If Mr Cameron (and others) really supported Remain they would have campaigned more effectively. The Leave lies were not countered so people believed them and the vote went that way. I understand it has been recognised that if the vote were held now with people actually realising the implications it would go the other way.
So my personal theory is that he either did not care which way the vote would go or he supported Leave privately and deliberately knackered his own campaign in the hope that it would look like incompetence rather than sabotage.
Whatever his views on Brexit were then or are now I reckon he was appointed Foreign Secretary in order to have someone in the Cabinet who is not seen widely as a fool which might improve the Tory Party's re-election chances when the time comes. Hmm.
Whatever his views on Brexit were then or are now I reckon he was appointed Foreign Secretary in order to have someone in the Cabinet who is not seen widely as a fool which might improve the Tory Party's re-election chances when the time comes. Hmm.
My first read of that and I missed the "not" ... "someone in the Cabinet who is seen widely as a fool". Is there a large portion of the population who don't see Cameron as a fool?
The paragraph makes sense even seeing Cameron as a fool ... because a fool is at least better than the vindictive bastards making up the rest of the Cabinet.
Marina Hyde made me laugh, after the appointment of "a common sense tsar", by comparing the govt to late stage Romanovs, awaiting an unpleasant end. Guardian 14 Nov.
So my personal theory is that he either did not care which way the vote would go or he supported Leave privately and deliberately knackered his own campaign in the hope that it would look like incompetence rather than sabotage.
It could be he was so convinced Remain would win that he wanted it out of the way, clearing the issue and shutting up the ERG for the rest of the Parliament.
I think this is it. I think he was convinced that the public would back Remain by better than 60-40, because Leave was such an obviously stupid choice. Painted in that light, the decision not to draw up "what would Leave look like" white papers almost makes sense, because with a rational electorate, a complete unknown "Leave" looks even worse than a specified Leave.
Unfortunately, the fact that successive governments habitually used the EU as a scapegoat for pretty much any unpopular decision meant that the public's response was not a rational one, but was an instinctive "EU no".
Whatever his views on Brexit were then or are now I reckon he was appointed Foreign Secretary in order to have someone in the Cabinet who is not seen widely as a fool which might improve the Tory Party's re-election chances when the time comes. Hmm.
My first read of that and I missed the "not" ... "someone in the Cabinet who is seen widely as a fool". Is there a large portion of the population who don't see Cameron as a fool?
The paragraph makes sense even seeing Cameron as a fool ... because a fool is at least better than the vindictive bastards making up the rest of the Cabinet.
If all we have are Fools and Knaves, we are well and truly fecked.
It could be he was so convinced Remain would win that he wanted it out of the way, clearing the issue and shutting up the ERG for the rest of the Parliament.
I think this is it. I think he was convinced that the public would back Remain by better than 60-40, because Leave was such an obviously stupid choice.
I think it was partly that, partly not being terribly invested in the outcome except in a purely sporting sense, and partly having had a rather easy life to that point.
It looks as though poor Wishi-Washi is about to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Storm Cruella - here's a clip from this afternoon's Guardian:
16.43 GMT
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
She accuses him of opting for “wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices”.
These claims are incendiary. On his first day as PM Sunak promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. She claims to have evidence that blows this apart.
So my personal theory is that he either did not care which way the vote would go or he supported Leave privately and deliberately knackered his own campaign in the hope that it would look like incompetence rather than sabotage.
It looks as though poor Wishi-Washi is about to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Storm Cruella - here's a clip from this afternoon's Guardian:
16.43 GMT
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
She accuses him of opting for “wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices”.
These claims are incendiary. On his first day as PM Sunak promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. She claims to have evidence that blows this apart.
It looks as though poor Wishi-Washi is about to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Storm Cruella - here's a clip from this afternoon's Guardian:
16.43 GMT
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
She accuses him of opting for “wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices”.
These claims are incendiary. On his first day as PM Sunak promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. She claims to have evidence that blows this apart.
Enough. General Election NOW!
"He wasn't nasty enough to foreigners and trans kids"
It looks as though poor Wishi-Washi is about to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Storm Cruella - here's a clip from this afternoon's Guardian:
16.43 GMT
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
She accuses him of opting for “wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices”.
These claims are incendiary. On his first day as PM Sunak promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. She claims to have evidence that blows this apart.
I assume she has a signed copy of this letter
Enough. General Election NOW!
Be careful what you wish for.
Why? The next lot - unless Pol Pot is resurrected - can hardly be worse than the current shower of shite.
As to the letter to which you refer, Cruella is a lawyer (I think).
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
All of this prompts the question as to why she didn't raise the issue of Sunak's backsliding prior to her being sacked.
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
All of this prompts the question as to why she didn't raise the issue of Sunak's backsliding prior to her being sacked.
Cabinet collective resp- no, I'm sorry, I can't keep a straight face long enough to attribute that to Cruella.
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
All of this prompts the question as to why she didn't raise the issue of Sunak's backsliding prior to her being sacked.
Well, no doubt she has an Agenda, part of which is to piss on Sushi Rinak from a great moral height...
Rishi is clear-eyed enough to realise that the next General Election is a lost cause for his party. That being the case, he wants to put in some damage limitation. If there are to be only 100-200 Conservative MPs left in Opposition he would rather they be relatively sane ones of the Cameron-supporting variety than that they be fans of Truss, Braverman, Rees-Mogg et cetera et cetera et cetera. In this way a post-2025 Conservative party may avoid being permanently sidelined.
I.e. since there is no longer any political benefit to be gained from tacking to the right, he has given the more centrist wing a boost.
Rishi is clear-eyed enough to realise that the next General Election is a lost cause for his party. That being the case, he wants to put in some damage limitation. If there are to be only 100-200 Conservative MPs left in Opposition he would rather they be relatively sane ones of the Cameron-supporting variety than that they be fans of Truss, Braverman, Rees-Mogg et cetera et cetera et cetera. In this way a post-2025 Conservative party may avoid being permanently sidelined.
I.e. since there is no longer any political benefit to be gained from tacking to the right, he has given the more centrist wing a boost.
I thought Braverman is overplaying her hand, or she is burning her boats. No doubt, she will get support from right wing Tories, but not enough. Of course, I could be wrong, and she is the next PM!
I thought Braverman is overplaying her hand, or she is burning her boats. No doubt, she will get support from right wing Tories, but not enough. Of course, I could be wrong, and she is the next PM!
If she is, it will be The End Of Civilisation As We Know It.
Mind you, it has been said that her support in the House of Toddlers is not all that great - maybe 50 or so MPs, and some of them may change their tune come Election time, especially if they haven't been able to find another job by then...
I don't think there's any doubt that Cruella is angling for leadership of some sort of right-wing neo-fascist grouping. Maybe she's after Tommy Robinson's position?
I thought Braverman is overplaying her hand, or she is burning her boats. No doubt, she will get support from right wing Tories, but not enough. Of course, I could be wrong, and she is the next PM!
* OK, there may not have been actual spelling mistakes, but the grammar is appalling.
The second sentence of her second paragraph, read with its grammar intact, calls Boris Johnson "unforgivable". Many would agree, but presumably not what she meant to say.
It is a really bad letter. Are we sure it is not in fact a parody / fake as Ariel suggests?
A big part of the problem seems to be punctuation. The sentence I cited, for example, reads okay if read along with the sentence before it as one big sentence, maybe separated with a comma rather than a period.
And things like missing articles, eg. "Jewish community" rather than "the Jewish community", and the like. I think this all might indicate someone who, while perhaps not outright dyslexic, has the same problem with everyday language that I have with everyday mathematical calculations.
A lotta people in high office(not just conservatives) probably write at an equally crappy level, but they'll have proof-readers on staff to go through their work before it's sent off. Overall, I don't know if you can really read too much into stuff like this.
Ms Jenkyns left school at 16. She was the first person in her family to study for a degree, earning an economics degree from the Open University when she was 40. It's probably not a stretch to suggest that her education in the English language might not have been the greatest.
Hey, in light of the ruling coming up today, can someone clarify Braverman's proposed Rwanda asylum policy to me?
Is the idea that succesful asylum-seekers will just get sent to Rwanda and live there until such time as it becomes safe for them to go back to their countries of origin?
IOW the government has accepted your claim of asylum, but instead of staying in the UK, you stay in Rwanda? Or is Rwanda just a stopover until your case has been processed, at which time, you go back to the UK to take shelter there?
Hey, in light of the ruling coming up today, can someone clarify Braverman's proposed Rwanda asylum policy to me?
Is the idea that succesful asylum-seekers will just get sent to Rwanda and live there until such time as it becomes safe for them to go back to their countries of origin?
IOW the government has accepted your claim of asylum, but instead of staying in the UK, you stay in Rwanda? Or is Rwanda just a stopover until your case has been processed, at which time, you go back to the UK to take shelter there?
The policy is that those arriving in the UK seeking asylum get flown to Rwanda, and their asylum case will be judged there. If they're granted asylum they'll stay in Rwanda, if not they'll be returned to their country of origin.
I was going to say replacing Braverman with anybody would be a step in the direction of sanity; but the scary thing is I can think of at least five politicians off the top of my head whom I would have doubts about.
Comments
So my personal theory is that he either did not care which way the vote would go or he supported Leave privately and deliberately knackered his own campaign in the hope that it would look like incompetence rather than sabotage.
Whatever his views on Brexit were then or are now I reckon he was appointed Foreign Secretary in order to have someone in the Cabinet who is not seen widely as a fool which might improve the Tory Party's re-election chances when the time comes. Hmm.
The paragraph makes sense even seeing Cameron as a fool ... because a fool is at least better than the vindictive bastards making up the rest of the Cabinet.
I think this is it. I think he was convinced that the public would back Remain by better than 60-40, because Leave was such an obviously stupid choice. Painted in that light, the decision not to draw up "what would Leave look like" white papers almost makes sense, because with a rational electorate, a complete unknown "Leave" looks even worse than a specified Leave.
Unfortunately, the fact that successive governments habitually used the EU as a scapegoat for pretty much any unpopular decision meant that the public's response was not a rational one, but was an instinctive "EU no".
If all we have are Fools and Knaves, we are well and truly fecked.
I think it was partly that, partly not being terribly invested in the outcome except in a purely sporting sense, and partly having had a rather easy life to that point.
16.43 GMT
Suella Braverman has just posted on X her letter to the PM after her sacking in the cabinet reshuffle yesterday. In it she says she only agreed to back him for the leadership race last autumn, after Liz Truss resigned, because he agreed to conditions that were put down in writing, which included cutting legal migration, not watering down key pieces of Brexit legislation and publishing statutory guidance to schools to protect biological sex.
Braverman says Sunak has gone back on all these promises.
She accuses him of opting for “wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices”.
These claims are incendiary. On his first day as PM Sunak promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. She claims to have evidence that blows this apart.
Enough. General Election NOW!
His job was done.
"He wasn't nasty enough to foreigners and trans kids"
What a piece of work she is.
Why? The next lot - unless Pol Pot is resurrected - can hardly be worse than the current shower of shite.
As to the letter to which you refer, Cruella is a lawyer (I think).
That reads like an actual proverb. For slightly better flow...
I take sole responsibility for the de-bowdlerization.
All of this prompts the question as to why she didn't raise the issue of Sunak's backsliding prior to her being sacked.
Cabinet collective resp- no, I'm sorry, I can't keep a straight face long enough to attribute that to Cruella.
Well, no doubt she has an Agenda, part of which is to piss on Sushi Rinak from a great moral height...
Rishi is clear-eyed enough to realise that the next General Election is a lost cause for his party. That being the case, he wants to put in some damage limitation. If there are to be only 100-200 Conservative MPs left in Opposition he would rather they be relatively sane ones of the Cameron-supporting variety than that they be fans of Truss, Braverman, Rees-Mogg et cetera et cetera et cetera. In this way a post-2025 Conservative party may avoid being permanently sidelined.
I.e. since there is no longer any political benefit to be gained from tacking to the right, he has given the more centrist wing a boost.
Apart from Esther McVey, Minister for Gammon
Andrea Jenkyns letter she published on X/Twitter yesterday. She spent last summer as the Minister for Skills, Further and Higher Education.
My main criticism of Ms Braveman would be that for all her talk she never actually achieved anything of note.
She also had little understanding as to how the Police operate
If she is, it will be The End Of Civilisation As We Know It.
Mind you, it has been said that her support in the House of Toddlers is not all that great - maybe 50 or so MPs, and some of them may change their tune come Election time, especially if they haven't been able to find another job by then...
I don't think there's any doubt that Cruella is angling for leadership of some sort of right-wing neo-fascist grouping. Maybe she's after Tommy Robinson's position?
For which I will remain eternally grateful.
That would be but one of a long list of things of which she has very little understanding.
Don't. Give. Her. Ideas.
Blimey, was that letter for real? I thought it was somebody's parody.
Reads like a first draft of a Daily Heil Opinion piece.
(*For certain values of that word.)
Does that low-quality bog roll bother with second drafts?
Used it to get the kindling going I imagine.
It would be ironic wouldn't it?
Rather a lot of mishtakes, actually. Was she really once in a position of influence in our education system?!?!?
As someone had as their tag-line on the old Ship, "perview psot is your fiend".*
* OK, there may not have been actual spelling mistakes, but the grammar is appalling.
The second sentence of her second paragraph, read with its grammar intact, calls Boris Johnson "unforgivable". Many would agree, but presumably not what she meant to say.
A big part of the problem seems to be punctuation. The sentence I cited, for example, reads okay if read along with the sentence before it as one big sentence, maybe separated with a comma rather than a period.
And things like missing articles, eg. "Jewish community" rather than "the Jewish community", and the like. I think this all might indicate someone who, while perhaps not outright dyslexic, has the same problem with everyday language that I have with everyday mathematical calculations.
A lotta people in high office(not just conservatives) probably write at an equally crappy level, but they'll have proof-readers on staff to go through their work before it's sent off. Overall, I don't know if you can really read too much into stuff like this.
Is the idea that succesful asylum-seekers will just get sent to Rwanda and live there until such time as it becomes safe for them to go back to their countries of origin?
IOW the government has accepted your claim of asylum, but instead of staying in the UK, you stay in Rwanda? Or is Rwanda just a stopover until your case has been processed, at which time, you go back to the UK to take shelter there?
I've since discovered that she posted it herself on her Twitter account, so no it is genuine.