Cruella...
Not only are you a bigoted weasel, you are a lying bigoted weasel.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/conservatives-suella-braverman-washington-rishi-sunak-jacob-reesmogg-b1169514.html
'“The Progress flag says to me is one monstrous thing: That I was a member of a government that presided over the mutilation of children in our hospitals and from our schools,” she said.'
No under-18s are medically transitioned in the UK, you mendacious little turd.
Lying liars and the lies they lie to further their campaign against the people they irrationally hate really boil my piss.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/conservatives-suella-braverman-washington-rishi-sunak-jacob-reesmogg-b1169514.html
'“The Progress flag says to me is one monstrous thing: That I was a member of a government that presided over the mutilation of children in our hospitals and from our schools,” she said.'
No under-18s are medically transitioned in the UK, you mendacious little turd.
Lying liars and the lies they lie to further their campaign against the people they irrationally hate really boil my piss.
Comments
This is 100% in character for the woman who said she dreamed of refugee flights leaving for Rwanda.
Two pieces of Good News:
1. She will never hold governmental office again.
2. Comes in two parts
A: She becomes Tory leader and does even more damage to their brand, helping Sir Keir's successor to win a general election in 8-10 years' time.
B: She fails to become Tory leader and fades into irrelevance.
Nothing is certain, but I'm reasonably confident of these two. Farage is dangerous because of his bully pulpit and cult following. Suella will just fade away, one way or the other...
AFZ
You really don't like her, do you? Alas, to our prayers ..... she's exactly the sort of person I'm supposed to pray for. Not easy!
Depends what you pray for for her...
Can we not?
It's as nauseating when Labour supporters do it as when Tories do - except in the narrow sense of 'better than the alternative' I can't think of a single government in British political history since 1900 (and precious few before that) that has been worthy of being elected on its own merits past the ten year point.
Not one. They get tired, stale, and unfit for office. Labour will run out of road in a decade, because all governments do.
As an aside, that's partly why it's mostly down to Labour to deal with Reform, rather than the Tories (however unfair that might sound). What Labour does and how Labour governs lays the foundations of what comes after them...* Because something will come after them, and they need the 'remember you are mortal' whispered in their ear every day.
*same for all governing parties, but at the moment, now, it's Labour.
By the way, @alienfromzog I've been sitting down with my election seat breakdown and reckon my prediction of a parliamentary Conservative party well to the left of the membership (but crucially probably about where the voters are) is about right**. Stand back for the fireworks, it's already being briefed out that Braverman's leadership bid is dead in the water', but that probably means she'll get it!
*horrible phrase, but impeccable Labour pedigree when describing dealing with opposition!
**essentially, more people voted Tory than voted Reform, and if they go chasing Reform voters, they're likely to lose more off the other side.
Addendum to 2A. She's approached by Farage as fellow travellers to formalise agreements to work together, which drives the Conservative further into the irrational and bigoted ideological, closer to full-blown fascism, and the more liberal members of the party will be considering their membership (the LibDems could see some gains from this). As said, massive damage to the Conservative brand, potential future merger with Reform.
Addendum to 2B. Someone more liberal than her (ie: practically anyone) is elected as Conservative leader and she storms off to join Reform, potentially taking a couple of other MPs with her. Initiating a full fracture in the Conservative Party with the most irrational and bigoted parts of the party jumping ship, leaving a Conservative Party much closer to what we knew before 2000. Which would forever block the chances of Farage bringing Reform into the Conservative fold and create a united right wing party.
It could (though it's unlikely). But Labour have to govern as if it's going to be the Tories, because if they assume it won't be and do nothing to stem the Reform problem, then when it is some sort of far right alliance next and not the Lib Dems or Greens then it'll be on Labour for creating a situation where that's who most people have turned to...
The Government (to an extent) can manage the opposition they have by what they choose to do in government.
It's not all on Labour, but they're going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting.
Yes please.
The most important thing for the government to do, is to fix the mess.
As a secondary benefit of that, they can shift the Overton window.
And whilst I acknowledge the weariness of parties after a long period in power, I don't accept that it is inevitable. Brown had a highly talented cabinet. Most of whom were much better than we have seen since. Not all, but most.
AFZ
He did. They were. And they were booted.*
Because after 10 years he had a talented cabinet in a party that people were tired of. I do (largely) think it's inevitable.
It doesn't have to be Buggins' Turn and switch back and forth between one of two parties, but essentially a 'turn' is more or less a decade or three elections, with the odd special circumstance that gives a win after that - 1992, 2019 - and props up a corpse.
Yes o remember a work colleague of mine saying he was going to give the Cons a try. Change is inevitable but let’s hope it is for the better.
The street next to the one I grew up in was called Overton Rd. makes me smile each time the Overton Window is mentioned
In which case she's passed totally into Conspiracy Theory land and left the real world behind. Who are these "monsters"?
Dafyd Hell Host
How many Cons factions are there? One at least (the UtterCons) was made up by a Guardian columnist, but some of these groupings are for real (or so they fondly believe).
Someone at the PopCons apparently extended the theory that the reason the Tories lost is because CCHQ has been infiltrated by Lib Dems.
Found a link
https://youtu.be/gdNEjRTNzv8?si=K1bX75gwSHMH3OjX
I need that "falling-about-laughing" emoji!
Can we just stop for a moment and giggle at the claim that "my party governed as liberals"? Which actions of any of the recent Conservative administrations does she think were liberal?
I saw Blondel on stage a very long time ago (35 or so years), and enjoyed it a lot. Thanks for the memory.
I don’t know what this link ultimately goes to but it opened a link that opened a link that opened a link and I just had to close the window on my phone. 😮
Indeed. I need to do that with our horrible people over here, too. Commanded to pray for our enemies and all… Of course that doesn’t mean praying for them to be in positions of power.
It goes to a news source which is AFAIK eminently respectable, but the page seems to have moved on from the report about Braverman.
You haven't missed much - this person is toxic, and the fewer appearances she makes on the media, the better.
Right, but the link opening a link opening a link automatically etc. kind of wigged me out a bit. Did it not do this for other people?
Not for me.
You know now anyway.
Yes, I think that's what happened to me. Anyhow, thanks to @Alan Cresswell , all is now made clear!
https://x.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1811060446494925107
I suspect that given the way in which the balance within the Parliamentary Party has shifted, Braverman is trying to set herself up as the future tribune of the right (with JRM and Baker out of the way) regardless of how the leadership contest goes (and Badenoch starts well ahead of the others).
The members elected Truss instead of Sunak even though he should have been the obvious choice.
Are you hinting that tory party members won't easily vote for a person of colour? I think that's probably true, but enough tickling of their tummies with respect to hating the people they hate might overcome that, especially if the alternative is someone who can at least cosplay a decent human being (rather than the proverbial sack of void spiders in a skin suit) like Tom Tugendhat.
No, they didn't. The membership did not vote for him. This is why it's an open question.
I don't think anyone's ever said that the parliamentary party wouldn't elect someone based on the colour of their skin.
It's repeatedly stated, but noticeably from people who are outside the party but still think they know what's going on, that the membership wouldn't. Sunak lost to Truss with the members, and the membership weren't given a vote when he finally got it as he was the only candidate.
And when they have someone like Badenoch running away with the popular vote then it must be because they're the wrong sort of person of colour.
Do we actually have any Tories at all left on the board who might have a better/more informed angle on what's otherwise at best kremlinology or at worst decision based fact making?
Or is this just one of the blind spots in the current echo chamber?
That's a fair comment. I do not think it unreasonable to consider the question of racism within the rank and file as there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is a concern. However, you are entirely right that it is very much an outsider's perspective that we are drawing on.
It gets even more complicated than that when various senior Tories who are also persons of colour* indulged in racist tropes and advocated positions which are racism-adjacent. Ms Patel and Ms Braveman are the main culprits here.
As a (very) white person, I am reluctant to go too far down this line for obvious reasons. What I can state is that a friend and colleague of mine who is UK-born and of Indian heritage and Hindu, said that he did not feel that Sunak represented him nor had advanced the situation for the majority of British Asians.
I think there is a place here for those of us who are white to comment but with due care to the fact that I do not live this life. I would not for example accuse anyone of be a traitor to their colour/race/background. Nor should I. I should not go there, in any way. But I believe it is correct to observe as I did above when someone (regardless of their colour/race/background) makes comments that are racist - whether explicit or dog-whistle. It is a difficult path to navigate. That's not a complaint - it should be. There is literally centuries of history here which is relevant and I grew up in the eighties when certain forms of racism were both common and socially acceptable. This is probably not a conversation that is fully possible in Purg.
However, to return to the original point. There is evidence that the membership of the Tory party might not vote for a non-white candidate. It is, in my view unfair to assert it. I think it is actually unknown. The only real data point we have is that they choose Truss over Sunak. There are lots of potential explanations for that. It is also a fact that they did not actually elect Sunak. That's it, that's all the facts we actually have.
Any discussion of the up-coming leadership election is unlikely to completely avoid touching on this topic at some point though.
AFZ
*I hate this term, by the way. I similarly hate BAME. I believe it is correct and hopefully non-offensive.
-- chrisstiles, Hell Host
Thanks for the correction ... I had forgotten that.
There have been so many leaders elections in that party recently ....