Rishi sacks Suella as Home Secretary.

JudyBloom

DaisyAnneReturns, yellowfox is right. You can't trust any government polls anyway! Many other polls suggest the opposite. Suella speaks for the silent majority. Well done her for speaking the truth. I am not going to argue with you. This is my view as well as many others. You are entitled to yours but don't tell me I'm wrong when I know I am right, and so is yellowfox.

And so am I. 👏👏

JudyBloom

DaisyAnneReturns, yellowfox is right. You can't trust any government polls anyway! Many other polls suggest the opposite. Suella speaks for the silent majority. Well done her for speaking the truth. I am not going to argue with you. This is my view as well as many others. You are entitled to yours but don't tell me I'm wrong when I know I am right, and so is yellowfox.

The poll that counts at the moment is that of Tory MPs. 15% of them have to submit a vote of no confidence in Sunak for her to be able to have a shot at the leadership. I’d lay a pound to a penny that won’t happen - or anywhere near. I’d also bet that if after the election Sunak resigns as leader, it won’t be Braverman who becomes the new leader. The fact that the ‘silent majority’ those of you who support Braverman claim share your views isn’t surprising, but that’s not the same silent majority as the representative sample drawn from all age groups and political leanings that pollsters choose, or indeed those other people know.

That was not a government poll JudyBloom. It was a recent YouGov poll.

This seems to be an opinion you hold, rather than knowledge. If I am wrong about this perhaps you could explain why YouGov have suddenly become untrustworthy? I am sure the market research and data analytics firm would benefit from your in depth knowledge.

For as long as I have been on GN, 'News an Politics' have been about facts and for discussion. 'Chat' is for opinion. Having said that holding an opinion, whatever it us, does not make it a truth, you need to be able to back an opinion with facts for it to be tenable.

Is Suella loyal to the Party? No. Is she compassionate? No. Did her strategies work? No. Is she a team player? No.

semperfidelis not so sure that SB wasn’t compassionate - why did SB go to such extraordinary lengths to stop the small boats smuggling trade if she didn’t care? People have drowned in the Channel in dinghies and I still think it should be stopped if possible.

Fleurpepper

LizzieDrip

Foreign Office Minister Andrew Mitchell MP, will represent Lord Cameron in the House of Commons and answer questions on his behalf.

Oh well that’s ok then! When he makes some disastrous error of judgement which, based on past form, he will do, it will be his minion who has to squirm under questioning by our democratically elected representatives in the HoC … not Cameron himself! Win win for him!!!

So just to recap, our unelected head of state, has given a position in Britain's unelected House of Lords to an unelected Foreign Secretary, on the recommendation of an unelected Prime Minister.

An unelected PM or OP Leader ( by the voters I mean) is often the case in British politics.The HOL members are not elected by the voters either.This is how things work here.
Cameron had to be made a Lord if he was going to be given a top cabinet job.There again, that’s how it works here.
So yeah, you got it right, it’s all part and parcel of politics in this country.

You are aware that I know full well how it works in this country, I hope. A whole series of PMs elected by a tiny weeny part of the population. It is part and parcel of it all- it DOES NOT MAKE IT DEMOCRATIC

The blog ‘Turbulent Times’ today is worth a look…. Not only do we have unelected politicians but we have a rogue Civil Service. The Home Office is apparently going to run rings around James Cleverly. The Home Office is not in favour of curbing migration whether legal or illegal.
Pudding and proof spring to mind.

If you know that PMs, ministers of state and members of the HoL are never elected by the general population, why comment that they are ‘unelected’ FP?

GSM perhaps FP means unendorsed? As in not having won a general election?

James O’Brien on LBC is having a field day.

I don’t think so. Saying that the PM is unelected is a popular criticism but no PM is ever elected except by his constituents and his party members.

Fleurpepper

You are aware that I know full well how it works in this country, I hope. A whole series of PMs elected by a tiny weeny part of the population. It is part and parcel of it all- it DOES NOT MAKE IT DEMOCRATIC

So how does it work in Switzerland? I know that you have a lot of referenda.

Do the voters elect an upper and lower chamber? Or do members of a Council elect leaders?

As far as I am aware the only mention in the 2019 Conservative Manifesto regarding immigration was the introduction of a points based similar to that used by Australia. The idea of shipping asylum seekers out to Rwanda was not part of the manifesto. The Conservative party was elected with BJ as leader was elected on a very different basis so to some extent I can understand why anyone might see someone with very different policies as having no mandate. I'd like to see changes that required an election if a PM lost the confidence of his own party and was removed, that would seem a bit more democratic to me. With regard to Cameron, (I'm afraid every time I hear his name it makes me think of the cartoon that portrayed him as a piece of gammon) there is one advantage to having a Foreign Secretary that is not an MP and that is they have the freedom to leave the country etc without the constant demands of a constituency and the voting lobby and tbh I'd rather have Cleverely or a piece of gammon for that matter as Home Secretary than Suella.

ronib

The blog ‘Turbulent Times’ today is worth a look…. Not only do we have unelected politicians but we have a rogue Civil Service. The Home Office is apparently going to run rings around James Cleverly. The Home Office is not in favour of curbing migration whether legal or illegal.
Pudding and proof spring to mind.

In what ways do we have a "rogue" civil service? What do these rogues get up to?

growstuff

ronib

The blog ‘Turbulent Times’ today is worth a look…. Not only do we have unelected politicians but we have a rogue Civil Service. The Home Office is apparently going to run rings around James Cleverly. The Home Office is not in favour of curbing migration whether legal or illegal.
Pudding and proof spring to mind.

In what ways do we have a "rogue" civil service? What do these rogues get up to?

They have the audacity to refuse to break the law. How dare they get above themselves in such a way?

Casdon

growstuff

ronib

The blog ‘Turbulent Times’ today is worth a look…. Not only do we have unelected politicians but we have a rogue Civil Service. The Home Office is apparently going to run rings around James Cleverly. The Home Office is not in favour of curbing migration whether legal or illegal.
Pudding and proof spring to mind.

In what ways do we have a "rogue" civil service? What do these rogues get up to?

They have the audacity to refuse to break the law. How dare they get above themselves in such a way?

Really? Disgraceful!

Is the civil service in a position to change the law on a whim if judgments don't go their way?

Casdon said growstuff did you consider the Turbulent Times analysis? Feels as if you are very quick to defend the Home Office? The ‘rogues’ are not processing asylum applications in a timely way and therefore there’s a huge backlog. I think this government wants to expand the migrant workforce and normally this could be a sensible move. However as we all know housing, medical care and simple strain on local populations needs to be worked through.
My understanding is that last year saw 605000 legal immigrants and that Sunak wants to increase this number.
It’s a bit of a mystery as to why asylum seekers are having to wait a very long time for processing - it does feel that instead of spending on the Rwandan solution that more resources could be used here to increase throughput.

Yes the assessment process needs speeding up, most of us have been aware of this, writing to mp’s etc for a long time

How does that link to rogue civil servants

Iam64 the civil service has responsibility for processing applications? When backlogs were noticed, civil service managers should have had some discretion over fast tracking requests with extra staff and computing power. Some criticism of SB in Turbulent Times suggested that civil servants were not held with their feet to the fire by her, as the minister, with clear delivery targets.

What exactly is ‘Turbulent Times’ ronib, and why should anybody believe what it says? My Google search, having never heard of it before, seems to indicate it is a one man and his dog operation, not a credible news source, so I’m hoping somebody can enlighten me.

Kandinsky

Hopefully she’ll come back as leader.

I am with you there, be better than the out-of-touch billionaire that we have now. Fancy bringing smug Cameron back

ronib

Casdon said growstuff did you consider the Turbulent Times analysis? Feels as if you are very quick to defend the Home Office? The ‘rogues’ are not processing asylum applications in a timely way and therefore there’s a huge backlog. I think this government wants to expand the migrant workforce and normally this could be a sensible move. However as we all know housing, medical care and simple strain on local populations needs to be worked through.
My understanding is that last year saw 605000 legal immigrants and that Sunak wants to increase this number.
It’s a bit of a mystery as to why asylum seekers are having to wait a very long time for processing - it does feel that instead of spending on the Rwandan solution that more resources could be used here to increase throughput.

I have never understood why they can't be returned to France, the SAFE COUNTRY they left to sponge off the Uk. They are escorted halfway by the French then are picked up by RNLI or border force and the Uk put them in hotels. Send them back, France is safe enough but not as daft as the Uk government.

Nicenanny3

Well I won't be voting for Sunak now. I'll be voting Reform unless Suella Braverman comes back as Conservative leader. Bad mistake.

I will probably do that too we need a change, tired of both main parties. We need to secure our borders, we as a country do not have enough resources for illegal immigrants, there is no social housing for the British and the NHS is struggling. Those coming on small boats need returning. to the SAFE country of France,, let Macron pay their hotel costs , he has the open border that allowed them into France as a stepping stone to the Uk

Scat

Whether you liked Braverman or loathed her, she was the only home secretary to ever seriously attempt to get some control of the immigration problem. She was adamant that Britain was no longer to be seen as a soft touch and that immigrants could not just arrive in the country illegally and expect to receive first class accommodation and full financial support. She did what every other home secretary promised to do but never actually did.

I totally agree with all you say^^

Urmstongran

David bluddy Cameron is to be our new Home Secretary.
Jeez.

Agree with you. Conservatives will be out at next election, they waste so much money on the wrong things. I wish there was a party for the people, our British folk, forget illegal i migrants, get them back to the Safe country that they left. Macron let them in, let him keep them. Watching the news, so many ordinary folk are living in terrible conditions and no decent council houses for the poorest on low wages. Charity really should begin at home.