[Politics] The Right Honourable Suella Braverman. KC MP **Sacked 13/11**

[jcdenton08]

I’ve experienced first hand what this place is like if you add nuance to an argument that even a small clique generally agree with. It can seem very much like unless you say the exact approved verbiage about a subject, the same four to eight posters immediately disregard and wilfully “misunderstand” your posts.

For example, saying

“I am absolutely 100% against Israel’s forcing of a war on Palestine, and feel that the bombing of hospitals and nurseries is inhumane and horrific.

However, Hamas are a massive problem and their murder of civilians, hostage taking and attack on Israel was absolutely horrific too.”

I know in my mind immediately which four to eight posters will jump on the second part, I know which handful of people will jump on the first part - and I know that intelligent, nuanced discourse with these people is impossible after years and years of social politics on NSC.

 

[birthofanorange]

I’ve experienced first hand what this place is like if you add nuance to an argument that even a small clique generally agree with. It can seem very much like unless you say the exact approved verbiage about a subject, the same four to eight posters immediately disregard and wilfully “misunderstand” your posts.

For example, saying

“I am absolutely 100% against Israel’s forcing of a war on Palestine, and feel that the bombing of hospitals and nurseries is inhumane and horrific.

However, Hamas are a massive problem and their murder of civilians, hostage taking and attack on Israel was absolutely horrific too.”

I know in my mind immediately which four to eight posters will jump on the second part, I know which handful of people will jump on the first part - and I know that intelligent, nuanced discourse with these people is impossible after years and years of social politics on NSC.

Gotta say, that means now't to me - sorry.

 

[Eric the meek]

I’ve experienced first hand what this place is like if you add nuance to an argument that even a small clique generally agree with. It can seem very much like unless you say the exact approved verbiage about a subject, the same four to eight posters immediately disregard and wilfully “misunderstand” your posts.

For example, saying

“I am absolutely 100% against Israel’s forcing of a war on Palestine, and feel that the bombing of hospitals and nurseries is inhumane and horrific.

However, Hamas are a massive problem and their murder of civilians, hostage taking and attack on Israel was absolutely horrific too.”

I know in my mind immediately which four to eight posters will jump on the second part, I know which handful of people will jump on the first part - and I know that intelligent, nuanced discourse with these people is impossible after years and years of social politics on NSC.

Maybe it's better to write what you truly believe. Then you will be true to yourself, and not continually having to think what to write so that you please whoever you want to please. That's a fool's errand.

 

[jcdenton08]

Maybe it's better to write what you truly believe. Then you will be true to yourself, and not continually having to think what to write so that you please whoever you want to please. That's a fool's errand.

That’s the thing - I am writing my exact thoughts. I don’t pander to anyone with my views, it’s just they are a lot less partisan than most peoples and I am able to think critically regardless of natural prejudice. This is why some struggle to understand my posts - they are balanced.

 

[Bodian]

ITV 10pm news seemed to lead more on there being some fireworks thrown at Police from a breakaway group of the main march. And implied that Suella will now say 'see, told you so'.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's a strange, but then those in power at the moment are strange.

If he sacked his Home Secretary, for the wider electorate that would make him look stronger. The neo liberal wibbles have got their Brexit, he can push them around all they like.

I can only conclude that the Conservative party have given up on the next election and we are simply witnessing a game of chess for the leader of the opposition.

 

[jcdenton08]

ITV 10pm news seemed to lead more on there being some fireworks thrown at Police from a breakaway group of the main march. And implied that Suella will now say 'see, told you so'.

Well, the Met are saying a small group of approximately 150 break away protestors did indeed do this, however their impact was significantly downplayed compared to the “football hooligans” who tried to get past the police line to the Cenotaph.

 

[Zeberdi]

If he sacked his Home Secretary, for the wider electorate that would make him look stronger. The neo liberal wibbles have got their Brexit, he can push them around all they like.

I can only conclude that the Conservative party have given up on the next election and we are simply witnessing a game of chess for the leader of the opposition.

I suspect, notwithstanding, most rational political observers would say her position is untenable (and I think it is) if Sunak were to sack his Home Secretary, you can almost be certain the 1922 Committee will go into overdrive to try and mount a leadership challenge in the face of an expected mini-reshuffle - probably with ‘Goodnight Sue Ellen’ as the candidate to take him down. Another Prime Minister of this Country being elected by Tory Party without having the decency to go back to the polls would be astonishing to say the least but I wouldn’t put it past them tbh.

 

[South Stand Bonfire]

That’s the thing - I am writing my exact thoughts. I don’t pander to anyone with my views, it’s just they are a lot less partisan than most peoples and I am able to think critically regardless of natural prejudice. This is why some struggle to understand my posts - they are balanced.

I think that is the problem with this war. Hamas acted diabolically in murdering over 1000 innocent civilians and although I believe Israel has a right to defend itself, in my opinion its response has not been proportionate and now is the time for both sides to stop the killing. It’s sad how some politicians can’t seem to be able express their own opinions in case they are labelled pro/anti one side or the other, apart from our Home Secretary this week, the person responsible for the UK’s security.

 

[clapham_gull]

You can almost be certain the 1922 Committee will go into overdrive to try and mount a leadership challenge in the face of an expected mini-reshuffle.

I'm 100 % convinced they wouldn't in the same way the party didn't explode when Johnson was kicked out.

The party has never been about individuals, they are all about survival and long term power. I've come to the conclusion they are reconciled to losing the next election and know Starmer and Labour are going to inherit something very difficult to manage. If they play it right they could be in with a shot to win the election after next.

Everything about the Tories at the moment is a debate about what opposition looks like because they know the game is up. The smoking ban is Sunak's "legacy", a counter balance for future history books when he gets deeply criticised for his performance during the pandemic.

 

[Eric the meek]

I think that is the problem with this war. Hamas acted diabolically in murdering over 1000 innocent civilians and although I believe Israel has a right to defend itself, in my opinion its response has not been proportionate and now is the time for both sides to stop the killing. It’s sad how some politicians can’t seem to be able express their own opinions in case they are labelled pro/anti one side or the other, apart from our Home Secretary this week, the person responsible for the UK’s security.

Your comment reminds me of a news article towards the end of Trump's tenure. The gist of it was that 'the greatest threat to our (the US) national security is now sitting in the White House'.

I'm not trying to overstate the danger of Braverman, but I do see a parallel.

 

[birthofanorange]

I genuinely have concerns about anyone who listens/takes seriously anything that the vile witch Braverman may say.

 

[Cotton Socks]

Sorry but there’s difference between people posting views ‘you don’t like’ and deliberately being baited and being trolled by someone about an issue that’s very personal to you - it’s easy for everyone to say don’t feed the troll but when it is your posts that are being regularly targeted, it is not much fun being at the receiving end of it - as I have been repeatedly on the Hamas thread and in response to some of my posts today by the same poster (and a couple like him) - in fact it is exhausting not to respond in kind with anger sometimes but having to hold back from saying what you really want to and responding politely to correct their deliberate misinterpretation of what you write, the fake news, or the personal digs. That’s not being unable to embrace differences of opinion, that is something entirely different. It hurts that he has only been pulled up today for multiple accounts not for the baiting and trolling he has engaged in for weeks on this topic. I guess though if you admit personal stuff about yourself online, that’s the risk you take. Some kwunt somewhere is going to try and have a field day with it.

I look at this place like a pub, if someone is saying stuff I don't agree with, then I will give my opinion. At the end of the day though, if they're being a complete nause I'll just stop engaging with them. There's complete nause in a pub I go to, he sometimes talks a load of s**t, the group of us give him the time of day to start with & let him rant on if he's in one of those moods. Then we'll talk over him, everyone stops engaging & he'll skulk off into another part of the bar. If you're getting personal abuse then use the report button, if someone is being a complete nause do the equivalent of turning your back and use the ignore button.
You have to be reasonably thick skinned to post on this forum, I lurked for ages before I posted. If someone gets my back up, I just generally leave it as it makes life simpler. When I say 'leave it' I don't mean stop talking on the thread, I just scroll past the person that's got my back up. I know you've said it's personal to you, what someone said earlier in this thread was personal to me. Yes, saying personal stuff about yourself online is a risk, I reckon that over the years I've probably accidentally given my life history on here, probably to the point that as my kids follow NSC on twitter & 'insta' it's only a matter of time before one of them follows a link to here and says FFS, you must be Cotton Socks & give them another reason to say I'm a embarrassing parent!

 

[South Stand Bonfire]

Your comment reminds me of a news article towards the end of Trump's tenure. The gist of it was that 'the greatest threat to our (the US) national security is now sitting in the White House'.

I'm not trying to overstate the danger of Braverman, but I do see a parallel.

I was thinking about that parallel myself but the saving grace is that Braverman is playing to a smaller audience in her party and other groups. Trump had a far larger audience and following and hence he was far more dangerous in my opinion.

When Boris was caught out by his proven lies, it was interesting to see who still supported him and who didn’t. The same goes for Braverman in the coming week/s in my opinion.

 

[Cotton Socks]

I just want a GE. I want to write something about hiding my Mums postal vote but she has the right to vote for who she wants (unfortunately).

 

[Zeberdi]

I'm 100 % convinced they wouldn't in the same way the party didn't explode when Johnson was kicked out.

Not sure what ’the same way’ refers to specifically - but, it is the role of the 1922 Committee to be involved in any leadership challenge - I’m not suggesting the party will ‘explode’ but it is very possible that if Sunak sacks Braverman there will be a backbench challenge to his leadership - she‘s been gunning for it for weeks and the 1922 Committee if not already doing so, will be sounding out what support there would be both for a contest and who would replace Sunak if there was to be a vote of no confidence. I don’t think people realise quite how much power they have! They are the kingmakers literally - if the ‘22 withdraw support from a PM - he/she won’t last long - a PM needs the support of his/her backbenchers.

The 1922 Committee: the 'men in grey suits' behind 100 years of Conservative leaders

The 1922 Committee is the parliamentary group that sets the rules for how Conservative Party leaders are be chosen. David Thackeray, Associate Professor of History at the University of Exeter, explains how this influential group has shaped British politics over the last century…

www.historyextra.com

Inside the assassination bureau

The 1922 Committee is adept at removing prime ministers. How long before its head prefect pays Rishi Sunak a visit?

www.newstatesman.com

This is what they were doing when Boris was being kicked out - trying to change the rules to allow for more no confidence votes against a sitting PM - Boris only survived for as long as he did because the 1922 Committee thought he could win the next election - until they thought he couldn’t - the 1922 are the rules and the central power behind the throne. They will 100% already be discussing whether to pay Sunak a ‘visit’ and the viability of the HS as a PM.

What is the role of the 1922 Committee in deciding Boris Johnson's future? | The National

Body for backbench MPs could change rules to see a second confidence vote in prime minister this year

www.thenationalnews.com

EDIT - I should add that even the very faint possibility of Suella leading a vote of no confidence from the backbench might be enough to make Sunak think twice about sacking her.

 

[clapham_gull]

Not sure what ’the same way’ refers to specifically - but, it is the role of the 1922 Committee to be involved in any leadership challenge - I’m not suggesting the party will ‘explode’ but it is very possible that if Sunak sacks Braverman there will be a backbench challenge to his leadership - she‘s been gunning for it for weeks and the 1922 Committee if not already doing so, will be sounding out what support there would be both for a contest and who would replace Sunak if there was to be a vote of no confidence. I don’t think people realise quite how much power they have! They are the kingmakers literally - if the ‘22 withdraw support from a PM - he/she won’t last long - a PM needs the support of his/her backbenchers.

The 1922 Committee: the 'men in grey suits' behind 100 years of Conservative leaders

The 1922 Committee is the parliamentary group that sets the rules for how Conservative Party leaders are be chosen. David Thackeray, Associate Professor of History at the University of Exeter, explains how this influential group has shaped British politics over the last century…

www.historyextra.com

Inside the assassination bureau

The 1922 Committee is adept at removing prime ministers. How long before its head prefect pays Rishi Sunak a visit?

www.newstatesman.com

This is what they were doing when Boris was being kicked out - trying to change the rules to allow for more no confidence votes against a sitting PM - Boris only survived for as long as he did because the 1922 Committee thought he could win the next election - until they thought he couldn’t - the 1922 are the rules and the central power behind the throne. They will 100% already be discussing whether to pay Sunak a ‘visit’ and the viability of the HS as a PM.

What is the role of the 1922 Committee in deciding Boris Johnson's future? | The National

Body for backbench MPs could change rules to see a second confidence vote in prime minister this year

www.thenationalnews.com

I don't need a lesson on the 1922 committee

My point is that I think the establishment of the Conservative party has reconciled itself to losing the next election

 

[LamieRobertson]

Well, the Met are saying a small group of approximately 150 break away protestors did indeed do this, however their impact was significantly downplayed compared to the “football hooligans” who tried to get past the police line to the Cenotaph.

From the bbc website

Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police​

Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm 100 % convinced they wouldn't in the same way the party didn't explode when Johnson was kicked out.

The party has never been about individuals, they are all about survival and long term power. I've come to the conclusion they are reconciled to losing the next election and know Starmer and Labour are going to inherit something very difficult to manage. If they play it right they could be in with a shot to win the election after next.

Everything about the Tories at the moment is a debate about what opposition looks like because they know the game is up. The smoking ban is Sunak's "legacy", a counter balance for future history books when he gets deeply criticised for his performance during the pandemic.

Agree. They're genius on power, and the 1922 have been oh so effective in securing that.
Not so sure the smoking ban will make the history books, but we'll see.

Not sure what ’the same way’ refers to specifically - but, it is the role of the 1922 Committee to be involved in any leadership challenge - I’m not suggesting the party will ‘explode’ but it is very possible that if Sunak sacks Braverman there will be a backbench challenge to his leadership - she‘s been gunning for it for weeks and the 1922 Committee if not already doing so, will be sounding out what support there would be both for a contest and who would replace Sunak if there was to be a vote of no confidence. I don’t think people realise quite how much power they have! They are the kingmakers literally - if the ‘22 withdraw support from a PM - he/she won’t last long - a PM needs the support of his/her backbenchers.

The 1922 Committee: the 'men in grey suits' behind 100 years of Conservative leaders

The 1922 Committee is the parliamentary group that sets the rules for how Conservative Party leaders are be chosen. David Thackeray, Associate Professor of History at the University of Exeter, explains how this influential group has shaped British politics over the last century…

www.historyextra.com

Inside the assassination bureau

The 1922 Committee is adept at removing prime ministers. How long before its head prefect pays Rishi Sunak a visit?

www.newstatesman.com

This is what they were doing when Boris was being kicked out - trying to change the rules to allow for more no confidence votes against a sitting PM - Boris only survived for as long as he did because the 1922 Committee thought he could win the next election - until they thought he couldn’t - the 1922 are the rules and the central power behind the throne. They will 100% already be discussing whether to pay Sunak a ‘visit’ and the viability of the HS as a PM.

What is the role of the 1922 Committee in deciding Boris Johnson's future? | The National

Body for backbench MPs could change rules to see a second confidence vote in prime minister this year

www.thenationalnews.com

Literally no chance the 1922 will look to replace their leader now. They've done it two times already in this parliament. They know how they currently look. They'll have to spend some time in opposition. The 1922 know that. They will also be working out how to keep their time in opposition to a minimum (perhaps including changing their leadership election rules, to reduce the role of their members).

 

[Zeberdi]

I don't need a lesson on the 1922 committee

My point is that I think the establishment of the Conservative party has reconciled itself to losing the next election

No need to be rude tbh - I wasn’t trying to give you one - just addressing your assumption that for the 1922 to be going into overdrive, equates with the party ‘exploding’ which is what you were suggesting - it doesn’t - it’s how it normally works when it smells dangerous rumblings in the front benches and you took my comment out of context in order to prove a point of your own.

I disagree with your belief that the Tories are now reconciled to losing the next election - No political party ‘reconciles itself to loss’ in advance of an election - the whole art of politics is about ever increasingly finding ways to retain power when you have it and the Tories have shown no sign of lying down and ‘letting’ Labour win - maybe (actually quite likely) Labour will win but I honestly don’t believe we are looking at a party resigned to losing - they may be resigned to losing bi-elections in the past but not GEs. But that is just my POV as is yours is yours.