Why so much fuss over Stella Braverman?

[lastminutepanicking]

I’m just wondering who on earth cares? Can’t understand why this is such big news.

L1ttledrummergirl
Sunak delivering his usual low morals and ethics

I’m no Braverman fan, but this isn’t a scandal.
The points row involving the home secretary is not a resigning issue — and pretending that it is sets a dangerous precedent.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/im-no-braverman-fan-but-this-isnt-a-scandal-tqpqdwddk

jgw1
But was Lord Falconer a working mother?

No - but he was Tony's Blair's former flatmate - and parachuted into government due to his friendship.

He was and is a competent lawyer (which Blair was not).

Attack people on their records. If it's going to get down to old chums then the Tory Party have their own skeletons.

Alexandra2001
"....but Labour..." is your only response, pathetic

I think it's highly relevant that Labour's last attorney general in office wasn't sacked by Gordon Brown (neither did she resign), despite her being fined £5,000 for employing an illegal immigrant.

TheHandmaiden
If it's going to get down to old chums then the Tory Party have their own skeletons

And no doubt jgw1 has frequently complained on that very topic.

Well, I don't really care if someone is chums. I care if they are competent. Charles Falconer is a competent lawyer. Hell, Kenneth Clarke is a competent lawyer. So too is Lucy Fraser.

It's okay to note that much of the current cabinet are seriously b grade. Blair was not a great lawyer but he was a gifted politician - once in a lifetime and he absolutely terrified the Conservative Party. He was too good.

But that was twenty years ago - we have Braverman! I don't think she should have been sacked for this but she is dire. She won't even achieve her stated aims and her language is unbelievable. It is racist and inflammatory- pure rabble rousing. A decent PM would just get rid of her for that alone. Sunak presumably agrees with it, which is repellent to me.

That's your opinion. Mine is that if she tried to use the civil service to alter the rules for her, that is a sacking position. Resigning would be the honourable thing to do.

Of course there will be unofficial questions asked, and I hope that whoever has access to any evidence gets that in the public domain as it seems Sunak is happy not to hold his cabinet to account, or give them the chance to be cleared by an official investigation. What happened to professional, accountable and with integrity? I don't believe he is anymore capable of this than Braverman.

Bottom line, I don't trust this prime minister, I don't trust his cabinet and by keeping them in place, I'm losing trust in Parliament. What happens when people lose trust and faith in politicians?

TheHandmaiden
She won't even achieve her stated aims and her language is unbelievable. It is racist and inflammatory- pure rabble rousing. A decent PM would just get rid of her for that alone. Sunak presumably agrees with it, which is repellent to me.

Presumably Tony Blair and Gordon Brown agreed with their home secretaries?

2002 - The home secretary, David Blunkett, was today embroiled in a row over his use of the word "swamped" in the context of immigration and asylum.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/24/immigrationpolicy.immigrationandpublicservices

2007 -John Reid was yesterday accused of impersonating Alf Garnett...
Mr Reid said: "It is unfair foreigners come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits, steal our services like the NHS and undermine the minimum wage by working...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reid-is-like-alf-garnett-456852

Not to mention Angela Rayner twice using the 'scum' insult - including in the House of Commons chamber.

I didn't agree with Blunkett then! He did the same, along with a number of other repellent things to the criminal justice system.

It's not all "Tory bad or Labour bad".

I am a centrist and Braverman's language is vile.

I mean this is why Britain is in such a mess. I've spent 40 years watching politics and working with politicians to some degree; bullshit should be expected.

The number of politicians who are really crap has increased. In 2019, it was the worst quality cabinet I have ever seen. The Tory Party seem to have given up on their natural advantage and literally taken not their best but the absolute lowest part of the talent pool. Part of the reason Brexit was such a shit show is that you had people who had never done anything other than run a think tank or a magazine in their own tiny bit of Westminster where they had zero challenge. They weren't up to it.

In the end it's why they will lose. I mean, you can see the remaining quality leaving as it did in 2019.

I don't think Labour are better, but they are better disciplined, better organized and increasingly, better advised. That's it.

Sunak would keep more voters by getting rid of these headbangers like Braverman.

L1ttledrummergirl
Bottom line, I don't trust this prime minister, I don't trust his cabinet and by keeping them in place, I'm losing trust in Parliament. What happens when people lose trust and faith in politicians?

Well, I wouldn't trust Keir Starmer either - he tried to cover up how many people were with him at the Durham curry and beer gathering. Starmer said there were 'about six' people with him when there were sixteen other people there. He also said that 'all the pubs and restaurants were shut' when they were open for outside eating (Starmer ate outside the night before Durham, in Hull - posing for socially distanced photographs wearing a thick coat). Not to mention that he said a curry 'turned up' when the meal had been planned in advance.

If that's all you can criticise Sir Keir and Labour for, they're on the right path.

Meanwhile.....back to the hugely divisive and unpleasant Braverman ..

Roussette
If that's all you can criticise Sir Keir and Labour for

There's plenty more!!

The issue is it's not very effective.

Got anything positive at all to say about your lot?

I repeat my question, what happens when people lose faith and trust in Parliament, and politicians?

What are your motives to trying to do this with your negative assertion than all politicians are as bad as the current conservatives?

I doubt that he agrees with Braverman; he is a very weak Prime Minister, like most of our recent ones, and she and her right-wing backers are holding him hostage. To make a bad pun, if he were a braver man, he would have fired Braverman.

The problem with the whataboutery is that this government just keeps fucking up.

All the conversation rebukes and ‘tit for tats’ that should theoretically last at least a few years have already been used. Over and over and over….

We’re now reading about stuff that probably happened before a good percentage of the readers were old enough to vote.

Meanwhile the cabinet keeps adding to the list at a furious pace.

Exactly. That sort of language isn't acceptable from.anyone. I've voted all over the place in the past. I liked my previous Tory MP (- sadly one of the cre who stood down at the last election after his treatment by Johnson and his gang.

She should have been but that was 14 years ago and not relevant to Braverman, who should be sacked for incompetence not for trying to get a different speeding course, which tbh is the least of her issues.

Perhaps, Clavinova you can explain why net migration was 210k in 2019 but is now over 700k ? 160k are Ukrainians so why the other 500k? with 50k crossing the channel alone, remind me how many crossed in 2019?

Yet despite all this, we still have significant skills shortages, most notable in health and social care, it would appear that Braverman et al have allowed in unskilled folk who either can't, unable (too old - HK migrants) or wont work.... thats why she and all her equally incompetent colleagues should all be sacked and hopefully, soon will be.

Police investigated.... no further action... maybe your a Line of Duty fan and think Starmer is H and manipulated the whole thing?

We can't keep punishing people when the law has exonerated them, where would that lead?

tbh if someone asked me "how many were with you at X venue?" i'd number the people i knew, not everyone and his dog, Curry turned up... ffs of course it was ordered in advanced! do you believe in miracles??? Pubs are shut if they don't let people in.... 2/10 must try harder.

Lets see you come up with ONE public service that has improved over the last 13 years? go on, anything at all......

This. 👆

Just because they have been politicians on every side in the past doing things wrong doesn't mean in 2023 we should accept further incompetence.

We are a democratic society. We deserve a government we can trust to run it democratically and for the good of the people.

Instead - right now - we have people we can't trust who are turning into autocratic leaders and spouting "it's the will of the people". When the polls clearly show otherwise.

Attempting to reduce the illegal and dangerous people trafficking that goes on in perilous journeys does not mean she 'hates migrants'. Not sure how you quantify the 'dodgy' accusations either.

But she isn't making any realistic attempt to reduce this. She could kill the trade at a stroke by introducing safe passage, but instead she chooses ridiculous stunts iike the Rwanda scheme that achieve precisely zero towards that end. You have to suspect that she actually doesn't have much of a problem with the small boat trade because (a) it gives her continued opportunities to posture and stir up myths and hatred and (b) it kills brown people.

I'm quite sure Braverman was high on Sunak's agenda, because she's a persistent thorn in his side, and because she was making such a pig's ear of defending her actions.

No, my post didn't spell out that her acting in the appeal was based on politics and media headlines because it was obvious. Rozenberg didn't need to spell that out either, for the same reason. This may come as a surprise to you, but people can have more than one motivation. The fact that she chose to base the appeal on a totally hopeless argument was also a product of her uselessness as a lawyer. It really is very noticeable that you are, as usual, trying to deflect from that point because you can't address it.

I'm still bewildered that you seem to think it was somehow OK for her to go through this exercise in order to raise her political profile and gain support for her policies. But maybe that just is the way Tory supporters think.

Since when was it appropriate or indeed necessary for the Attorney General in a government with a large majority to push forward hopeless appeals to support a Bill going through Parliament? Would it get them even one more MP's vote? And how can that be an appropriate use of expensive court time? One day of court time costs several thousand pounds, and that's before you get to the lawyers' fees and liability for defence costs. Something tells me the government's lawyers weren't paid at legal aid rates.

🍺? 🍽? Sadly there is no icon for the bottom of the barrel being so comprehensively scraped that they are now eating splinters. Dos svedanya.