Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jfollows]

I can see Braverman's point.

If I'd taken on a job, conditional on a number of promises made by my boss, which were made in writing, and I was subsequently sacked for whatever reason, if I felt that my boss hadn't stood by the promises made I'd want someone else to know about it.

That said, it looks in this case that if Sunak did make the four specific agreements, then that'd had been especially stupid because to honour them would have tied his hands too much. As seems to be the case.

Plus I'm glad that he didn't do any of them because I personally disagree with them all. But that's not the point here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

However, to me the main message is that - if true - it demonstrates how utterly desperate Rishi Sunak was to become PM last year and was pretty much prepared to agree to anything in order to get the job. On the basis that he'd then ignore it once he had the job. It makes him “tainted and demeaned” according to one comment I saw. “Integrity and accountability” he said then.

 

[TheSmiths82]

While I don't believe a word that come out of Sunak's keyboard, I also don't believe Braverman either. She is currently the best asset labour has.

 

[Purple Train]

“Integrity and accountability” he said then.

He's gone strangely quiet on that.

The words Suella devotes in her letter to the Rwanda plan aren't worth the ink they're printed with. What a disgusting display of self-centred "My Way" whinging.

 

[MotCO]

One key thing in Suella's letter is Sunak's apparent refusal to respond to Suella's letters whilst she was in post, or to meet her. She was effectively part of Sunak's top team, and to exclude her does not seem like good management.

 

[nlogax]

I can also see Braverman's point.

Though seeing as she's absolutely loathsome I couldn't give a flying..damn about how she feels. The country is better off without her as Home Secretary.

 

[dangie]

I really don't know who to believe and who's telling the truth and I really don't care, but what I do believe is that it's yet another example of the pitiful cesspit that UK politics has sunk into.

 

[edwin_m]

While I don't believe a word that come out of Sunak's keyboard, I also don't believe Braverman either. She is currently the best asset labour has.

The way I see it is that Sunak decided he'd need the support of the Braverman clique to become leader. So he took a leaf out of Johnson's book and agreed to whatever he had to to get her on side, almost certainly with no intention of honouring his side of the bargain.

If it had been a politician of some integrity instead of Braverman, then making the broken promise public might have caused some damage. But I suggest most people will just be glad to see her further from a position of power, and won't care too much how that was achieved. Some of the Tory factions probably will care, but there's not much they can do about it other than influencing the infighting after the election is lost.

 

[Enthusiast]

...a disturbing extremist manifesto...

What???

1. Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto
2. Include specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, i.e. exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue;
3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable;

4. Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children.

Regardless of your view of Mrs Braverman, do you really find all of these measures "disturbing and extremist"?

 

[GusB]

Regardless of your view of Mrs Braverman, do you really find all of these measures "disturbing and extremist"?

I find this particular measure disturbing and extremist:

exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act and other international law

 

[takno]

What???

1. Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto
2. Include specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, i.e. exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue;
3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable;

4. Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children.

Regardless of your view of Mrs Braverman, do you really find all of these measures "disturbing and extremist"?

No. I find 2 and 4 extremist. 1 and 3 are pretty stupid, but reflect the stupid manifesto the nation voted for in 2019

 

[edwin_m]

No. I find 2 and 4 extremist. 1 and 3 are pretty stupid, but reflect the stupid manifesto the nation voted for in 2019

The Retained EU Law Bill is extremist in that it will cause chaos by deleting many existing laws without notice, consultation or specific approval by Parliament.

The Northern Ireland Protocol was extremist in violating an international agreement signed by the very same government.

 

[dgl]

So Suella, a Conservative, believed the word of another Conservative. Couldn't be that bright then.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No. I find 2 and 4 extremist. 1 and 3 are pretty stupid, but reflect the stupid manifesto the nation voted for in 2019

Really? You find (4) extremist? You do realise that (4) defines a position that would have been seen across the political spectrum as completely uncontroversial and normal as little as 10, maybe at a push as little as 5 years ago?

 

[philosopher]

2. Include specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, i.e. exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue;

I find this particular measure disturbing and extremist:

Indeed, unless I have interpreted wrongly, she is saying she is willing to break the law to achieve one of her objectives.

Also, if Braverman was so annoyed at Sunak for breaking mutually agreed pledges, why did not she not resign instead of waiting to be sacked.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Reading that letter again, Braverman is keen to point out that she believes Sunak has no mandate, but was happy to back him if he agreed a secret pact that nobody else, let alone the public, knew about.

She’s mad

 

[WelshBluebird]

Really? You find (4) extremist? You do realise that (4) defines a position that would have been seen across the political spectrum as completely uncontroversial and normal as little as 10, maybe at a push as little as 5 years ago?

Its actually the opposite of what you think. Anti trans views (lets be honest, that is what you mean) have increased in the last 5 years. Largely due to a combination of imported bigotry from the US and the culture war BS that the right have been pushing. I'd also add the whole "knowing what is being taught to their children" line is just the same bigotry that was used as an argument against teaching kids about same sex couples and sex education in general (infact 99% of current transphobia is just regurgitated homophobia).

 

[ainsworth74]

I'd also add the whole "knowing what is being taught to their children" line is just the same bigotry that was used as an argument against teaching kids about same sex couples and sex education in general (infact 99% of current transphobia is just regurgitated homophobia).

More to the point, if you want to know "what my child is being taught" get on the phone to the school and just, er, ask? Or, even wilder thought, ask your child what they've learned and if you could have a look at some of their exercise books/similar materials? The contents of lessons aren't state secrets...

 

[northwichcat]

If the Conservatives acted as a true conservative party, and took lessons from previous similar governments in Australia in how to solve your immigration problems (albeit harder in UK because France and other nations aren't thousands of nautical miles away by sea), it might find more voters returning to the fold.

Also harder for the UK given there's millions of people born before 1982 in Commonwealth countries, like Canada and Hong Kong, who have the right to live in the UK if they wish to. That alone can make it harder to reject applications for those who aren't eligible because they're too young - as they may have family in the UK.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Its actually the opposite of what you think. Anti trans views (lets be honest, that is what you mean) have increased in the last 5 years. Largely due to a combination of imported bigotry from the US and the culture war BS that the right have been pushing. I'd also add the whole "knowing what is being taught to their children" line is just the same bigotry that was used as an argument against teaching kids about same sex couples and sex education in general (infact 99% of current transphobia is just regurgitated homophobia).

So now we appear to be back in the World where, instead of debating with people on the substance of their arguments, we just label anyone we disagree with 'bigoted' or 'homophobic' or 'transphobic' or (from other recent posts, not you) 'extremist'.

So you really think that it's bigoted for a parent to want to know what their children are being taught? Seriously?????

Imagine (hypothetically but not too implausibly in some religious environments) that it appears that in some of your child's lessons, he/she is being taught that God made the Earth in 7 days, and evolution didn't happen. Would it be bigoted of you to want the school to tell you what is actually being taught?

 

[ainsworth74]

So you really think that it's bigoted for a parent to want to know what their children are being taught? Seriously?????

Pick up the phone and ask. They'll tell you. Hell, go onto their website, it's almost certainly already there. It's a requirement for OFSTED:

Curriculum​

Academies should publish:

• the content of the curriculum your school follows in each academic year for every subject - this includes mandatory subjects such as religious education, even if it’s taught as part of another subject or subjects or is called something else
• how parents or other members of the public can find out more about the curriculum your school is following
• how you meet the 16 to 19 study programme requirements (if you have a sixth form or offer education at 16 to 19)

Depending on what phase of education your school offers, we recommend you also publish any of the following that apply to your school:

• the names of any phonics or reading schemes you are using in key stage 1
• a list of the courses available to pupils at key stage 4, including GCSEs
• the 16 to 19 qualifications you offer

You must also set out how over time you will increase the extent to which disabled pupils participate in the school’s curriculum, as part of your school’s accessibility plan. There are more details in the special educational needs and disabilities section.

What academies and further education colleges must or should publish online

Information that academies – including any educational setting with academy arrangements – and further education (FE) colleges must or should publish on their website.

www.gov.uk

(The above is for academies but similar applies to the few remaining non-academy maintained schools)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

More to the point, if you want to know "what my child is being taught" get on the phone to the school and just, er, ask? Or, even wilder thought, ask your child what they've learned and if you could have a look at some of their exercise books/similar materials? The contents of lessons aren't state secrets...

That only works if the child is being given books to take home. If my memory serves me correctly, one of the specific things that raised concerns was a couple of years ago in Brighton, children were being shown powerpoints teaching - shall we say, controversial stuff regarding sex and gender that presented as hard facts stuff that was arguably opinion; and when some parents asked to see what was being taught in the slides, the local authority/schools flat out refused on the basis of protecting the intellectual property of the company that produced the slides. (I can't find the link to the story offhand so I'm hoping my memory is correct).

 

[island]

Pick up the phone and ask. They'll tell you. Hell, go onto their website, it's almost certainly already there. It's a requirement for OFSTED:

What academies and further education colleges must or should publish online

Information that academies – including any educational setting with academy arrangements – and further education (FE) colleges must or should publish on their website.

www.gov.uk

(The above is for academies but similar applies to the few remaining non-academy maintained schools)

Regardless of these requirements, there are numerous reports of schools refusing to share contents of certain lessons with parents, citing grounds that they are copyright property of third party providers.

 

[Cross City]

Really? You find (4) extremist? You do realise that (4) defines a position that would have been seen across the political spectrum as completely uncontroversial and normal as little as 10, maybe at a push as little as 5 years ago?

It's not so much the rule which is the problem, it's where it's come from.

This is obviously designed to marginalise trans and gay people. You cannot deny that attitudes towards LGBT+ people from the govt have gotten worse in the past few years

So you really think that it's bigoted for a parent to want to know what their children are being taught? Seriously?????

Well cherry picked. Obviously nobody is against this.

What people should be questioning is what they're deliberately (politically mandated) not being taught.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So now we appear to be back in the World where, instead of debating with people on the substance of their arguments, we just label anyone we disagree with 'bigoted' or 'homophobic' or 'transphobic' or (from other recent posts, not you) 'extremist'.

Your argument relied on talking about "protecting biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces" two things that are very much right wing transphobic talking points that are 99% of the time used as dogwhistles to more extreme transphobia (given biological sex and single sex spaces are not things that are at all under attack), and "empowering parents to know what is being taught to their children" which is a right wing homophobic, transphobic and anti sex education talking point that is 99% of the time used as dogwhistle for those things. If you have genuine non bigoted reasons for repeating those talking points then it would be good to hear them.

Note - I am not saying you (or anything else) is specifically bigoted because of having those views. However given I have a fair few friends and colleagues who are trans or trans aligned, I've seen a hell of a lot of arguments like yours that end up being in total and utter bad faith and very much do lead directly to horrific transphobia and homophobia, so I am incredibly skeptical these days when anyone pushes those same arguments. Put it this way, not everyone who tries to make those arguments is necessarily transphobic, but everyone who is transphobic makes those arguments.

So you really think that it's bigoted for a parent to want to know what their children are being taught? Seriously?????

The problem isn't wanting to know what your child is being taught, the problem is certain bigoted groups and organisations trying to use it as a point in the culture war BS that they are trying to spread. As ainsworth74 has said, if you actually genuinely want to know that and aren't trying to fan the flames of a BS culture war, then just ask the child or the school. No need to make a big song and dance in the national media like certain groups of people are doing. The curriculum isn't a secret. And then if someone does have a problem with same sex relationships or trans issues being taught in schools, or the existence of sex education in schools, then YES they are bigoted and I have no problem calling that out where it is the case.

Imagine (hypothetically but not too implausibly in some religious environments) that it appears that in some of your child's lessons, he/she is being taught that God made the Earth in 7 days, and evolution didn't happen. Would it be bigoted of you to want the school to tell you what is actually being taught?

That has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about. Fairly obviously supporting gay and trans rights has literally nothing to do with spreading creationism and equating the two like you have is very questionable to say the least.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Rwanda scheme ruled unlawful

 

[jfollows]

The Rwanda policy has been judged to be illegal because of the risks of refugees being returned to the country they're trying to escape from.
It does appear that this has always been an obvious and huge flaw in the policy, which we all kind of knew, didn't we?
EDIT And as such it doesn't rely on the European Convention on Human Rights to make it illegal, it's a judgement based on existing UK law.
My new word of the day - "refoulement" (https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=refoulement).

The expulsion of refugees from a place where they can rightfully claim refugee status to a place where they may face persecution or other threats, such as the country or disaster area from which they originally fled.

[French, a forcing back, from refouler, to force back, from Old French refoler : re-, back (fromLatin re-; see re- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots) + foler, to full cloth, crush (fromVulgar Latin follāre, from Latin fullō, fuller; see bhel-2 in the Appendix of Indo-European roots).]

FURTHER EDIT The Supreme Court confirms this (reported at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-leadership-conservatives-uk-politics-latest):

It may be that the principle of non-refoulement also forms part of customary international law. The United Kingdom has subscribed to this view, along with the other states parties to the refugee convention, in the 2001 Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The fourth recital to the preamble to the declaration acknowledged the continuing relevance and resilience of the international regime of rights and principles established for the protection of refugees, “including at its core the principle of non-refoulement, whose applicability is embedded in customary international law”. The significance of non-refoulement being a principle of customary international law is that it is consequently binding upon all states in international law, regardless of whether they are party to any treaties which give it effect. However, as we have not been addressed on this matter, we do not rely on it in our reasoning.
The principle of non-refoulement is therefore given effect not only by the ECHR but also by other international conventions to which the United Kingdom is party. It is a core principle of international law, to which the United Kingdom government has repeatedly committed itself on the international stage, consistently with this country’s reputation for developing and upholding the rule of law.

The judgment also says the UK government would still have to respect the non-refoulement principle even if it repealed the Human Rights Act (another target of Tory rightwingers). It says:

Asylum seekers are thus protected against refoulement not only by the Human Rights Act but also by provisions in the 1993 Act, the 2002 Act and the 2004 Act, under which parliament has given effect to the refugee convention as well as the ECHR.

 

[Cross City]

Who would’ve thought that moving refugees to Africa against their will was illegal‽

Now, can we build some bloody houses please.

 

[Magdalia]

Imagine (hypothetically but not too implausibly in some religious environments) that it appears that in some of your child's lessons, he/she is being taught that God made the Earth in 7 days, and evolution didn't happen. Would it be bigoted of you to want the school to tell you what is actually being taught?

That has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about. Fairly obviously supporting gay and trans rights has literally nothing to do with spreading creationism and equating the two like you have is very questionable to say the least.

Actually, the creation myth is at the root of this. The sex is binary belief is just that, a belief that is rooted in the creation myth. It is no more scientifically accurate than believing that evolution didn't happen.

Look up differences in sexual development, and read about variations in chromosomes and sensitivity to hormones that mean that some people have primary and secondary sexual characteristics that are a mix of those usually associated with being male or female. The science shows that sex is not binary.

One day, hopefully, teaching that sex is binary will seem as absurd as teaching that evolution didn't happen.

 

[Gloster]

What is the headline on the front page of tomorrow’s Daily Hate Mail going to be: a repeat of the ‘Enemies of the People’ one? More seriously, I can see elements of the Conservative Party pushing for changes to prevent the legal system stopping government actions because they are illegal.

 

[Purple Train]

Actually, the creation myth is at the root of this. The sex is binary belief is just that, a belief that is rooted in the creation myth. It is no more scientifically accurate than believing that evolution didn't happen.

Look up differences in sexual development, and read about variations in chromosomes and sensitivity to hormones that mean that some people have primary and secondary sexual characteristics that are a mix of those usually associated with being male or female. The science shows that sex is not binary.

One day, hopefully, teaching that sex is binary will seem as absurd as teaching that evolution didn't happen.

I don't want to get into a creationism/religious debate because it is significantly off-topic and probably wouldn't end well, but - if you could please not perpetuate the fallacy that creationism is somehow incompatible with believing in evolution, that would be great I believe that God created the earth in seven days, but, equally, there is of course simple scientific and logical proof of natural selection, which I cannot and do not deny.

The Rwanda policy has been judged to be illegal because of the risks of refugees being returned to the country they're trying to escape from.
It does appear that this has always been an obvious and huge flaw in the policy, which we all kind of knew, didn't we?
EDIT And as such it doesn't rely on the European Convention on Human Rights to make it illegal, it's a judgement based on existing UK law.
My new word of the day - "refoulement" (https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=refoulement).

Colour me surprised. And even sweeter for being based on UK law! I think it was obvious to most people with any sort of emotional intelligence (even I found it fairly obvious, and I possess the emotional intelligence of a teaspoon, to misquote J.K. Rowling) that this was a totally unworkable plan based on a nasty concoction of spite and prejudice. I think a lot of dummies will have been hastily spat out this morning.