused on inputs; like teacher numbers, hospital beds, prison places and so on, but far too little time on the outputs, how educated we are, how healthy we are, and are we preventing crime. The way we do almost everything seems to be back to front to me. I would hazard a guess that it is easier to change inputs, and measure them, and gets "results" sooner, and so the government and politics focuses on them. Unfortunately though it doesn't bloody work.
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Not so much Woke as Wake.
I believe Flick is short for Felicity.
"No, I said Flick the Gestapo!"
Herr Flick...oh, it sounds like "hair flick". I get it now. Forty years too late, but never mind... 😃
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
I'm always quite glad the more intolerant authoritarian right are quite ineffectual. It's been lucky for us down the years.
Is that true?
Farage is probably the most effective and important politician in British history since Blair. Whether you’d call him “intolerant authoritarian right” I dunno. I probably wouldn’t. Populist ethnocentric libertarian I’d say
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
Saw that earlier. Truly shocking. What has this country become?
Poor and broken.
It's not at all poor. What it has become is nasty and uncaring.
But that's the country, not the population - most of whom would abhor the way this man has been treated.
The country has become what it is because it's been led by small-minded zealots who are only worried about their own, their family's and their friends' wealth accumulation.
And yet simultaneously we are spending a fortune in both relative and absolute terms compared with almost any previous point in our history. How can the economy have grown so much over the decades, the tax take soar, and yet something as basic as a minimum standard of care is not affordable? It's not a lack of productivity, or no growth, public meanness, or the taxman not collecting tax. A huge amount of wealth goes into the system, yet what we get for that wealth is inadequate. The state is broken, the old model is outdated, and nobody dare reform it for fear of the electoral consequences.
Due to the malevolent incompetence of those at senior levels, who are in charge of delivering services (and their private sector equivalents).
I used to work in the public sector. Our pay was frozen for years and years. I'm now earning more than twice as much in the private sector.
But I'm working as a consultant for a public sector organisation, and my party is but a fraction of the day rate that my employer is charging for my services. There's a huge amount of money spent on tendering contacts, writing bids, assessing bids, etc.
It seems obvious that if the public sector would employ me directly, they'd actually save a huge heap of money. But it's always politically easy to try and save some money in the short term by screwing down public sector salaries, even though it creates vast amounts of waste later on, when the public sector has to pay over the odds for the private sector to fill its skill gaps.
We see the same in healthcare, where a fortune is spent on agency staff, instead of employing people directly, infrastructure spending, all sorts of areas.
The miserly penny-pinching from the Treasury has created a situation where the state is penny wise and pound foolish. The tighter the Treasury attempts to grip onto spending the more that money floods between its fingers.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
Or even use a small stick judiciously to change the world over time.
It's the sort of thing that lefties were (correctly) laughed at; those who insisted in passing council motions calling for World Peace, when their voters lives could be improved more by improving the local swimming pool and making sure the street lights worked.
That Iain Macleod speech about they can dream their dreams but we have work to do. Conservatives, even radical ones, used to get it. I wonder what he'd make of all (gestures widely) this?
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make it a policy
She’s run her mouth far too often, for me to believe her on that. She was angling to get sacked.
Both things can be true. She’s clearly very ambitious and she fancies her chances as leader. She decided she was getting nowhere with policy - because of being thwarted and blocked - so she chose getting sacked as the best alternative career move. Detaches her from the election defeat and positions her as a pivotal figure on the right
Also allows her to send THE LETTER - which she obviously enjoyed writing
I like ruthlessly ambitious politicians. They’re fun
And this is not a partisan thing. I admired Mandelson, Salmond and Sturgeon for the same reasons. Mandelson and Salmond would both have made excellent UK prime ministers
Reminds me of Hunter S. Thompson revelling in his delight at how corrupt he found the Clintons. I remember a bit along the lines of "The most fun I've had since Tricky Dicky was running."
Politicians with amoral cunning get things done. Mandelson had a reputation as a highly effective minister - when he wasn’t being sacked
Salmond was so good at strategy he nearly broke up the UK - from nowhere. Astonishing
Sturgeon wasn’t quite in the same league but still better than almost anyone in SW1
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
I saw a bit on the BBC news at 6 which said that such a document "was not for today" (or words to that effect). Implies that they have said document and are waiting for the right time to use it.
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Not so much Woke as Wake.
I believe Flick is short for Felicity.
"No, I said Flick the Gestapo!"
Herr Flick...oh, it sounds like "hair flick". I get it now. Forty years too late, but never mind... 😃
That's a Helga long time to spend on working out a pun.
Saw that earlier. Truly shocking. What has this country become?
Poor and broken.
It's not at all poor. What it has become is nasty and uncaring.
But that's the country, not the population - most of whom would abhor the way this man has been treated.
The country has become what it is because it's been led by small-minded zealots who are only worried about their own, their family's and their friends' wealth accumulation.
And yet simultaneously we are spending a fortune in both relative and absolute terms compared with almost any previous point in our history. How can the economy have grown so much over the decades, the tax take soar, and yet something as basic as a minimum standard of care is not affordable? It's not a lack of productivity, or no growth, public meanness, or the taxman not collecting tax. A huge amount of wealth goes into the system, yet what we get for that wealth is inadequate. The state is broken, the old model is outdated, and nobody dare reform it for fear of the electoral consequences.
In what way would reform help this poor fellow?*
Personal care takes a certain amount of time, and NI don't seem to be able to find someone willing to do it at the rates offered.
* perhaps Stormont actually doing some work would help, but what other reform?
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
I'm always quite glad the more intolerant authoritarian right are quite ineffectual. It's been lucky for us down the years.
Is that true?
Farage is probably the most effective and important politician in British history since Blair. Whether you’d call him “intolerant authoritarian right” I dunno. I probably wouldn’t. Populist ethnocentric libertarian I’d say
When it comes to Jews, he's a friend of Corbyn. Another bit of imported antisemitism am I right?
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make “Rwanda” a policy
My suspicion is that they wanted the credit for trying Rwanda, but they wanted to get knocked back, so they wouldn’t have to do it. Then they could go to the voters and say ooh look we tried vote for us to really do it next time!
Then they would have done nothing. Again
By contrast Braverman ACTUALLY wanted to do it
Yes. It's the actually wanting to do it that is the killer. You can imagine third rate politicians talking the idea up to garner votes from people who spray football teams on war memorials; fair enough.
But as an actuality, it's a mare. It puts off the entire centrist voter base once the Guardian and the BBC have good film of small girls clutching teddy as they are led to the plane; and, critically, it can't work in terms of numbers and risk. Only a handful will go - there is only so much room; most cases will be stopped by the courts; and future migrants will take their chance of staying.
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Not so much Woke as Wake.
I believe Flick is short for Felicity.
It is. Probably the most well known Flick to a certain generation was a Felicity.
Since he got the FO job, he’s proved cannier that he ever showed previously.
After all the brouhaha within the Tory party - pirouetting narcissists et al - there may be a market in the Tory Party for a solid, sensible, tough, loyal, experienced old-style politician as leader. Cleverley, if he makes a reasonable job of the Home Office, will prove difficult to beat in any future leadership contest.
He is a bit lightweight but will be a contender as will Barclay, I would make one of those 2 the favourite with Tory MPs certainly when Sunak goes but if Braverman or Badenoch got to the membership then they would also have a chance
Bad Enoch is hopeless, utterly ineffectual and near invisible. The fact that she has been touted as a serious leadership contender by a certain stripe of PBer doesn’t change any of that.
With their history, it would frankly be incredible if most Jews DIDN’T care about Israel
Of course, Israel is the only nation in the world with a Jewish majority, therefore the only nation in the world Jews can truly be safe
Is the only place that members of a particular religious, ethnic or ethno-religious group can truly be safe in a nation where they are a majority? That view is both depressingly pessimistic and harks back to a some 19th-century notion of the nation state built around an ethnos that I thought we had long since abandoned.
We should make the world safe for all minorities and majorities.
What does it mean to make the world safe for majorities if you deny their right to remain majorities?
I would want to interrogate what you mean. Individuals have rights. Individuals have the right to safety and to be allowed to express their identities. What does it mean to say a group has the right to remain a majority?
Let's say you follow religion X and you live in a country that has a majority of other people who follow religion X. What happens if a bunch of your countrymen convert to a different religion or abandon any religion (as is happening with Christianity in the UK)? What does a "right to remain [a] majorit[y]" mean in that situation? Do you get to force your countrymen to not change religion? Do you get to expel them? What happens if your coreligionists just happen to have fewer kids and a minority group are a bit more fecund, until one day you are in the minority? Should your "right to remain [a] majorit[y]" mean you get to decide how many kids other people have?
It seems to be illiberal and undemocratic to state that a nation state must retain a certain religious or ethnic majority.
I guess you may be alluding to ideas around abolishing the Israeli state, subsuming it into some larger Israel/Palestine single state. That raises different questions. I think the people of Israel should get to decide what happens to them, so I would not want to see any change in the nation that is not supported by democratic majority. So, to take a different example, if Moldovans want to merge with Romania and cease to be the Republic of Moldova (and Romanians agree), then that should happen, and if Moldovans don't want to merge with Romania and they want Moldova to continue as a separate country, then that should happen.
Agree with this. I have long held that the Nation State is the best guarantee of democracy and stability for the people living within its boundaries. But that does not mean that any individual Nation State has a right to continue to exist if that is not what the people want. It can either merge into a larger nation state or split into a number of smaller ones that reflect the wishes of its communities.
I do think that a set of very basic international rules - such as those covered by the war crimes and crimes against humanity laws which have been discussing - should also exist and Nation States should be held to account against them. This should, in theory at least, offer the sorts of protection we want to see for minorities, whther they are religious, racial or gender based.
I also like a bit of Nation State but I feel it's a good thing not a bad thing if certain fundamentals (over and above those you reference regarding war and atrocities) are enshrined somewhere superior to it. An example would be the right of girls to go to school. Or (still on gender equality but more relevant to the western world) female reproductive rights - a minimum threshold there such that (eg) a country cannot outright prohibit abortion.
Of course a supranational body can't 100% enforce such principles on a recalcitrant or dissenting Nation State, nevertheless I think the more we introduce and support such structures, and the more teeth they have, the better. This should be the direction of travel imo rather than leaving them, ignoring them, defanging them, or generally giving them the proverbial finger and saying "nope, what the elected politicians of a country say goes as regards that country, end of".
One would need a world army/gendarmerie to enforce such things, and I see no appetite to create one.
Ok but ideal world direction of travel, I mean. Also even if not enforceable it's good if you can put friction in the way of elected politicians wanting to do grim things that violate fundamental human rights like outright bans on abortion.
Thought experiment: Imagine Leeds City Council wants to ban abortion in Leeds in response to voter demand in Leeds. That's democratic yes? Course it is. The people of Leeds have spoken. But what we say to Leeds City Council is: Sorry, you can't do that. There's a higher body (Westminster) that forbids it.
Now ratchet up a notch. Westminster wants to ban abortion in the UK in response to voter demand in the UK. Democratic? Again yes. Very much so. But what we should imo be saying to Westminster is as before for Leeds: Sorry, you can't do that. There's a higher body that forbids it. Same thing. Same principle.
In this case the 'higher body' could be national (Supreme Court) or (better) international. Course national leaders could still do shit like banning abortion at the end of the day (because like you say they control the police and the army) but we've put some friction in there. We've made it harder for them.
Why would I wish to do so? I’m not my brother’s keeper.
Jesus didn't annoint the Nation State as the boundary of a person's desire for a better world.
It was Cain, not Jesus, who had views on being his brother's keeper.
I remember long ago a chap called Enoch Powell writing an article in which he made the point (not entirely wrong I feel) that although Cain was not a wholly satisfactory ethical commentator, his views on not being his brother's keeper were pretty sound.
Jesus, of course, according to Matthew claimed a literal universal sovereignty and jurisdiction.
So I find myself philosophically distant from Enoch Powell on this then, do I? What a nice surprise!
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
I doubt it will help the Tories' prospects, but it does rather reveal Braverman as an embittered schemer who was probably planning all this for ages, so Rishi might even garner some sympathy on that front. The really deadly resignations are those in the manner of Sir Geoffrey Howe, who everyone thought was a good egg driven to distraction by his leader's creeping megalomania. Braverman's screed rather regurgitates what we already knew about both participants, none of it good.
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
Well I was just speculating. But generally scything off extremists is helpful in British politics, as most people are decent folk and elections won in the centre ground. Suella is a loon. It’s true that Sundance was stupid to hire her in the first place but I doubt he’ll lose much sleep over her whining tonight.
What's disturbing about the letter is the dirty deal that she and Sunak did before his election. 'Support me and I'll make you Home Secretary and I'll abide by all your conditions' It also implies that he couldn't sack her however incompetent she turned out to be.
So both of them were part of a sleazy Faustian pact that involved anointing themselves Home Secretary and Prime Minister in their own self interest and in secret.
On the Neanderthal genetic contribution to us: I don't know if this has been resolved, but it would be interesting to know the proportions from the Y chromosome (male) and mitochondria (female, except in very rare cases).
Saw that earlier. Truly shocking. What has this country become?
Poor and broken.
It's not at all poor. What it has become is nasty and uncaring.
But that's the country, not the population - most of whom would abhor the way this man has been treated.
The country has become what it is because it's been led by small-minded zealots who are only worried about their own, their family's and their friends' wealth accumulation.
And yet simultaneously we are spending a fortune in both relative and absolute terms compared with almost any previous point in our history. How can the economy have grown so much over the decades, the tax take soar, and yet something as basic as a minimum standard of care is not affordable? It's not a lack of productivity, or no growth, public meanness, or the taxman not collecting tax. A huge amount of wealth goes into the system, yet what we get for that wealth is inadequate. The state is broken, the old model is outdated, and nobody dare reform it for fear of the electoral consequences.
In what way would reform help this poor fellow?*
Personal care takes a certain amount of time, and NI don't seem to be able to find someone willing to do it at the rates offered.
* perhaps Stormont actually doing some work would help, but what other reform?
For starters literally the sort of things LostPassword mentions about the excess cost of employing outside agencies to fill roles. It's baffling to me that the state simply accepts this as the way things are done. If more roles were brought into state organisations we might be able to pay people more from the money saved that would otherwise go into running these parallel private organisations.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
I'm always quite glad the more intolerant authoritarian right are quite ineffectual. It's been lucky for us down the years.
Is that true?
Farage is probably the most effective and important politician in British history since Blair. Whether you’d call him “intolerant authoritarian right” I dunno. I probably wouldn’t. Populist ethnocentric libertarian I’d say
When it comes to Jews, he's a friend of Corbyn. Another bit of imported antisemitism am I right?
So if we are to believe Suella's letter it seems clear that she was done up like a kipper by Mr Sunak, a man not generally regarded as a genius of political strategy and raw cunning.
It's almost as if Suella isn't very bright. Not just for being fooled but also for bragging about it. However, I am assured that she is the greatest political strategist of this or any other century by so many on here that my suspicions just can't be true.
Saw that earlier. Truly shocking. What has this country become?
Poor and broken.
It's not at all poor. What it has become is nasty and uncaring.
But that's the country, not the population - most of whom would abhor the way this man has been treated.
The country has become what it is because it's been led by small-minded zealots who are only worried about their own, their family's and their friends' wealth accumulation.
And yet simultaneously we are spending a fortune in both relative and absolute terms compared with almost any previous point in our history. How can the economy have grown so much over the decades, the tax take soar, and yet something as basic as a minimum standard of care is not affordable? It's not a lack of productivity, or no growth, public meanness, or the taxman not collecting tax. A huge amount of wealth goes into the system, yet what we get for that wealth is inadequate. The state is broken, the old model is outdated, and nobody dare reform it for fear of the electoral consequences.
Due to the malevolent incompetence of those at senior levels, who are in charge of delivering services (and their private sector equivalents).
I used to work in the public sector. Our pay was frozen for years and years. I'm now earning more than twice as much in the private sector.
But I'm working as a consultant for a public sector organisation, and my party is but a fraction of the day rate that my employer is charging for my services. There's a huge amount of money spent on tendering contacts, writing bids, assessing bids, etc.
It seems obvious that if the public sector would employ me directly, they'd actually save a huge heap of money. But it's always politically easy to try and save some money in the short term by screwing down public sector salaries, even though it creates vast amounts of waste later on, when the public sector has to pay over the odds for the private sector to fill its skill gaps.
We see the same in healthcare, where a fortune is spent on agency staff, instead of employing people directly, infrastructure spending, all sorts of areas.
The miserly penny-pinching from the Treasury has created a situation where the state is penny wise and pound foolish. The tighter the Treasury attempts to grip onto spending the more that money floods between its fingers.
Agree 100%. Treasury thinking + Tory orthodoxy is a lot to blame.
Cut public health, be confused at why health spending keeps going up. Cut capital spending, be confused at why there's no productivity growth.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
I saw a bit on the BBC news at 6 which said that such a document "was not for today" (or words to that effect). Implies that they have said document and are waiting for the right time to use it.
The piece on the BBC website says the BBC asked Braverman (or her lackeys) for a copy of the document and were told it was "not for today". From which they concluded it would be provided some time.
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
I doubt it will help the Tories' prospects, but it does rather reveal Braverman as an embittered schemer who was probably planning all this for ages, so Rishi might even garner some sympathy on that front. The really deadly resignations are those in the manner of Sir Geoffrey Howe, who everyone thought was a good egg driven to distraction by his leader's creeping megalomania. Braverman's screed rather regurgitates what we already knew about both participants, none of it good.
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
Well I was just speculating. But generally scything off extremists is helpful in British politics, as most people are decent folk and elections won in the centre ground. Suella is a loon. It’s true that Sundance was stupid to hire her in the first place but I doubt he’ll lose much sleep over her whining tonight.
What's disturbing about the letter is the dirty deal that she and Sunak did before his election. 'Support me and I'll make you Home Secretary and I'll abide by all your conditions' It also implies that he couldn't sack her however incompetent she turned out to be.
So both of them were part of a sleazy Faustian pact that involved anointing themselves Home Secretary and Prime Minister in their own self interest and in secret.
Politicians conspiring???? Say it ain’t so!!
Suella is understanding Et Tu Bruté. Frankly I an glad she has gone. BREXIT was a terrible lie foisted on the British people.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
I'm always quite glad the more intolerant authoritarian right are quite ineffectual. It's been lucky for us down the years.
Is that true?
Farage is probably the most effective and important politician in British history since Blair. Whether you’d call him “intolerant authoritarian right” I dunno. I probably wouldn’t. Populist ethnocentric libertarian I’d say
I don't have Farage down as especially authoritarian. I dislike him and he is certainly intolerant of many things. But, and I'm possibly out of the loop, don't have him pegged as that kind of 'The nanny state is Evil! Also - do what the state tells you!' version I'm thinking of.
Cleverly shortening. Looks increasingly likely the Final will be Badenoch v Cleverly.
There isn’t even a race.
Yes it is plainly ridiculous to start predicting the “two candidates now”. Especially when there is a chance the Tories will be reduced to 8 and a half MPs
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Not so much Woke as Wake.
I believe Flick is short for Felicity.
It is. Probably the most well known Flick to a certain generation was a Felicity.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
I saw a bit on the BBC news at 6 which said that such a document "was not for today" (or words to that effect). Implies that they have said document and are waiting for the right time to use it.
When dealing with the top, obviously anything not in unambiguous writing will be dealt with as a misunderstanding, recollections many vary and all that.
What Braverman may find out, is that at this level, if you have the top man bang to rights on unambiguous signed paper it does not mean you win and he loses, it means that great effort has to go into destroying your standing and credibility.
So far I don't think there is evidence that Braverman is good at this politics malarkey. The letter is differently terrible from Dame Andrea's but still terrible. Perhaps she should study carefully the life of her college's founder, Margaret of Anjou.
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
I doubt it will help the Tories' prospects, but it does rather reveal Braverman as an embittered schemer who was probably planning all this for ages, so Rishi might even garner some sympathy on that front. The really deadly resignations are those in the manner of Sir Geoffrey Howe, who everyone thought was a good egg driven to distraction by his leader's creeping megalomania. Braverman's screed rather regurgitates what we already knew about both participants, none of it good.
So some PBers actually think this letter will “help”’the Tories by showing that they are more moderate
I mean. FFS
Well I was just speculating. But generally scything off extremists is helpful in British politics, as most people are decent folk and elections won in the centre ground. Suella is a loon. It’s true that Sundance was stupid to hire her in the first place but I doubt he’ll lose much sleep over her whining tonight.
What's disturbing about the letter is the dirty deal that she and Sunak did before his election. 'Support me and I'll make you Home Secretary and I'll abide by all your conditions' It also implies that he couldn't sack her however incompetent she turned out to be.
So both of them were part of a sleazy Faustian pact that involved anointing themselves Home Secretary and Prime Minister in their own self interest and in secret.
Politicians conspiring???? Say it ain’t so!!
You're right to laugh, yet isn't Nadine complaining about that very thing right now as well? Some seem very naiive.
FWIW - I do expect a vote of confidence in Sunak soon but that the rebels will struggle to muster a maximum of 80 votes.
Then the Tories are fools, staying on board the Titanic even after the iceberg was struck and with an available lifeboat.
Not because of Braverman, the government is well shot of her, but they'd be well shot of Sunak too. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If the ERG have the numbers to remove Sunak now then Braverman would be the likely favourite to replace him as PM
Bullshit.
Braverman would not make the top 2 in the MP choice. She'd barely have the numbers to be nominated.
Quite right too.
Judging by TwiX she’s rallied the right to her cause. Question is - how big is that faction in the PCP?
Whatever happens, she has made herself a significant voice in Toryism. When Sunak goes - as he will - she will be extremely hard to ignore. And her large majority means she is highly likely to survive a bad defeat
The next leader will have to placate her
For a faction to get someone into the final round, they need about a third of the Parliamentary party. So 115 or so now, God knows how few after the election. Seems plausible that "the trouble with Rishi is he's not right wing enough" faction can get a name through to the membership. And unless they are totally rubbish, they will win.
If that name isn't Braverman, who is it? I suspect Badenoch has been a bit mugged by reality and might now be in the "steady as she sank but better" lane. More Hague than Portillo, so to speak.
And what if the result turns out like one of Electoral Calculus's more pessimistic projections for the Tories? Supposing they are down to 100? Who leads then?
EC gives a good indication of which Tory MPs might survive such a meltdown (I believe Sir Christopher Chope is one of them) but I don't know the names well enough to hazard a guess as to whether it would a pro-Suella rump.
We also need to see the map with all the new selections.
To return to South Hampshire, at the moment Flick Drummond (harmless moderate) is MP for the insanely safe Meon Valley. She now has Winchester to fight on the new boundaries, which looks like Losechester for the Conservatives.
Knock it off, Stuart.
You are not really kidding us there is a person, let alone an MP, called Flick Drummond.
Not just that, but her husband is called Hereward.
Not so much Woke as Wake.
I believe Flick is short for Felicity.
"No, I said Flick the Gestapo!"
Herr Flick...oh, it sounds like "hair flick". I get it now. Forty years too late, but never mind... 😃
That's a Helga long time to spend on working out a pun.
I always find it funny for some reason that she's Christopher Nolan's aunt
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
I saw a bit on the BBC news at 6 which said that such a document "was not for today" (or words to that effect). Implies that they have said document and are waiting for the right time to use it.
When dealing with the top, obviously anything not in unambiguous writing will be dealt with as a misunderstanding, recollections many vary and all that.
What Braverman may find out, is that at this level, if you have the top man bang to rights on unambiguous signed paper it does not mean you win and he loses, it means that great effort has to go into destroying your standing and credibility.
So far I don't think there is evidence that Braverman is good at this politics malarkey. The letter is differently terrible from Dame Andrea's but still terrible. Perhaps she should study carefully the life of her college's founder, Margaret of Anjou.
But it’s just you and a few PB-ers who have this opinion that the letter is terrible. Every single political journo - left and right - is saying it’s a singularly effective hatchet job, whether you like her or not (mostly not)
Just watched a compendium of Holden's appearances this a.m. Oh dear. Rishi should have stuck with Hands.
On R4 Today he was toe curling; all the worse because he was preceded by a happy articulate Aussie who had taken 6 wickets in 6 balls, and followed by the articulate and cheery chairman (or something) of Horsham footie who were going to be on the telly in the FA cup. Either would have made an outstandingly better Tory chairman, but it was pretty obvious they both had better things to do.
So if we are to believe Suella's letter it seems clear that she was done up like a kipper by Mr Sunak, a man not generally regarded as a genius of political strategy and raw cunning.
It's almost as if Suella isn't very bright. Not just for being fooled but also for bragging about it. However, I am assured that she is the greatest political strategist of this or any other century by so many on here that my suspicions just can't be true.
I must have missed anyone saying that.
If she did get Rishi to sign up to a series of written pledges, it now looks quite astute I'd say. It absolves her completely for her lack of progress on the key issues under Rishi, and sets up her leadership narrative perfectly. It's almost like she knew how shit he would be and that there would be another leadership election.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
I saw a bit on the BBC news at 6 which said that such a document "was not for today" (or words to that effect). Implies that they have said document and are waiting for the right time to use it.
The piece on the BBC website says the BBC asked Braverman (or her lackeys) for a copy of the document and were told it was "not for today". From which they concluded it would be provided some time.
Would it amount to a hill of beans though? The idea that the PM can be bound by some sort of policy pre-nuptial agreement drawn up with political backer seems patently absurd to me. Doubtless it will make Rishi look slippery and untrustworthy (so what's new?) but the underlying gripe is so unhinged that it pretty much robs it of any traction.
Ok I’ve done some sleuthing. Until a week ago Braverman was getting good interaction with her tweets - hundreds of thousands. Many politicians would kill for that. But still not stratospheric
In the last week she has suddenly been getting MILLIONS of views. Something is up
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
I saw a bit on the BBC news at 6 which said that such a document "was not for today" (or words to that effect). Implies that they have said document and are waiting for the right time to use it.
When dealing with the top, obviously anything not in unambiguous writing will be dealt with as a misunderstanding, recollections many vary and all that.
What Braverman may find out, is that at this level, if you have the top man bang to rights on unambiguous signed paper it does not mean you win and he loses, it means that great effort has to go into destroying your standing and credibility.
So far I don't think there is evidence that Braverman is good at this politics malarkey. The letter is differently terrible from Dame Andrea's but still terrible. Perhaps she should study carefully the life of her college's founder, Margaret of Anjou.
But it’s just you and a few PB-ers who have this opinion that the letter is terrible. Every single political journo - left and right - is saying it’s a singularly effective hatchet job, whether you like her or not (mostly not)
Let's see where she, and her Tory faction, is in a couple of years. At this moment Rishi is still PM and a billionaire, and can do whatever he wants with his life once he has lost the election; Braverman is a woman scorned and looks rather the part. Quite soon the letter will be forgotten and if remembered it will be as a reminder that she stood for an inconsistent, unworkable and immoral policy because, unlike the others, the was daft and narrow minded enough to believe it.
Explain this to me, someone. If a Tory MP has resigned from govt/written letter of no confidence/publicly accused PM of betrayal, how in the name of Mike can they stand for election with him as PM?
The ploy has to be to replace him soon after Xmas, otherwise it’s toast time.
Let's suppose Suella gets what she wants, which looks like Rishi going down in flames at a general election.
Let's also suppose she wins the Conservative leadership.
There's still a massive gap between that and actually being able to do anything. And the plan for her to win a general election looks about as good as the plan devised by the Underpants Gnomes.
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
I'm always quite glad the more intolerant authoritarian right are quite ineffectual. It's been lucky for us down the years.
Is that true?
Hitler is probably the most effective and important politician in German history since Bismarck. Whether you’d call him “intolerant authoritarian right” I dunno. I probably wouldn’t. Populist ethnocentric libertarian I’d say
Ok I’ve done some sleuthing. Until a week ago Braverman was getting good interaction with her tweets - hundreds of thousands. Many politicians would kill for that. But still not stratospheric
In the last week she has suddenly been getting MILLIONS of views. Something is up
To my mind, the problem with much of the political right, in this country and in much of the rest of the world, is that they shout a lot, but are quite ineffectual in practice.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
But she quite persuasively explains in THE LETTER that she wanted to get things done but was constantly thwarted by number 10 and the civil service
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make “Rwanda” a policy
My suspicion is that they wanted the credit for trying Rwanda, but they wanted to get knocked back, so they wouldn’t have to do it. Then they could go to the voters and say ooh look we tried vote for us to really do it next time!
Then they would have done nothing. Again
By contrast Braverman ACTUALLY wanted to do it
Yes. It's the actually wanting to do it that is the killer. You can imagine third rate politicians talking the idea up to garner votes from people who spray football teams on war memorials; fair enough.
But as an actuality, it's a mare. It puts off the entire centrist voter base once the Guardian and the BBC have good film of small girls clutching teddy as they are led to the plane; and, critically, it can't work in terms of numbers and risk. Only a handful will go - there is only so much room; most cases will be stopped by the courts; and future migrants will take their chance of staying.
What you do, is bribe the local thugs, to make sure that migrants never make it to the Mediterranean coastline.
Comparatively cheap, effective, and entirely acceptable to Western European public opinion.
Let's suppose Suella gets what she wants, which looks like Rishi going down in flames at a general election.
Let's also suppose she wins the Conservative leadership.
There's still a massive gap between that and actually being able to do anything. And the plan for her to win a general election looks about as good as the plan devised by the Underpants Gnomes.
Explain this to me, someone. If a Tory MP has resigned from govt/written letter of no confidence/publicly accused PM of betrayal, how in the name of Mike can they stand for election with him as PM?
The ploy has to be to replace him soon after Xmas, otherwise it’s toast time.
John Woodcock stood as a Labour MP publicly saying he would not support his party leader to be PM. People can be very creative.
I’m wondering how Truss war-gamed all this in her comeback strategy?
Truss is yesterday's news, Braverman is the candidate for ERG ideologues now, Cleverly and Barclay the established Cabinet candidates if and when Sunak goes
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
It seems most unlikely that Sunak signed anything. Whether it exists ir not.
Ok I’ve done some sleuthing. Until a week ago Braverman was getting good interaction with her tweets - hundreds of thousands. Many politicians would kill for that. But still not stratospheric
In the last week she has suddenly been getting MILLIONS of views. Something is up
Saw that earlier. Truly shocking. What has this country become?
Poor and broken.
It's not at all poor. What it has become is nasty and uncaring.
But that's the country, not the population - most of whom would abhor the way this man has been treated.
The country has become what it is because it's been led by small-minded zealots who are only worried about their own, their family's and their friends' wealth accumulation.
And yet simultaneously we are spending a fortune in both relative and absolute terms compared with almost any previous point in our history. How can the economy have grown so much over the decades, the tax take soar, and yet something as basic as a minimum standard of care is not affordable? It's not a lack of productivity, or no growth, public meanness, or the taxman not collecting tax. A huge amount of wealth goes into the system, yet what we get for that wealth is inadequate. The state is broken, the old model is outdated, and nobody dare reform it for fear of the electoral consequences.
Due to the malevolent incompetence of those at senior levels, who are in charge of delivering services (and their private sector equivalents).
I used to work in the public sector. Our pay was frozen for years and years. I'm now earning more than twice as much in the private sector.
But I'm working as a consultant for a public sector organisation, and my party is but a fraction of the day rate that my employer is charging for my services. There's a huge amount of money spent on tendering contacts, writing bids, assessing bids, etc.
It seems obvious that if the public sector would employ me directly, they'd actually save a huge heap of money. But it's always politically easy to try and save some money in the short term by screwing down public sector salaries, even though it creates vast amounts of waste later on, when the public sector has to pay over the odds for the private sector to fill its skill gaps.
We see the same in healthcare, where a fortune is spent on agency staff, instead of employing people directly, infrastructure spending, all sorts of areas.
The miserly penny-pinching from the Treasury has created a situation where the state is penny wise and pound foolish. The tighter the Treasury attempts to grip onto spending the more that money floods between its fingers.
Agree 100%. Treasury thinking + Tory orthodoxy is a lot to blame.
Cut public health, be confused at why health spending keeps going up. Cut capital spending, be confused at why there's no productivity growth.
Cut justice budgets, be confused why cases take longer.
Ok I’ve done some sleuthing. Until a week ago Braverman was getting good interaction with her tweets - hundreds of thousands. Many politicians would kill for that. But still not stratospheric
In the last week she has suddenly been getting MILLIONS of views. Something is up
Thoughts?
How's this playing out in India? Just a hunch, but I get the feeling that Rishi is the object of some fascination out there. I've seen him mentioned on Indian news sites much more than seems normal for a British PM.
A wonderful analogy from the conference I'm at. ChatGPT is like a humanities graduate. It has read a lot, can talk convincingly about anything, but has a hazy relationship with the truth and isn't very good at maths.
Ok I’ve done some sleuthing. Until a week ago Braverman was getting good interaction with her tweets - hundreds of thousands. Many politicians would kill for that. But still not stratospheric
In the last week she has suddenly been getting MILLIONS of views. Something is up
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
I saw a bit on the BBC news at 6 which said that such a document "was not for today" (or words to that effect). Implies that they have said document and are waiting for the right time to use it.
When dealing with the top, obviously anything not in unambiguous writing will be dealt with as a misunderstanding, recollections many vary and all that.
What Braverman may find out, is that at this level, if you have the top man bang to rights on unambiguous signed paper it does not mean you win and he loses, it means that great effort has to go into destroying your standing and credibility.
So far I don't think there is evidence that Braverman is good at this politics malarkey. The letter is differently terrible from Dame Andrea's but still terrible. Perhaps she should study carefully the life of her college's founder, Margaret of Anjou.
But it’s just you and a few PB-ers who have this opinion that the letter is terrible. Every single political journo - left and right - is saying it’s a singularly effective hatchet job, whether you like her or not (mostly not)
Let's see where she, and her Tory faction, is in a couple of years. At this moment Rishi is still PM and a billionaire, and can do whatever he wants with his life once he has lost the election; Braverman is a woman scorned and looks rather the part. Quite soon the letter will be forgotten and if remembered it will be as a reminder that she stood for an inconsistent, unworkable and immoral policy because, unlike the others, the was daft and narrow minded enough to believe it.
Must be really bad for Sunak if we're bringing up his wife's money in his defence.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Suella's diatribe contains explicit reference to a document on key priorities she agreed with Sunak in return for her backing:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
If she is smart, she has the document, Sunak's signature is on it and she is saving it for the next round- a Sunday paper, perhaps.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
It seems most unlikely that Sunak signed anything. Whether it exists ir not.
Probably not.
Almost certainly a WhatsApp, so more permanent than a written letter.
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg delivers excoriating attack on PM on @GBNEWS saying: “Suella Braverman is right. The PM has repeatedly and manifestly not delivered on these promises.” He adds: “Sadly, this government no longer seems serious about solving illegal or even legal migration.”
Comments
Glen O'Hara
@gsoh31
·
1h
Cleverly always sounds much more sensible than loads of his colleagues. Don't know why some people don't rate him.
===
He is the dark horse runner for leader after Jan 2025 imho. (Assuming he wants it???)
I remember long ago a chap called Enoch Powell writing an article in which he made the point (not entirely wrong I feel) that although Cain was not a wholly satisfactory ethical commentator, his views on not being his brother's keeper were pretty sound.
Jesus, of course, according to Matthew claimed a literal universal sovereignty and jurisdiction.
I'm not sure even the Tories will be stupid enough to make her leader after they go into opposition.
That’s Suella Braverman. Over-promise, under-deliver.
A much better strategy would be to talk moderate, and act right.
“Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
@GoodwinMJ
·
3h
This is not just a pitch for the party leadership. This is a rallying cry to redefine British conservatism.
====
Everyday. He wants to turn the dial past 11 and see what happens.
It would need a 24.5% swing for him to lose.
If he loses the Tories would be the fourth largest party in Parliament.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
3h
The best bit in Braverman's letter is where she says she was prepared to accept Sunak despite him having no public mandate as long as he agreed to her secret deal the public didn't even know about.
LDs most supportive of having Ministers from the House of Lords, Labour voters least supportive
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1724492874266419464?s=20
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign.
I wonder why she hasn't included this document as an appendix to her letter?
I can well believe that on Rwanda. Most of them will find Rwanda distasteful and cruel blah blah. Which is fine - that’s a moral choice - but if that is your opinion don’t simultaneously make “Rwanda” a policy
My suspicion is that they wanted the credit for trying Rwanda, but they wanted to get knocked back, so they wouldn’t have to do it. Then they could go to the voters and say ooh look we tried vote for us to really do it next time!
Then they would have done nothing. Again
By contrast Braverman ACTUALLY wanted to do it
So both of them were part of a sleazy Faustian pact that involved anointing themselves Home Secretary and Prime Minister in their own self interest and in secret.
Whilst I reckon the being HS is the second-hardest job in government, after being PM, she did it very poorly.
If she is not smart, she doesn't have the document. Either she has lost it, or she never took a copy, or it was never written down on paper as such but she had an understanding...
Also allows her to send THE LETTER - which she obviously enjoyed writing
I like ruthlessly ambitious politicians. They’re fun
And this is not a partisan thing. I admired Mandelson, Salmond and Sturgeon for the same reasons. Mandelson and Salmond would both have made excellent UK prime ministers
Mikhail Bakunin
Farage is probably the most effective and important politician in British history since Blair. Whether you’d call him “intolerant authoritarian
right” I dunno. I probably wouldn’t. Populist ethnocentric libertarian I’d say
But I'm working as a consultant for a public sector organisation, and my party is but a fraction of the day rate that my employer is charging for my services. There's a huge amount of money spent on tendering contacts, writing bids, assessing bids, etc.
It seems obvious that if the public sector would employ me directly, they'd actually save a huge heap of money. But it's always politically easy to try and save some money in the short term by screwing down public sector salaries, even though it creates vast amounts of waste later on, when the public sector has to pay over the odds for the private sector to fill its skill gaps.
We see the same in healthcare, where a fortune is spent on agency staff, instead of employing people directly, infrastructure spending, all sorts of areas.
The miserly penny-pinching from the Treasury has created a situation where the state is penny wise and pound foolish. The tighter the Treasury attempts to grip onto spending the more that money floods between its fingers.
It's the sort of thing that lefties were (correctly) laughed at; those who insisted in passing council motions calling for World Peace, when their voters lives could be improved more by improving the local swimming pool and making sure the street lights worked.
That Iain Macleod speech about they can dream their dreams but we have work to do. Conservatives, even radical ones, used to get it. I wonder what he'd make of all (gestures widely) this?
Salmond was so good at strategy he nearly broke up the UK - from nowhere. Astonishing
Sturgeon wasn’t quite in the same league but still better than almost anyone in SW1
Personal care takes a certain amount of time, and NI don't seem to be able to find someone willing to do it at the rates offered.
* perhaps Stormont actually doing some work would help, but what other reform?
From 2017
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-condemned-over-jewish-lobby-comment-1.447010
From 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/28/jewish-groups-and-mps-condemn-nigel-farage-for-antisemitic-dog-whistles
From 2022
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/20/jewish-groups-criticise-nigel-farage-for-calling-grant-shapps-globalist
From 2019
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/nigel-farage-accused-of-using-antisemitic-codewords-on-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-show-1.483803
But as an actuality, it's a mare. It puts off the entire centrist voter base once the Guardian and the BBC have good film of small girls clutching teddy as they are led to the plane; and, critically, it can't work in terms of numbers and risk. Only a handful will go - there is only so much room; most cases will be stopped by the courts; and future migrants will take their chance of staying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Colby
Jeez. What a horrible flight
But I’m willing to believe he said ugly things. Which is why I described Farage as “ethnocentric”
However he really has been the most important British politician since Blair. Without him, no Brexit
I’d put Boris next, for winning the referendum and then the Brexit election
It's almost as if Suella isn't very bright. Not just for being fooled but also for bragging about it. However, I am assured that she is the greatest political strategist of this or any other century by so many on here that my suspicions just can't be true.
Cut public health, be confused at why health spending keeps going up. Cut capital spending, be confused at why there's no productivity growth.
What Braverman may find out, is that at this level, if you have the top man bang to rights on unambiguous signed paper it does not mean you win and he loses, it means that great effort has to go into destroying your standing and credibility.
So far I don't think there is evidence that Braverman is good at this politics malarkey. The letter is differently terrible from Dame Andrea's but still terrible. Perhaps she should study carefully the life of her college's founder, Margaret of Anjou.
Guess how many views Braverman’s letter has had on TwiX?
100,000? 400,000? 37?
No. Sixteen million
https://x.com/suellabraverman/status/1724465401982070914?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Guess how many votes it moved...
If she did get Rishi to sign up to a series of written pledges, it now looks quite astute I'd say. It absolves her completely for her lack of progress on the key issues under Rishi, and sets up her leadership narrative perfectly. It's almost like she knew how shit he would be and that there would be another leadership election.
In the last week she has suddenly been getting MILLIONS of views. Something is up
Thoughts?
Explain this to me, someone. If a Tory MP has resigned from govt/written letter of no confidence/publicly accused PM of betrayal, how in the name of Mike can they stand for election with him as PM?
The ploy has to be to replace him soon after Xmas, otherwise it’s toast time.
Let's suppose Suella gets what she wants, which looks like Rishi going down in flames at a general election.
Let's also suppose she wins the Conservative leadership.
There's still a massive gap between that and actually being able to do anything. And the plan for her to win a general election looks about as good as the plan devised by the Underpants Gnomes.
ChatGPT in a right wing mood?
Comparatively cheap, effective, and entirely acceptable to Western European public opinion.
Whether it exists ir not.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4397154#Comment_4397154
Shame it took another six months...
“My fiancé left me because I’m having an emotional affair with ChatGPT”
https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/17tm450/fiancé_28m_found_my_26f_explicit_ai_chats_and/
A wonderful analogy from the conference I'm at. ChatGPT is like a humanities graduate. It has read a lot, can talk convincingly about anything, but has a hazy relationship with the truth and isn't very good at maths.
So Suella’s tweets are getting twenty times as many views as the President of the USA
If we believe this is legit, she will soon be global fuhrer. I am a touch skeptical
Almost certainly a WhatsApp, so more permanent than a written letter.
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg delivers excoriating attack on PM on @GBNEWS saying: “Suella Braverman is right. The PM has repeatedly and manifestly not delivered on these promises.” He adds: “Sadly, this government no longer seems serious about solving illegal or even legal migration.”