|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 26, 2022 16:23:50 GMT 1
Still perpetuating that made up twaddle then? Pedding the "It's no coincidence line".
Grow up! Give up!
What's made up Stafford, remind me who the Labour party have ever elected as leader? You do make me laugh Stafford. You're selected outrage is always a good source of amusement. You can just select the best person for the job.
Are you advocating positive descrimination?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 26, 2022 17:34:31 GMT 1
What's made up Stafford, remind me who the Labour party have ever elected as leader? You do make me laugh Stafford. You're selected outrage is always a good source of amusement. You can just select the best person for the job.
Are you advocating positive descrimination?
I'm saying that those who have spent years labelling anyone who happened to vote a certain way (whether in elections or referendums) racist might well have that directed back at them now and for the time Sunak is leading the Tory party. And that really shouldn't come as a surprise. As I say, what is good for the goose... |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 27, 2022 11:08:34 GMT 1
The danger is that Sunak is so worried about Braverman’s clout (he allegedly rang her six times to win her support at the weekend) that she becomes the tail that wags the dog on the vexed topic of immigration overall. Prime Ministers have their moment of maximum power when they are first installed in No.10 and Sunak seemed hemmed in.
But the most risky element was the sheer number of old faces returning. There were more retreads in this reshuffle than a Kwik-Fit fitter’s garage. While the Tory party’s internal balance may benefit from the restoration of Gove, Raab, Barclay and others to key posts, the ordinary voter will be left with the impression that - in the immortal words of Theresa May - nothing has really changed at all.
Paul Waugh - The i.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 27, 2022 12:02:50 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63410737Another row surrounding Ms Braverman is also brewing with Labour calling for a probe into reports that, as attorney general, she was investigated over the leaking of information related to the security services. The High Court permits publication of the fact there was a leak inquiry, but the government has so far refused to comment. The Cabinet Office has not responded to the BBC's questions about the leak inquiry including whether or not Ms Braverman was questioned, if the police were involved, or if anyone was arrested or questioned under caution. The attorney general's office also did not respond to queries.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 27, 2022 14:55:28 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/27/rishi-sunak-pressed-suella-braverman-serious-breachSuella Braverman is under pressure to answer fresh questions about her resignation as home secretary for breaching the ministerial code last week, after new details emerged that cast doubt on her and Rishi Sunak’s version of events. Sources have said that Braverman was challenged by the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, about the leaking of a sensitive document, rather than coming forward herself about what had happened. A government insider said: “She only owned up to it when she was confronted with the evidence.” It follows an intervention by Jake Berry, the former Conservative party chairman, who said the issue was “really serious” and added: “As I understand it, the evidence was put to her and she accepted the evidence, rather than the other way round.” The account appears to contradict what Sunak said had happened during his first prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. While justifying the reappointment of Braverman as home secretary just six days after her departure, he insisted: “She raised the matter and she accepted her mistake.” The sensitive government information, which Berry said related to cybersecurity, was sent by Braverman using a private email address to a fellow Tory MP, John Hayes, and while trying to copy in Hayes’s wife, she mistakenly sent it to a staff member working for another backbencher, Andrew Percy, who informed the chief whip of the breach. Case then spoke to the Home Office permanent secretary, Matthew Rycroft, and advised the then-prime minister, Liz Truss, that the ministerial code had been broken. There are also questions over the version of events Braverman gave to officials – claiming not to have had her government phone on her because she was taking part in a police operation. Sources said the timestamp on the email showed it was sent several hours after the police raid. They added that at no point did Braverman notify Case of her mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Oct 28, 2022 8:04:05 GMT 1
Terrible decision! Seems you can break the ministerial code with impunity, no doubt Boris will be arguing this. Plus, she’s to the right of Priti Patel apparently, which is some feat. Thought Rishi’s claims to govern with integrity would last a bit longer.... what are you thoughts on labour getting back in after the shambles of the iraq war ? I’m more concerned with the here and now actually, but perhaps you can tell us your thoughts on the shambles of the Suez Crisis if you’re interested in Conservative party history? |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Oct 28, 2022 9:09:29 GMT 1
what are you thoughts on labour getting back in after the shambles of the iraq war ? I’m more concerned with the here and now actually, but perhaps you can tell us your thoughts on the shambles of the Suez Crisis if you’re interested in Conservative party history? before my time, just googled it 1956 , 22 uk deaths and 1,650–3,000 total estimated deaths, not even blue and amber goes back that far, it doesn't go back to the Aden conflict either which I do know about as my dad was in Crater doing active service there and getting sniped at too , without looking I dont know who the government was at the time then either, wars are never good, and top of my list as I lived through it is a government who marched into another country on the back of incorrect information and spent billions of pounds killing innocent citizens as well as costing brits their lives and escalating terrorism threats for all us today maybe we could even look back at b&a and see what people thought about labour "here and now" then |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 17:27:53 GMT 1
I’m more concerned with the here and now actually, but perhaps you can tell us your thoughts on the shambles of the Suez Crisis if you’re interested in Conservative party history? before my time, just googled it 1956 , 22 uk deaths and 1,650–3,000 total estimated deaths, not even blue and amber goes back that far, it doesn't go back to the Aden conflict either which I do know about as my dad was in Crater doing active service there and getting sniped at too , without looking I dont know who the government was at the time then either, wars are never good, and top of my list as I lived through it is a government who marched into another country on the back of incorrect information and spent billions of pounds killing innocent citizens as well as costing brits their lives and escalating terrorism threats for all us today maybe we could even look back at b&a and see what people thought about labour "here and now" then To be honest pilch on this point we actually concur, the Iraq war was a very bad idea. It was pushed through by Blair on the back of a dodgy dossier that the UK intelligence services had passed to them by their US counterparts. Blair was happy to accept it all at face value, because he wanted to be seen as a friend and close ally of the US and in my opinion, because he wanted his Falklands moment. You seem to only attack Labour for the vote in favour of the war, but the truth is that 84 Labour MP's voted against it, including Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell, 165 Tories and 15 Unionists voted with the government, there were also 94 abstentions. If the Tories, Unionists and abstentions had voted no the war would not have gone ahead. Are you going to hold a grudge against the Tory party too? |
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Oct 28, 2022 17:58:30 GMT 1
I’m more concerned with the here and now actually, but perhaps you can tell us your thoughts on the shambles of the Suez Crisis if you’re interested in Conservative party history? before my time, just googled it 1956 , 22 uk deaths and 1,650–3,000 total estimated deaths, not even blue and amber goes back that far, it doesn't go back to the Aden conflict either which I do know about as my dad was in Crater doing active service there and getting sniped at too , without looking I dont know who the government was at the time then either, wars are never good, and top of my list as I lived through it is a government who marched into another country on the back of incorrect information and spent billions of pounds killing innocent citizens as well as costing brits their lives and escalating terrorism threats for all us today maybe we could even look back at b&a and see what people thought about labour "here and now" then Or maybe we could try sticking to the subject of this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Oct 28, 2022 18:11:58 GMT 1
before my time, just googled it 1956 , 22 uk deaths and 1,650–3,000 total estimated deaths, not even blue and amber goes back that far, it doesn't go back to the Aden conflict either which I do know about as my dad was in Crater doing active service there and getting sniped at too , without looking I dont know who the government was at the time then either, wars are never good, and top of my list as I lived through it is a government who marched into another country on the back of incorrect information and spent billions of pounds killing innocent citizens as well as costing brits their lives and escalating terrorism threats for all us today maybe we could even look back at b&a and see what people thought about labour "here and now" then To be honest pilch on this point we actually concur, the Iraq war was a very bad idea. It was pushed through by Blair on the back of a dodgy dossier that the UK intelligence services had passed to them by their US counterparts. Blair was happy to accept it all at face value, because he wanted to be seen as a friend and close ally of the US and in my opinion, because he wanted his Falklands moment. You seem to only attack Labour for the vote in favour of the war, but the truth is that 84 Labour MP's voted against it, including Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell, 165 Tories and 15 Unionists voted with the government, there were also 94 abstentions. If the Tories, Unionists and abstentions had voted no the war would not have gone ahead. Are you going to hold a grudge against the Tory party too? you mean the tories ive never voted for and never will ? |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Oct 28, 2022 18:15:44 GMT 1
What's made up Stafford, remind me who the Labour party have ever elected as leader? You do make me laugh Stafford. You're selected outrage is always a good source of amusement. You can just select the best person for the job.
Are you advocating positive descrimination?
yes good idea, lets forget about a million murders and focus on a schoolboy error email |
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Oct 28, 2022 18:38:16 GMT 1
[quote author=" staffordshrew" source= You can just select the best person for the job.
Are you advocating positive descrimination?
[/quote] Positive discrimination is obviously not the approach to take, but there is no doubt that The Labour Party have historically made the selection of anyone as party leader who is not a white middle class male very difficult to say the least. For those (in the light of Sunak’s promotion) that are somehow seeking some moral high ground on behalf of the current government the reason is simple. There has not ever been a Labour MP of Asian origins of sufficient experience, stature, profile or impact to ever have been considered for the post. That is most definitely not true of the many females that could certainly have held the post. Given the Labour Party’s blatant efforts in selecting and vetting only preferred candidates it is high time they did the same when it comes to the leadership. For what it’s worth, I think Sunaks appointment is a landmark occasion for our country and should be welcomed for what it is. Even if he was Hobsons choice |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 19:17:33 GMT 1
To be honest pilch on this point we actually concur, the Iraq war was a very bad idea. It was pushed through by Blair on the back of a dodgy dossier that the UK intelligence services had passed to them by their US counterparts. Blair was happy to accept it all at face value, because he wanted to be seen as a friend and close ally of the US and in my opinion, because he wanted his Falklands moment. You seem to only attack Labour for the vote in favour of the war, but the truth is that 84 Labour MP's voted against it, including Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell, 165 Tories and 15 Unionists voted with the government, there were also 94 abstentions. If the Tories, Unionists and abstentions had voted no the war would not have gone ahead. Are you going to hold a grudge against the Tory party too? you mean the tories ive never voted for and never will ? It's peculiar how you are never critical of them on here, yet jump in at every opportunity to criticise Labour. I just struggle to understand your agenda. Every political leader and party makes mistakes, the current shower has been making them for over 12 years, but you are still angry with today's Labour party for something that was done nearly 20 years ago when most of their MP's were not even there to vote. Why aren't you angry about ex-servicemen and women sleeping rough on our city streets, nurses having to use food banks, the fact that people are struggling to heat their homes and feed their kids after 12 years of failed austerity measures or any of the plethora of other issues blighting this f***ing country? I had a nephew killed in Afghanistan in a war that I thought was ill-advised and led to many other unnecessary deaths and injuries to young British soldiers as well as a great many Afghans. |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Oct 28, 2022 19:46:32 GMT 1
you mean the tories ive never voted for and never will ? It's peculiar how you are never critical of them on here, yet jump in at every opportunity to criticise Labour. I just struggle to understand your agenda. its time you stopped shouting, took off your blinkers and opened your eyes, I dont start threads criticising labour on here either, I just like to ask the likes of yourself why you think labour deserve a chance to run the country again after their last unforgivable actions oh and maybe you missed this, not only did I say boris should not have resigned but instead, removed from office and had his seat put up for grabs, not really sure which bit of sucking up to tories that fits into Marked absence of Johnson defenders on here lately. But then how do you defend the indefensible? for the record I dont think Boris should resign, there should be some sort of intervention higher up and everyone involved in that gathering be removed from government with their seat up for vote like Patterson recently, this rule should become standard for all MPs |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 19:57:12 GMT 1
It's peculiar how you are never critical of them on here, yet jump in at every opportunity to criticise Labour. I just struggle to understand your agenda. its time you stopped shouting, took off your blinkers and opened your eyes, I dont start threads criticising labour on here either, I just like to ask the likes of yourself why you think labour deserve a chance to run the country again after their last unforgivable actions oh and maybe you missed this, not only did I say boris should not have resigned but instead, removed from office and had his seat put up for grabs, not really sure which bit of sucking up to tories that fits into for the record I dont think Boris should resign, there should be some sort of intervention higher up and everyone involved in that gathering be removed from government with their seat up for vote like Patterson recently, this rule should become standard for all MPs So do you think that Johnson having parties is more pertinent than ex-servicemen and women sleeping rough or any of the other issues I mentioned? |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Oct 28, 2022 19:59:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Oct 28, 2022 20:07:16 GMT 1
you mean the tories ive never voted for and never will ? It's peculiar how you are never critical of them on here, yet jump in at every opportunity to criticise Labour. I just struggle to understand your agenda. Every political leader and party makes mistakes, the current shower has been making them for over 12 years, but you are still angry with today's Labour party for something that was done nearly 20 years ago when most of their MP's were not even there to vote. Why aren't you angry about ex-servicemen and women sleeping rough on our city streets, nurses having to use food banks, the fact that people are struggling to heat their homes and feed their kids after 12 years of failed austerity measures or any of the plethora of other issues blighting this f***ing country? I had a nephew killed in Afghanistan in a war that I thought was ill-advised and led to many other unnecessary deaths and injuries to young British soldiers as well as a great many Afghans. to answer your 2nd part, yes, how dare me bring the labour fiasco into question as its now 20 years ago, time to forgive and forget yeah, after all its not like anyone ever mentions thatcher is it, she came into power 6 decades back |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Oct 28, 2022 20:15:33 GMT 1
It's peculiar how you are never critical of them on here, yet jump in at every opportunity to criticise Labour. I just struggle to understand your agenda. Every political leader and party makes mistakes, the current shower has been making them for over 12 years, but you are still angry with today's Labour party for something that was done nearly 20 years ago when most of their MP's were not even there to vote. Why aren't you angry about ex-servicemen and women sleeping rough on our city streets, nurses having to use food banks, the fact that people are struggling to heat their homes and feed their kids after 12 years of failed austerity measures or any of the plethora of other issues blighting this f***ing country? I had a nephew killed in Afghanistan in a war that I thought was ill-advised and led to many other unnecessary deaths and injuries to young British soldiers as well as a great many Afghans. to answer your 2nd part, yes, how dare me bring the labour fiasco into question as its now 20 years ago, time to forgive and forget yeah, after all its not like anyone ever mentions thatcher is it, she came into power 6 decades back Not on the Stella Braveman Resigns thread (and others) neither Thatcher or Blair are relevant……. People are understandably discussing what’s in the news now, especially because of the current situation the country’s in topped with 3 PMs in 3 months. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 20:59:47 GMT 1
It's peculiar how you are never critical of them on here, yet jump in at every opportunity to criticise Labour. I just struggle to understand your agenda. Every political leader and party makes mistakes, the current shower has been making them for over 12 years, but you are still angry with today's Labour party for something that was done nearly 20 years ago when most of their MP's were not even there to vote. Why aren't you angry about ex-servicemen and women sleeping rough on our city streets, nurses having to use food banks, the fact that people are struggling to heat their homes and feed their kids after 12 years of failed austerity measures or any of the plethora of other issues blighting this f***ing country? I had a nephew killed in Afghanistan in a war that I thought was ill-advised and led to many other unnecessary deaths and injuries to young British soldiers as well as a great many Afghans. to answer your 2nd part, yes, how dare me bring the labour fiasco into question as its now 20 years ago, time to forgive and forget yeah, after all its not like anyone ever mentions thatcher is it, she came into power 6 decades back At no point did I suggest that anyone should forgive or forget, but how can you blame the current party for something that their forebears did? Are we going to blame the current conservative party for their predecessors introducing concentration camps in the Boer War? |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Oct 28, 2022 21:38:31 GMT 1
to answer your 2nd part, yes, how dare me bring the labour fiasco into question as its now 20 years ago, time to forgive and forget yeah, after all its not like anyone ever mentions thatcher is it, she came into power 6 decades back At no point did I suggest that anyone should forgive or forget, but how can you blame the current party for something that their forebears did? Are we going to blame the current conservative party for their predecessors introducing concentration camps in the Boer War? you should be a salesmen for the sun in liverpool |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 29, 2022 11:07:25 GMT 1
Braverman's appointment has sparked fierce criticism from Tory MPs, several telling i it was a “mistake” that can only be explained as part of a pact between Ms Braverman and Mr Sunak to help him become prime minister – Boris Johnson dropped out of the leadership race hours after she had endorsed him.
Meanwhile, despite briefings that MI5 still trusts the Home Secretary, a security source told i that agencies are now likely to be “extra careful” about sharing information with Ms Braverman.
Many MPs are now speculating how long Ms Braverman can last in the job, although one Tory told i she could hang on as “Rishi is weak”.
One senior Tory MP said: “It is a massive mistake to bring her back. Six days in the wilderness is simply not good enough, it was a serious breach.
“The Home Secretary is responsible for national security and the breach itself concerned national security and the safety of all the people of the UK. I don’t think the culprit – and she is a culprit – should be returning so soon.
“The only conclusion that can be drawn is that she [Braverman] negotiated this [her return] and the PM conceded because he wanted the votes of the ERG [Brexiteer European Research Group]. I am afraid I agree with Keir Starmer, that this is a grubby deal.”
A former minister echoed the concerns: “What the f**k he thinks he is doing putting her back in that position – it must be a deal with the ERG, or perhaps he is just waiting for her to fall apart.”
The i.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 29, 2022 11:47:28 GMT 1
www.opendemocracy.net/en/suella-braverman-home-affairs-committee-channel-asylum-crisis/Braverman dismisses recommendations of asylum inquiry that took 2 years. The Home Affairs Committee blames the Home Office for the crisis. The home secretary rejected all its suggestions. Suella Braverman has refused to accept the findings of a report by cross-party MPs that found internal failings rather than a rise in migrants crossing the Channel are to blame for the breakdown of the asylum system. The Home Affairs Committee said the government had today rejected all the recommendations it made in a damning report published in July following a two-year inquiry into the small boats crisis. The report concluded that the government’s response to the crisis has been “characterised first by inattention and then by poor decision-making” and dismissed the previous home secretary Priti Patel’s claim that the asylum system is collapsing because of “the various strains, abuses, sheer numbers coming to this country”. Instead, MPs found that increasing pressures on the system were a result of the “poor resourcing, by successive governments, of staff and technology in the Asylum Operations function in the Home Office”. As a result, the backlog in asylum cases that are ‘work in progress’ has grown to 117,000 in June, more than double what it was in 2014. The Home Affairs Committee said it “will now decide how to proceed in light of the government’s response and whether to take further action in due course”. The chair, Labour MP Diana Johnson, said “No matter what the government says, it is clear that they have so far failed to adequately deal with the growth in channel crossings. “Thirty-eight thousand have successfully made the journey so far this year, already more than came across in the whole of 2021, and yet only 4% of asylum claims from last year have been processed. This means that the 117,000 backlog of those claiming asylum grows. We are now hearing reports of the government paying to house asylum seekers in people’s homes or even tent cities in London’s parks; and they are attempting to obtain more hotel space at further cost to the tax-payer. This strategy is simply not working.”
|
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Oct 29, 2022 12:01:20 GMT 1
There is no doubt that Braverman breached the rules but how serious the breach was is open to interpretation. I do however worry that there is a danger some of these attacks on individuals may be open to a racial element. We know it exists and can't be ignored .
I am sure if Braverman should pay for what she has done I am sure that pressure in parliament will eventually prevail.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 29, 2022 19:17:37 GMT 1
More on Braverman. www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/29/suella-braverman-secretive-meetings-antiwoke-mp-officialsHome Office officials raised concerns over a series of secretive meetings Suella Braverman held with an influential rightwing backbench MP weeks before she was forced to resign over leaking sensitive information to him, the Observer has been told. In addition, sources have claimed that the home secretary appears to have instructed officials to look at potentially implementing hardline proposals cooked up by a rightwing thinktank that would in effect prohibit “genuine refugees” from settling in the UK, a move that threatens an even more uncompromising approach to asylum seekers. Senior officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say even before she was forced to quit there was already significant disquiet over Braverman’s dealings with Sir John Hayes, leader of the “anti-woke” Common Sense Group of rightwing MPs. The pair had held a number of meetings in the Home Office’s headquarters in Marsham Street after she became home secretary for the first time last month. Weeks later Braverman stood down after admitting leaking sensitive government information to Hayes and his wife via her personal email address. She was reinstated by Rishi Sunak days later. “There’s a dynamic around her leaking stuff. Civil servants had been raising concerns about her meetings with that backbencher [Hayes]; she was having them at Marsham Street,” a Home Office source said. A separate Whitehall source added that Hayes spoke openly to parliamentary colleagues about being sent sensitive material on immigration policy from Braverman, raising further questions over security. |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Oct 30, 2022 17:06:54 GMT 1
Using her personal e mail she’s not supposed to use. I believe she was part of a plan to oust Truss. High ranking Tories got together and suggested a minor misdemeanour so she would then resign and bring an end to Truss. In return she’d get her old job back after the Tory leader election. This all worked well, except she’s not great at emails and they still think they can say what they like and the media will believe them without checking the story/time line. Seems to have backfired and spoilt Rishi’s otherwise good start. |
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Oct 30, 2022 22:14:55 GMT 1
She's very well respected within the party, remains to be seen if Rishi can keep the noise down around getting rid of her.
I expect her to keep her job.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 31, 2022 11:39:43 GMT 1
Has the Home Office deliberately allowed conditions at Manston, the processing centre in Kent for people who cross the Channel on small boats, to deteriorate to the extent that it is described as something of a hell hole? And is this related to the fact that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is an avid enthusiast for policies that might deter people from seeking asylum in the UK in the first place? This is a common view on the left, but this morning it was also floated by the Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale, whose North Thanet constituency covers Manston. Manston is meant to take a maximum of 1,600 people, who are supposed to stay for just 24 hours, but recently there have been 3,000 people there, some staying for as long as a month. And yesterday another 700 people were being taken there, following the petrol bomb attack on an immigration centre in Dover. In an interview on the Today programme Gale said that Manston was “overwhelmed” and that conditions there were “wholly unacceptable”. He said the catering and the medical facilities at the site were good, but that it was just far too overcrowded. He told the programme: There are simply far too many people there and this situation should never have been allowed to develop. And I’m not sure that it hasn’t almost been developed deliberately. Asked what he meant by that, he went on: I was told that the Home Office was finding it very difficult to secure hotel accommodation. I now understand that this was a policy issue and a decision was taken not to book additional hotel space. There have been several reports saying Braverman did take decisions that allowed conditions at Manston to deteriorate. In the Times on Saturday Matt Dathan reported that “decisions made by Suella Braverman led directly to overcrowding and outbreaks of scabies and diphtheria at a migrant processing centre in Kent”. He wrote: Multiple government sources who work on asylum accommodation said she had blocked the transfer of thousands of migrants detained at a processing centre at Manston airport to hotels during her first, six-week spell as home secretary. Home Office officials warned her that she risked breaking the law by detaining people — including an Afghan family — for periods of up to 32 days at the centre. In the Sunday Times Harry Yorke and Tim Shipman amplified the story, saying that Braverman’s decision could lead to the government losing a costly legal case. Yorke and Shipman wrote: According to five sources, Braverman, 42, was also told that the legal breach needed to be resolved urgently by rehousing the asylum seekers in alternative accommodation. Two sources said she was also warned by officials that the Home Office had no chance of defending a legal challenge and the matter could also result in a public inquiry if exposed. A government source said: “The government is likely to be judicially reviewed and it’s likely that all of them would be granted asylum, so it’s going to achieve the exact opposite of what she wants. These people could also launch a class action against us and cost the taxpayer millions.” www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/31/tory-sir-roger-gale-asylum-seeker-centre-manston-crisis |
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Oct 31, 2022 12:25:33 GMT 1
it seemed a strange decision to bring her back it gave sunak a headache he could have avoided
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2022 12:33:11 GMT 1
it seemed a strange decision to bring her back it gave sunak a headache he could have avoided Probably a price he has to pay to keep the right wingers onside. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 31, 2022 13:13:18 GMT 1
it seemed a strange decision to bring her back it gave sunak a headache he could have avoided Probably a price he has to pay to keep the right wingers onside. And making sure she brought over members of the ERG with her to back Sunak, so that the Membership were denied a vote. Sunak phoned her 6 times on the Sunday. A few hours after she'd defected, Johnson threw in the towel. It looks like Braverman and some ERG members were on Johnson's original list of 102 supporters. |
|
