Categories
Options
Sunak needs to sack Braverman – politicalbetting.com
Sunak needs to sack Braverman – politicalbetting.com
The arrangement, which the Home Secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible to other participants 2/4
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Edit: third.
https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption#:~:text=We define corruption as the,division and the environmental crisis.
As with Spielman or Cummings (or indeed Gibb and Freedman) the issue is not that she needs sacking.
The issue is, as the last paragraph notes, what the hell does it say about the boss's judgement that people so manifestly useless were appointed in the first place?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/20/martin-amis-era-defining-british-novelist-dies-aged-73
She'll be a nightmare on the backbenches. (Not that that stopped her being semi-independent anyways).
But he even appointed people he *didn't* need to politically. Raab. Williamson. Zahawi.
He's clearly not a good judge of talent.
On the above post by Transparency International, I think this needs a follow-up of thirty years of cuttings from Private Eye about the revolving door between former politicians and nice-earning Private Monopolies. That is the kind of reason we are much further down the list than some of our near neighbours.
Sunak does need to take heed of her message of reducing crossings across the Channel though if he is to stem losses in the redwall and Tory marginal seats which voted Leave
Stick to beer and wine, don't smoke, get heartburn treated properly, and let your hot drinks cool a little.
In yes minister Jim gets away with drink driving by showing the police his ministerial pass or something, and later asks why the Home Secretary couldn’t have got away with it too, but it turned out the HomeSec was unfortunate to have crashed into a train carrying nuclear waste.
5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code...
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
https://conservativehome.com/2023/05/20/i-have-concluded-that-its-time-for-a-fresh-face-bacon-stands-down-in-south-norfolk/
But Sunak might sack her anyway.
The fact that is leaked now is a clue that he might.
Although the risk of his being ousted would increase significantly if he did.
He went the same way as Chris Hitchens, it seems.
Notable that two of Britain’s most prominent intellectuals of the 80s/90s both died of throat cancer, in the USA; Hitchens in Texas, Amis in Florida.
Sue-Ellen's career prospects seem to be about as bright as Pip Schofield's...
7.1 and it didn’t, because she didn’t get a 1:1, she simply asked if such a thing was possible, and was told no.
I’m no Braverman fan, not at all, I think she’s a dangerous fruitcake, but this is a pretty minor lapse.
And incidentally as a lawyer herself although apparently not a very good one, surely she should have known the answer would be 'no?'
Just think it through from my perspective. You are the prime minister, with a majority of 18, a party that is still harking back to a golden age that never was, and is now invented. You have three rightwing members of the Cabinet who actually resign. What happens in the parliamentary party?
I could bring in other people. But where do you think most of this poison is coming from? From the dispossessed and the never-possessed. You can think of ex-ministers who are going around causing all sorts of trouble.
We don't want another three more of the bastards out there. What's Lyndon Johnson's maxim?
And a Suella who doesn't have to compromise with reality over the next 18 months, who wipes the slate clean by winning in Fareham in 2024 (likely, unfortunately), might be quite handily placed for a leadership election post-Sunak.
Is this the Government that has achieved the least with a majority in history?
Salisbury's governments from 1885-92 and 1895-1902 perhaps.
It's a wonder they haven't burned the place down
https://members.parliament.uk/parties/commons
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1660011311562997761
Presumably she wants help from the leftie lawyers and woke civil service
Anything with what looks like a legal double standard for politicians isn't too good for them, in the long-term. Hence Bozo's issues with Partygate..
All the stars aligned for Con (Boris was still popular outside London, Jezza was toxic after he supported Russia during the Sailsbury attacks not to mention all the antisemitism at the time and Get Brexit Done was a powerful message after the 2017-2019 Parliament refused to implement any deal...)
But the warning signs have been there for Con since 2016 honestly...
Michael Gove at the NatCon conference four days ago: “I can’t think of a single Conservative who reminds me of Chris Huhne.”
Labour's idiotic membership have a lot to answer for as they really should have been in power for years at this point. The fact they are not says a lot.
Danny Finkelstein has been saying for years that the Tories are pursuing a policy of eventual losing - and it seem like we are not headed for that point. I maintain that in 2019 Labour lost, the Tories did not win by being popular or even liked at all. It was Corbyn's utter toxicity that did it.
The dodgy UK incomes destroying FTA’s this government is signing is proper scandal, as is the sewage being pumped into rivers and coastlines.
If so, are you calling yourself an idiot?
I assumed the HS would have pretty tight security - presumably she has her own police driver?
Or did the points pre-date her appointment as hs?
(*Including me, and years ago I picked up two speeding tickets to prove it. In both instances, I think I was driving safely, perhaps 10 miles over the speed limit on an uncrowded highway.)
Keir Starmer really has got to clean up public life, it's an all time low.
If he doesn’t he’s frit.
I understand that, and perhaps should have said so. But I am wondering whether -- in addition -- she was driving dangerously for that place and time.
PS Who was the Director of Public Prosecutions who pushed through Huhne's prosecution - the name escapes me...
Quite apart from whether there has been criminal activity or now, why are foreign-domiciled donors allowed to contribute huge sums of money to UK political parties?
I can't believe there are people who are comfortable with this who are also against people who actually live and work in this country not being able to vote.
Do you have any real evidence of trying to influence? Like trying to pressure officials into making it happen?
Unless the offence was more than ~9 months ago, before she became hs?
I suspect it's a simple speeding offence... followed by a simple coercion attempt.