Suella Bravermans speech last night in Washington

[RedToothBrush]

Oh Boy, has she blown this up.

Paul Brand from ITV and Iain Dale are not happy bunnies (both are gay).

Paul Brand ITV AT PaulBrandITV
Suella Braverman’s speech in Washington this evening contains a blistering attack on pro-LGBT Tories.

She says the pride (progress) flag has been flown on govt buildings as if marking “occupied territory”, accusing Tory colleagues of supporting a “horrible political campaign” which supports the “mutilation of children” and leaves her “physically repulsed”.

This is arguably some of the most inflammatory language used by an MP about any LGBT issue since the 1980s. People will scream at me from both sides of the argument, but most people agree that there is an important and sensitive discussion to be had about children and trans identity. The question is whether this language helps.

But by using this rhetoric, I suspect Suella Braverman hopes to draw attention to her views and claim this ground as her own in the coming leadership contest. Others in her party share the same view but don’t express it quite this strongly, so she marks herself out.

Iain Dale AT IainDale
What a disgusting speech. And she seriously thinks she has a chance of leading the Conservative Party. Not while I have a breath left in my body. Moderate Conservatives need to stand up and be counted. This will not stand.

The replies to Iain Dale are worth reading btw. They are largely telling him, he's wrong.

So what did Suella say? See transcript below.

I personally think because of who she is, it's probably unhelpful and only pushes the 'US conservative religious right' buttons. And she perhaps put it too strongly in language.

But, and I can't believe I'm saying this, isn't saying anything that I think is wrong either. Mainly cos she's right and isn't out of step with Cass.

The problem is, I think she will ultimately defect to Reform when she doesn't win the Tory Party leadership and I think the danger with her speech is that it will have the oppose effect to the one intended by forcing a polarisation merely because she's Evil Suella. But I suspect the idea this subject has gone away and can be quietly buried is firmly for the birds now. She's decided to make this a hill to die on by the looks of it.

As I say, that election result changed a lot. Farage will look to capitalise and Americanise this argument too. Expect more of similar.

Other parties now have a choice whether to play into the hands of the polarisation by pushing back (which politically I think is a bear trap which will back fire in time) or to acknowledge the issues that TWAW has created and the findings of the Cass Review.

Interesting times.

Fangirl!

It's like reading Bunty in 1965.

I think people forget that she was deliberate with her wording. "The flag" that flag represents more than just one group of people. She's proven time and time again she's extremely hateful to many groups, just because you agree with her on 1 thing doesn't make her less hateful in general.

Says it all about how little she actually cares about improving the lives of her constituents considering that event was her priority.

Hateful. Honestly, that word is now just an indicator of an inability to think.

One in a series of cards to help you remember the Tory nutter.

She's a right-wing populist. She doesn't care about women & children in Gaza, or those she wanted deported to Rwanda, or homeless women living it tents.

She doesn't think anti-gay discrimination should be a cause for claiming refugee status. She doesn't think UK citizens should have the protections and rights afforded by the EHRC. She doesn't even believe government should act within our own let alone international law.

She's just another Heritage Foundation/Tufton street backed loon.

We should call her scum too perhaps?

We can take the lead from the UK Deputy Prime Minister and call other MPs voted in by their constituents scum.

Reform, or as Cruella calls them, that bunch of soft lefties.

😂 very good

Ta!

I'm baffled why you would post her 2019 election results and claim her vote has stood up
The complete inability to own up to it therefore makes me think you are not able to be objective about her

I'm baffled why you would post her 2019 election results and claim her vote has stood up

Plenty of dim people around. Best not to focus on anyone in particular.

The Rwanda plan was hateful which she vocally was pushing. I have plenty of ability to think, which means that her being GC doesn't mean she hasn't got her sights set on different groups.

THIS. Don't let her GC views cloud you to her lack of interest in many other points. Broken clock right twice a day comes to mind...

Irrespective of her "hateful" side (she's saying on X that "the Liberals are in meltdown" 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️ FFS), does anyone on this thread disagree with anything in the original transcript?

What Starmer was a candidate in her constituency? That's news to me

God I think the Tufton Street Conspiracy theory thing wasn't as wide spread as this.

YES. leaving the ECHR for a start. Scrapping unconscious bias training for another...

Do you not disagree with those? And why not?

Conspiracy? Are you disputing the existence of The Tax Payers Alliance, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Adam Smith Institute and the Institute for Economic Affairs?

Or, are you denying there's a relationship between these free market lobbying groups and our politicians?

It's just a coincidence that Truss employed Matthew Sinclair, Alex Wild, Caroline Elsom, Ruth Porter and Julian Jessop, all Tufton wonks is it?

Me too. The "pride progress" flag to most people signifies LGBT inclusion, I.e. support to homosexuals. People who are not in the guts of the GC debate will read/see "the pride (progress) flag has been flown on govt buildings as if marking “occupied territory”" as homophobic.

Before you even start on the Truss-esque implications of the "deep state" and "woke civil service" nonsense.

Like nearly everything Braverman says, it's a dog whistle to base prejudices and I think she's a disgrace.

Now the Conservative membership can choose to elect her if they think that's going to win votes back from Reform. Personally I think that would be suicide as the voters have shown the majority don't want this divisive, nasty talk of "wars" and "occupation".

I also wish people wouldn't talk about "multilation". This is real human beings and their bodies we are talking about, I find the language inflammatory and disrespectful. There isn't a need for it in my opinion.

Or that Sunak worked for Policy Exchange before he joined government?

Luckily, it no longer matters whether Tufton Street was a way for rich foreign influencers to funnel money to the Conservatives in return for a say in the political agenda, or whether it was a conspiracy.
Tories are in the bin. Hopefully for a while until they can get their act together and act like sane adults instead of toddlers having a tantrum.

I couldn't see anything about the ECHR in the transcript (realised I should have said in the transcript of the OP - I haven't listened to the whole speech) but may have missed it.

I wouldn't choose the same words as she does but I can't find anything that I disagree with. In retrospect, this would have been a better way for me to phrase my first comment instead of "I agree with every word". For example, I don't use the word woke, as I think it's subjective. But I understand that context in which she is using it here and I think she makes a valid point.

Unconscious bias training is unhelpful. As with many things like this, the idea behind it is a great one but unfortunately the execution of it lends itself far too readily to social justice theory. I don't need to berate myself for my "privilege", I just need to be aware that people have different circumstances etc. Diversity of age, race, sex etc in the workplace is a great thing as we get some of the best ideas when we listen to different perspectives. This happens organically and doesn't require a focused training module.

The "pride progress" flag to most people signifies LGBT inclusion, I.e. support to homosexuals. People who are not in the guts of the GC debate will read/see "the pride (progress) flag has been flown on govt buildings as if marking “occupied territory”" as homophobic.

This is the crux of the issue. It's important to help raise awareness of the difference between the two flags. One is about support for LGB people, the other is a progressive political movement which seeks to impose a belief in gender identity as more important than the reality of biological sex.

Most people aren't flag shaggers so "raising awareness" will do nothing.
Braverman however knew exactly what she was doing in my opinion in using gender ideology as a dog whistle to homophobes. Especially as she was speaking at the National Conservatism conference in the US, a group of people with considerably less tolerance for homosexuality than the UK.

She's just awful and I hope she stays in the US. Thank goodness she's not in a position of power any more.

She is well aware that referring to it as 'the flag; that many will assume she means all pride flags, not purely the progress one. She is well aware of the people she is trying to bring to her side, and believe me they are neither a fan of women or the LGB.