Suella

M

Matesrates

Well-known member
What’s her game? One controversial outburst after another, this time accusing the met police of bias towards Palestinian protesters.

It almost looks as if she’s trying to get sacked.
 
She’s right in that the police are probably too worried about racist accusations with arrests at these rallies - unfortunately our country still struggles to treat races the same even when it comes to legitimate arrests for elements chanting anti semitic abuse, it’s reverse racism.
She is still awful, but on this occasion the sentiment is correct, but the way she expresses it is terrible. A Home Secretary at public odds with the police force is poor.
 
She's after those Tory leadership votes, this grandstanding dog whistling plays well with the blue rinse brigade, reference Truss.

I would imagine that she's being advised by her own PR team, either that or she's a lunatic. Not the brightest either way.

Also, the average age of Tory membership must be 70 plus, doesn't bode well for their future.
 
Matesrates said:
What’s her game? One controversial outburst after another, this time accusing the met police of bias towards Palestinian protesters.

It almost looks as if she’s trying to get sacked.
Click to expand...
I think the next Tory Party leadership contest has now begun Mates. She's just not waiting for a vacancy to arise. If you start from the premise that this is all about her political ambitions then it is a lot easier to understand why she is behaving as she is.

The fact that some people will likely get hurt this weekend because of the tension she is stoking up doesn't seem to bother her. If I were in Sunak's position I would wait until the weekend is over, sack her on Monday and ask the Met. to investigate her remarks and whether any criminal offence has been committed.
 
Last edited:
I think she knows the Tories will be out of power for a while. She is appealing to all the extreme Tories, hoping they will bin Sunak and give her a few months as PM before a General Election, to get it on her CV, or possibly change the laws so there will be no more elections unless you are on a Suella approved list to vote.
 
Braverman really disturbs me and there are three things in particular:
Is she really as stupid as she comes across?
If so, just how easy is it to get the qualifications to become a QC?
Is she really as bigoted as she likes to make out or is she just the mouthpiece for more sinister clandestine groups who can exploit her stupidity?

Nothing of what she says ever makes any sense, when looked at in context of current affairs. I was listening yesterday to someone making the same statement as the OP in that she seemingly is trying to get sacked, as part of a leadership campaign.

Who would vote for her? she alienates anyone with any humanistic sensibility whatsoever, and I would suggest that even right leaning Tories would find her objectionable on numerous levels. Even political players with sociopathic tendencies and a complete lack of empathy usually understand to temper their language in order to court popular votes, but she just seemingly blurts out the first thing that comes into her head, but in saying that it seems very calculated as though she's being fed the lines.

I'm not convinced that Starmer can win a GE, but with Braverman at the head there is no way the Tories could win, whereas Sunak might just pull them over the line for another 5 years of disaster politics, infighting, and leadership contests.

It might even be a bit of reverse psychology. Sunak's team let Braverman spout her nonsense because it makes Sunak look almost reasonable, I'm not even convinced he would bin her if he won a GE, because her rantings garner too much mainstream publicity and he can set about his very elitist agenda, massive tax cuts for the very very wealthy and major corporations, dismantling the NHS, dismantling basic human rights and employment regulations, and dismantling environmental regs, etc, slightly out of mainstream view.
 
Certainly the first at that level in government to acknowledge what we all know - the police generally treat football supporters like second class citizens.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Braverman really disturbs me and there are three things in particular:
Is she really as stupid as she comes across?
If so, just how easy is it to get the qualifications to become a QC?
Is she really as bigoted as she likes to make out or is she just the mouthpiece for more sinister clandestine groups who can exploit her stupidity?

Nothing of what she says ever makes any sense, when looked at in context of current affairs. I was listening yesterday to someone making the same statement as the OP in that she seemingly is trying to get sacked, as part of a leadership campaign.

Who would vote for her? she alienates anyone with any humanistic sensibility whatsoever, and I would suggest that even right leaning Tories would find her objectionable on numerous levels. Even political players with sociopathic tendencies and a complete lack of empathy usually understand to temper their language in order to court popular votes, but she just seemingly blurts out the first thing that comes into her head, but in saying that it seems very calculated as though she's being fed the lines.

I'm not convinced that Starmer can win a GE, but with Braverman at the head there is no way the Tories could win, whereas Sunak might just pull them over the line for another 5 years of disaster politics, infighting, and leadership contests.

It might even be a bit of reverse psychology. Sunak's team let Braverman spout her nonsense because it makes Sunak look almost reasonable, I'm not even convinced he would bin her if he won a GE, because her rantings garner too much mainstream publicity and he can set about his very elitist agenda, massive tax cuts for the very very wealthy and major corporations, dismantling the NHS, dismantling basic human rights and employment regulations, and dismantling environmental regs, etc, slightly out of mainstream view.
Click to expand...

It is beginning to look like the Conservatives have the worst case scenario with Braverman.

Possibly, Sunak - when re-instating her as Home Secretary (as quid pro quo for her support) - saw an advantage in her being inside the tent peeing out, rather than outside peeing in.

Now she appears to be inside the tent continually peeing in: not a tenable position.

I imagine she will get what she appears to want over the next week....
 
spudgun said:
It is beginning to look like the Conservatives have the worst case scenario with Braverman.

Possibly, Sunak - when re-instating her as Home Secretary (as quid pro quo for her support) - saw an advantage in her being inside the tent peeing out, rather than outside peeing in.

Now she appears to be inside the tent continually peeing in: not a tenable position.

I imagine she will get what she appears to want over the next week....
Click to expand...
she's incontinent
 
Matesrates said:
What’s her game? One controversial outburst after another, this time accusing the met police of bias towards Palestinian protesters.

It almost looks as if she’s trying to get sacked.
Click to expand...
She's aiming for martyrdom as part of an upcoming leadership battle when Sunak gets trounced in the next election.
 
ss53 said:
Certainly the first at that level in government to acknowledge what we all know - the police generally treat football supporters like second class citizens.
Click to expand...
As Home Secretary she could do something about it, but it's just a soundbite, knowing the likes of the Football Lads Alliance and Tommy Robinson will be the first on the streets to 'protect' war memorials.

She is directly appealing to the far right to get involved this weekend, when they probably weren't going to bother.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Braverman really disturbs me and there are three things in particular:
Is she really as stupid as she comes across?
If so, just how easy is it to get the qualifications to become a QC?
Is she really as bigoted as she likes to make out or is she just the mouthpiece for more sinister clandestine groups who can exploit her stupidity?

Nothing of what she says ever makes any sense, when looked at in context of current affairs. I was listening yesterday to someone making the same statement as the OP in that she seemingly is trying to get sacked, as part of a leadership campaign.

Who would vote for her? she alienates anyone with any humanistic sensibility whatsoever, and I would suggest that even right leaning Tories would find her objectionable on numerous levels. Even political players with sociopathic tendencies and a complete lack of empathy usually understand to temper their language in order to court popular votes, but she just seemingly blurts out the first thing that comes into her head, but in saying that it seems very calculated as though she's being fed the lines.

I'm not convinced that Starmer can win a GE, but with Braverman at the head there is no way the Tories could win, whereas Sunak might just pull them over the line for another 5 years of disaster politics, infighting, and leadership contests.

It might even be a bit of reverse psychology. Sunak's team let Braverman spout her nonsense because it makes Sunak look almost reasonable, I'm not even convinced he would bin her if he won a GE, because her rantings garner too much mainstream publicity and he can set about his very elitist agenda, massive tax cuts for the very very wealthy and major corporations, dismantling the NHS, dismantling basic human rights and employment regulations, and dismantling environmental regs, etc, slightly out of mainstream view.
Click to expand...
For QC read KC. The Queen is dead, long live the KIng. 😉
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Braverman really disturbs me and there are three things in particular:
Is she really as stupid as she comes across?
If so, just how easy is it to get the qualifications to become a QC?
Is she really as bigoted as she likes to make out or is she just the mouthpiece for more sinister clandestine groups who can exploit her stupidity?

Nothing of what she says ever makes any sense, when looked at in context of current affairs. I was listening yesterday to someone making the same statement as the OP in that she seemingly is trying to get sacked, as part of a leadership campaign.

Who would vote for her? she alienates anyone with any humanistic sensibility whatsoever, and I would suggest that even right leaning Tories would find her objectionable on numerous levels. Even political players with sociopathic tendencies and a complete lack of empathy usually understand to temper their language in order to court popular votes, but she just seemingly blurts out the first thing that comes into her head, but in saying that it seems very calculated as though she's being fed the lines.

I'm not convinced that Starmer can win a GE, but with Braverman at the head there is no way the Tories could win, whereas Sunak might just pull them over the line for another 5 years of disaster politics, infighting, and leadership contests.

It might even be a bit of reverse psychology. Sunak's team let Braverman spout her nonsense because it makes Sunak look almost reasonable, I'm not even convinced he would bin her if he won a GE, because her rantings garner too much mainstream publicity and he can set about his very elitist agenda, massive tax cuts for the very very wealthy and major corporations, dismantling the NHS, dismantling basic human rights and employment regulations, and dismantling environmental regs, etc, slightly out of mainstream view.
Click to expand...
Sunak is weak, weak, weak.
 
I genuinely can't see the attraction of Braverman even for the Conservative Party members.
Most MPs, of all parties, are generally decent people who want to serve. Braverman is spiteful and seems genuinely hateful. IMO the UK population, as a whole, are better than her divisive culture wars. Many Conservatives would not vote for her and she would probably return the lowest ever Conservative vote at an election. What are her redeeming features? To me she seems unintelligent, confrontational, divisive and also pretty dull. She doesn't look like a leader, how is she even being talked about as a future leader?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I genuinely can't see the attraction of Braverman even for the Conservative Party members.
Most MPs, of all parties, are generally decent people who want to serve. Braverman is spiteful and seems genuinely hateful. IMO the UK population, as a whole, are better than her divisive culture wars. Many Conservatives would not vote for her and she would probably return the lowest ever Conservative vote at an election. What are her redeeming features? To me she seems unintelligent, confrontational, divisive and also pretty dull. She doesn't look like a leader, how is she even being talked about as a future leader?
Click to expand...
Look at the alternatives. The worst set of politicians ever.

I loathe her but she's clear on what she wants, a racist, bigoted, self serving, inward looking country.

Luckily, while she will appeal to a certain demographic, its not one that would get a majority.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I genuinely can't see the attraction of Braverman even for the Conservative Party members.
Most MPs, of all parties, are generally decent people who want to serve. Braverman is spiteful and seems genuinely hateful. IMO the UK population, as a whole, are better than her divisive culture wars. Many Conservatives would not vote for her and she would probably return the lowest ever Conservative vote at an election. What are her redeeming features? To me she seems unintelligent, confrontational, divisive and also pretty dull. She doesn't look like a leader, how is she even being talked about as a future leader?
Click to expand...
This is the party whose vast majority of members voted for Johnson and Truss as leaders so it doesn’t need a great leap of the imagination to foresee a Braverman or Farage type as leader.
They’re not known as The Stupid Party for nothing.
 
L’étranger said:
This is the party whose vast majority of members voted for Johnson and Truss as leaders so it doesn’t need a great leap of the imagination to foresee a Braverman or Farage type as leader.
They’re not known as The Stupid Party for nothing.
Click to expand...
Yes but Braverman is really barrel scraping.
Her only currency is to attract attention with wicked, divisive statements that appeal to the lowest common denominator.
 
What she said is probably true to a certain degree. Brave by name, brave by nature. If she's going to point the finger though, she better be able to prove it.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Sunak is weak, weak, weak.
Click to expand...
He is but you might find he has longevity. If he could scrape through an election he might build a team around him that isn't quite such a nod to the overt nutjobs such as Braverman. the loons he will want around him are the ultra libertarian, tax cutting, NHS privatising, and big business friendly members who have some capacity to screen their true colours to the public. If he's giving Tory members what they want ie most of the above then they will get behind him, as will the big media institutions, he will still be incompetent but its an incompetence that benefits tory members and the big donators.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
He is but you might find he has longevity. If he could scrape through an election he might build a team around him that isn't quite such a nod to the overt nutjobs such as Braverman. the loons he will want around him are the ultra libertarian, tax cutting, NHS privatising, and big business friendly members who have some capacity to screen their true colours to the public. If he's giving Tory members what they want ie most of the above then they will get behind him, as will the big media institutions, he will still be incompetent but its an incompetence that benefits tory members and the big donators.
Click to expand...
As the months go by I can only see the prospects for this Government worsening.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
As the months go by I can only see the prospects for this Government worsening.
Click to expand...
if logic determined these things I would agree, but firstly logic and the British electorate seems to be on a divergent path, and secondly British elections and referendums are won with minorities. Labour has to get a large part of the 25 to 30% that don't usually vote and I cannot see it even if its vote for a less bad option - to me its not enough motivation. I think we might see a greater share of the vote go to the Lib dems, or the greens, but that will not be enough.

I really want to be wrong.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
if logic determined these things I would agree, but firstly logic and the British electorate seems to be on a divergent path, and secondly British elections and referendums are won with minorities. Labour has to get a large part of the 25 to 30% that don't usually vote and I cannot see it even if its vote for a less bad option - to me its not enough motivation. I think we might see a greater share of the vote go to the Lib dems, or the greens, but that will not be enough.

I really want to be wrong.
Click to expand...
I think Labour will be the largest party and I see it taking 15 seats or more in Scotland. I think the Lib Dems will take up to 30 Tory seats, mainly in the south and south west. If Labour don't get an overall majority I think they'll be able to govern with either of the SMP or the Lib Dems. That said, I don't like the nationalists and I don't trust the Lib Dems. Tricky.
 
There is no way Starmer can partner with the SNP given the independence demands they would make.

My answer in a hung Parliament, with Labour being the largest party, would be to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and force through proportional representation. Change British politics forever and cast the extreme right wing Tories into oblivion.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I think Labour will be the largest party and I see it taking 15 seats or more in Scotland. I think the Lib Dems will take up to 30 Tory seats, mainly in the south and south west. If Labour don't get an overall majority I think they'll be able to govern with either of the SMP or the Lib Dems. That said, I don't like the nationalists and I don't trust the Lib Dems. Tricky.
Click to expand...
To some extent you outline the problem, you don't trust the lib dems; i think that's fairly common, i dont think most people trust the greens either, I would also expect a majority of Tories and quite a few centrist labour voters to see a potential coalition with Scottish Nationalists as a real risk to the status of the UKoGB&NI and might make (in their minds) a strategic decision to not vote Labour that protects that status. If I was Tory central I would certainly be pushing that message of protectionism against UK breakup.

The Tories have nothing, they have been a solid party of fuckwittery for nearly 15 years, so they have to find something that the British public can get behind, immigration will still be on the agenda - a non issue. All the fault of the EU will still be a common agenda item, and it will have its adherents including in the media, and the only other thing they can call on is culture wars. So appealing to nationalistic pride and hundreds of years of history might be a big emotional pull.

As you say Tricky.
 
Archibald Knox said:
There is no way Starmer can partner with the SNP given the independence demands they would make.

My answer in a hung Parliament, with Labour being the largest party, would be to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and force through proportional representation. Change British politics forever and cast the extreme right wing Tories into oblivion.
Click to expand...
If the lib dems dont get enough seats the only real coalition alternative is the SNP. I think the general concensus is that the lib dems need to triple their vote almost in order to have a seat at the table.

PR is not the panacea you might think look at Spain at the moment which has Proportional Representation. The key is representing the missing 30% of the electorate. Extremists whether left or right tend to vote, most missing voters would be centrists of one shade or another or just outright cynics. The more that centrists don't vote the more likely that people are A) turned on to extreme or radical views and B) the disparity between the extremes becomes wider meaning the centralist point of view becomes ever more unlikely to vote.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
If the lib dems dont get enough seats the only real coalition alternative is the SNP. I think the general concensus is that the lib dems need to triple their vote almost in order to have a seat at the table.

PR is not the panacea you might think look at Spain at the moment which has Proportional Representation. The key is representing the missing 30% of the electorate. Extremists whether left or right tend to vote, most missing voters would be centrists of one shade or another or just outright cynics. The more that centrists don't vote the more likely that people are A) turned on to extreme or radical views and B) the disparity between the extremes becomes wider meaning the centralist point of view becomes ever more unlikely to vote.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the worst example of the dangers of PR is Israel. Because the quota for every party's involvement in Government is set so low, lots of new - and usually extreme - parties form, glow briefly then disappear. In the meanwhile populist leaders take control via the more stable, right wing parties in coalitions: hence Netenyahu, who's original name was Mileikowsky, was Jerusalem born but (surprise, surprise), raised in the USA.
 
Wizaard said:
Look at the alternatives. The worst set of politicians ever.

I loathe her but she's clear on what she wants, a racist, bigoted, self serving, inward looking country.

Luckily, while she will appeal to a certain demographic, its not one that would get a majority.
Click to expand...
Boomers and RWNJs.

The vote between 18-40 will be utterly appalled by her.
 
Rishi Wishi Washi says he's standing right behind Cruella.

He didn't mention that this was on top of a cliff.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
If the lib dems dont get enough seats the only real coalition alternative is the SNP. I think the general concensus is that the lib dems need to triple their vote almost in order to have a seat at the table.

PR is not the panacea you might think look at Spain at the moment which has Proportional Representation. The key is representing the missing 30% of the electorate. Extremists whether left or right tend to vote, most missing voters would be centrists of one shade or another or just outright cynics. The more that centrists don't vote the more likely that people are A) turned on to extreme or radical views and B) the disparity between the extremes becomes wider meaning the centralist point of view becomes ever more unlikely to vote.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that. General Elections tend to attract 60-70% of the electoral vote. With encouragement that could rise with many more “centralists” voting.
 
There is a quiet revolution around the corner. The great British public wants a politician who not only promises solutions to the country's many issues but who actually takes practical steps to achieve those solutions. The noisy minority seems to be imposing its extreme views on this country while the silent majority sits back in fearful acceptance of the gradual yet incessant disintegration of its rights and traditional way of life.

Keir Starmer cannot possibly resolve the country's problems. He seems to have difficulty deciding which shoe lace to fasten first. I have never seen a politician so uncertain about which policies he should adopt. Rishi shapes up better but is frightened of offending the noisy minority. Braverman is the first politician for a long time who shows a genuine courage of her convictions. The fact that she winds up the LWNJs is sufficient proof to me that she's getting her job done.
 
Last edited:
how do you encourage 25 to 30% (or 40% even) to vote when they historically don't. Pew research shows that only a handful of countries get over 80% turnouts, even Australia where there is a Legal obligation to vote only gets just over 90%.

The US got 90 plus percent registered elector turnout in the last election, many obviously voting to keep a particularly insidious candidate out. Saying that only 60% or so of the voting age people turned out, firstly because regions are massively gerrymandered and secondly because the right have put many restrictions or obstacles on voter registration, and the typical turnout is often below 50%.

In the UK according to some research from i think the LSE from a couple of years ago around 10% of the UK population are die hard labour voters, (it used to be higher but the SNP has taken a large swath) within that there are a large majority who are Never Tory. Around 12-15% are always Tory voters and most of those are never Labour. There are about 10-15% who vote for extreme or radical parties, whether leaning to right, left or greenish issues, or consistently vote lib dems. Right wing radicals will vote tory but many on the hard left generally don't vote for a centrist left party, and centrist leftists have fears of the hard left, and a solid 5-8% have a leaning towards conservative. That leaves around 25-30% floating voters and 30ish plus percent not voting. Historically Tories need about half the floating voters, the research indicated that a centrist labour party might need more of those floating voters (upwards of 90%) because it will not get the hard left, the hard right or the green or Scottish nationalist vote. Assuming historic norms, every vote for the lib dems, or the greens is a vote against labour.

The floaters and the non voters are enough to get a clear majority and the way the system currently works a landslide in parliament, but I don't see how you change the historic ambivalence to voting when the parties and / or the candidates don't really appeal.

Its easier for a political party to appeal rightwards rather than left because western democracy has had a century long ingrained cultural fear of hard socialism (communism), but doesn't see the same problem with an extreme authoritarian and elitist capitalist system, because again its in grained into us.

You only have to look at the post above this to see where a lack of capacity to think critically leads a very small minority to think that Braverman is a useful part of Government, Parliament or even society.
 
tommytwojags said:
Braverman is the first politician for a long time who shows a genuine courage of her convictions. The fact that she winds up the LWNJs is sufficient proof to me that she is getting her job done.
Click to expand...

But she isn`t "getting her job done", is she?

She has failed on most things to do with her office and immigration in particular, and compounded that by making incendiary and ill-thought out comments that have alienated members of her own party and the centre ground public as well.

If you really think that "winding up LWNJs" is a suitable metric for judging job performance then I would suggest you are very much in a minority...
 
Failed on most things.......she's another politician who couldn't find her own arse using both hands and has little or no concept of the realities many in this country face on a daily basis.
 
Goldfinger said:
Failed on most things.......she's another politician who couldn't find her own arse using both hands and has little or no concept of the realities many in this country face on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
In it for herself. A Nazi who looks a little different so the Torys can hide behind her vile bile and pretend they aren't racist. Her dog whistling has caused the trouble so far today.
 
listen to what NADINE DORRIES has had to say. just a cabal of men including MICHAEL GOVE plotted to remove JOHNSON. and will remove RICH BOY SUNAK when the time is right.
 
JOHNMAJORTOM said:
listen to what NADINE DORRIES has had to say. just a cabal of men including MICHAEL GOVE plotted to remove JOHNSON. and will remove RICH BOY SUNAK when the time is right.
Click to expand...
Does anyone listen to what Nadine Dorries says lol. She's one of the worst of them all blindly in love with good ole Bovver Bowis
 
SB has to go now.

You can’t have a Home Secretary undermining the police and then whipping up a RW mob who then attack the police force she has responsibility for.

She should apologise and resign tonight. If she doesn’t then Sunak should sack her in the morning.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
SB has to go now.

You can’t have a Home Secretary undermining the police and then whipping up a RW mob who then attack the police force she has responsibility for.

She should apologise and resign tonight. If she doesn’t then Sunak should sack her in the morning.
Click to expand...



I think she is more likely to double down and claim that the arrests today show that she was right about what she said about police targeting right wing marchers to be honest.
Sounds like Sunak might be about to replace her with Gove though?

Edit to add : 150 pro Palestine marchers have now been arrested as well, apparently for setting off fireworks. Maybe she won’t get to make the claim about being right all along after all!
 
Last edited:
spudgun said:
But she isn`t "getting her job done", is she?

She has failed on EVERYTHING to do with her office and immigration in particular, and compounded that by making incendiary and ill-thought out comments that have alienated members of her own party and the centre ground public as well.

If you really think that "winding up LWNJs" is a suitable metric for judging job performance then I would suggest you are very much in a minority...
Click to expand...
Blip there pal. Edited for accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top