The downfall of the Tory party.

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Just when you thought this lot couldn't stoop any lower Suella Braverman decides the homeless that use tents to keep dry see them as a "lifestyle choice" i think they should put her in one for a week and see if she changes her mind, its easy to say they have other options but she hasn't a clue how many homeless people are on the streets and how many places there are for them if they dont want to live in tents, people dont choose to live in tents on street corners begging for food they are there because this lot have mismanaged the country for 13 years, the mind really does boggle.



The home secretary is proposing new laws to restrict the use of tents by homeless people, arguing that many of them see it as a "lifestyle choice".
Suella Braverman's plan would introduce new penalties in England and Wales for homeless people whom authorities believe have rejected offers of help.
The plan was to stop "those who cause nuisance... by pitching tents in public spaces," she said.
Housing charity Shelter said: "Nobody should be punished for being homeless".
The plan is expected to be included in the King's speech on Tuesday, which sets out the government's legislative agenda and is expected to focus heavily on law and order.
Writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, Ms Braverman said: "Nobody in Britain should be living in a tent on our streets. There are options for people who don't want to be sleeping rough."
She said the government would always support those who are genuinely homeless, but added: "We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."
She added: "What I want to stop, and what the law-abiding majority wants us to stop, is those who cause nuisance and distress to other people by pitching tents in public spaces, aggressively begging, stealing, taking drugs, littering and blighting our communities."
Unless action is taken, she said, "British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug taking and squalor."
According to the Financial Times, the proposals are designed to replace elements of the 1824 Vagrancy Act.
The paper reported that sources had said the plans being considered were for two clauses to be inserted in the new criminal justice bill, which applies to England and Wales. This would target tents that cause a nuisance - such as by obstructing shop doorways.
According to the report, the proposals include creating a civil offence whereby charities could be fined for handing out tents if they were deemed to have caused a nuisance.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter said: "Living on the streets is not a lifestyle choice."
She added: "Homelessness happens when housing policy fails and boils down to people not being able to afford to live anywhere.
"Private rents are at an all-time high, evictions are rising and the cost of living crisis continues."
Labour's deputy leader, Angela Rayner added that the government should take responsibility for the housing crisis, rather than blame homeless people.
"A toxic mix of rising rents and a failure to end no-fault evictions are hitting vulnerable people, yet after years of delay the Tories still haven't kept their promises to act," she said.
The Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, Alistair Carmichael, said it was "grim politics" to "criminalise homeless charities for simply trying to keep vulnerable people warm and dry in winter".
He added: "This policy will do nothing to stop rough sleeping and will leave vulnerable people to face the harsh weather conditions without any shelter whatsoever."
London mayor Sadiq Khan described the proposal as "deeply depressing".
"The government should be investing more in social housing, uplifting housing benefit rates and banning no-fault evictions," he wrote on X.

BBC news.
If you were to have met Cruella Braverman in a book, TV show or film, you'd dismiss the character as just completely unrealistic - no-one would actually be that misguided in real life surely? It's just pantomime villainy - evil for evil's sake.

Yet here she is. In real life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She's angling herself for leadership after the next election.
It's a strange ambition, wanting to be the Michael Howard of a party with 80 MPs that is likely to be out of power for two if not three or more Parliaments.

But it does rather emphasise that we have a government that is no longer interested in governing - you know, doing stuff for the good of the people - and isn't even particularly interested in maximising their vote at the next election, is all about self-interest. No wonder the country is drifting.
 
Just when you thought this lot couldn't stoop any lower Suella Braverman decides the homeless that use tents to keep dry see them as a "lifestyle choice" i think they should put her in one for a week and see if she changes her mind,

Its looking like they are also going to fine charities giving out tents aheadbutt

 
Plenty of experts have rang 5 live agreeing with Kier when he said a ceasefire would only give Hamas a chance to regroup and carry out further attacks on Israel, he is in agreement with the government's stance of calling for Israel to pause its action against Hamas to allow aid into Gaza, i dont think its helpful them quitting and i doubt very much It'll change Kiers stance on this.

There will never be a ceasefire as neither side are interested in peace -
“Ceasefire or cessation of hostilities suggests [an agreement] that is, or at least could be, a permanent end to hostilities, and ceasefire agreement suggests negotiation, of course,” “Whereas 'humanitarian pause' sends a clear message that it is temporary and for one purpose only.”





A council leader and 10 councillors have quit the Labour Party over Sir Keir Starmer's decision not to push for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Burnley Council leader Afrasiab Anwar, who had called for the Labour leader to resign over the issue, is among those to leave the party.
In a statement, the councillors said their memberships were "untenable".
Labour backs the government's stance of calling for Israel to pause its action against Hamas to allow aid into Gaza.
A Labour spokesperson said the party fully understood calls for a ceasefire but said one at this juncture would only "freeze the conflict" leaving hostages in Gaza, and Hamas capable of carrying out further attacks on Israel.
It has seen a number of resignations in councils across England over its stance on Gaza, including in Oxford where the party has lost control of the city council.
Israel began its operation in Gaza after Hamas killed more than 1,400 people in Israel and kidnapped more than 200 others on 7 October.
It has carried out thousands of air and artillery strikes, while a ground offensive is ongoing.
The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has said more than 9,700 people have been killed since 7 October.
Mr Anwar was joined in resigning by nine other Burnley councillors as well as Lancashire County councillor Usman Arif. They will now sit as independents.
Before the resignations, the Labour group held 22 out of 45 seats on Burnley Council. It remains the largest party after Sunday's announcement.
In their statement they said: "We have collectively decided to resign from the Labour Party with immediate effect, feeling that our place within the party is untenable given its present position.
"We cannot remain in a party that is not doing enough whilst innocent people are being killed in Gaza and Israel."

Sobia Malik, who represents Burnley Central East on Lancashire County Councillor, also announced her resignation from the Labour party last week.
Labour's leadership is likely to face more pressure on its position as MPs return to Westminster this week.
A number of Labour MPs - including shadow ministers - have called for a ceasefire, but Sir Keir has rejected these calls.
Concerns about Sir Keir's position are understood to go up to shadow cabinet level.
A Labour spokesperson said everybody wanted to see "an end to this cycle of violence and suffering", adding hostages needed to be released and aid needed to get to those in the most need.
They added: "International law must be followed at all times and innocent civilians must be protected."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67329589
 
Is Sunak going to grow a set and sack her, it states below "the home secretary has defied the prime minister, and Downing Street have publicly said that is the case" so she should go but will he again show he is too weak?

Is Suella Braverman facing the sack for her latest outburst?


Home Secretary Suella Braverman is facing questions about her future after defying Downing Street over an article accusing the police of bias.
She claimed aggressive right-wing protesters were "rightly met with a stern response", while "pro-Palestinian mobs" were "largely ignored".
The article was not cleared by Rishi Sunak and changes demanded by Downing Street were not followed, No 10 said.
Some Tories have called for the home secretary to be sacked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67368785

1699543535457.png


For as long as Suella Braverman has been Rishi Sunak's home secretary, she has had a licence to say the unsayable.

Say stuff in public some of her colleagues would only ever dare say in private.
Say stuff in public some of her colleagues wouldn't even say in private.
How do we know she has this licence?
Because the lack of it would mean being sacked.
So is she going to keep her job? <snip>

The home secretary has defied the prime minister, and Downing Street have publicly said that is the case.
One of Labour's favourite lines of criticism of Rishi Sunak is he is weak.
So can Mr Sunak let Suella Braverman get away with this? Or would sacking her make things worse for him?
There aren't many good options for the prime minister here.
Some loyal to Mr Sunak are pointing to the Ministerial Code, and pondering that the home secretary may have broken it.
Convention says that is a sackable offence. But then again Rishi Sunak appointed her as home secretary about a week after she'd lost the job for breaking the Ministerial Code. <snip>


Where does all this leave the prime minister, the home secretary, the government and the Conservative Party?
Let's remind ourselves of Suella Braverman's recent remarks.
A year ago, she talked about an "invasion" of migrants.
Her deputy Robert Jenrick wouldn't repeat the word.
A month ago, Mrs Braverman talked of a "hurricane" of migrants coming to the UK - and suggested too many were too squeamish about immigration.
Again, it was her colleagues left publicly squeamish when asked if they agreed with her language.
A week or so ago, another intervention.
The pro-Palestinian protests were "hate marches".
And now her article in the The Times.
"These latest comments are unhinged," one senior Conservative tells me.
A senior Conservative MP adds: "The home secretary's awfulness is now a reflection on the prime minister. Keeping her in post is damaging him."
A third source, a senior Tory, claims her remarks about Northern Ireland are "wholly offensive and ignorant."

Full article Is Suella Braverman facing the sack?
 
Last edited:
The clocks ticking will she be gone by this time tomorrow?


No 10 disowns Suella Braverman article attacking police over protests​

Home Secretary Suella Braverman is facing questions about her future after defying Downing Street over an article accusing the police of bias.
She claimed aggressive right-wing protesters were "rightly met with a stern response", while "pro-Palestinian mobs" were "largely ignored".
The article was not cleared by Downing Street and suggested changes to the text were not followed, No 10 said.
Some Tories have called for the home secretary to be sacked.
It comes ahead of a Pro-Palestinian march for a ceasefire in Gaza, which is due to take place in central London on Saturday.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accused Mrs Braverman of undermining the police and said Prime Minster Rishi Sunak was "too weak to do anything about it".
One senior Conservative MP told the BBC: "The home secretary's awfulness is now a reflection on the prime minister. Keeping her in post is damaging him."
But Conservative MP Danny Kruger - an ally of Ms Braverman - denied the home secretary was interfering, and said she was entitled to comment on the "broader culture of police".

The prime minister's spokesperson said Downing Street was "looking into what happened" over the article - but they added Mr Sunak had full confidence in the home secretary.
The ministerial code says all major interviews and media appearances, both print and broadcast, should "be agreed with the No 10 Press Office".
The prime minister can punish a minister who is deemed to have breached the code. Options can range from demanding a public apology to sacking them.
Ms Braverman, who is popular on the right of her party and seen as a possible future Conservative leader, often takes a harder line than many of her colleagues on issues such as crime and immigration.
She has recently been criticised for calling pro-Palestinian rallies in London "hate marches" and has described being homeless as a "lifestyle" choice.
This latest row comes before the Supreme Court is due to give its decision on whether government plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda are lawful next week.
Ms Braverman has been a vocal backer of the Rwanda scheme, which is part of Mr Sunak's plans to curb the number of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats.

Police have said they expect a large rally on Saturday, prompting fears of violent clashes with counter-protesters.
Saturday is also Armistice Day, the anniversary of the end of World War One, which has prompted calls from the prime minister and others for the Pro-Palestine march to be cancelled, on the grounds that it is "disrespectful".
The Met Police has faced calls to ban the march - but commissioner Sir Mark Rowley protests may only be stopped if there is a threat of serious disorder, and that the "very high threshold" has not been reached.
In her Times article, Ms Braverman claimed that there was "a perception that senior officers play favourites when it comes to protesters".
"Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law," she added.

There have been regular protests in London after Hamas gunmen launched an unprecedented assault on Israel from the Gaza Strip on 7 October, killing more than 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostages.
Israel has been carrying out strikes on Gaza since then in response, and has now also launched a ground offensive. More than 10,500 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67368785
 
There's a few interesting angles to this:
1 - This is supposed to be a free country. I don't want to live in a country where the govt or the police can decide arbitrarily which peaceful protest is and isn't allowed. As such, I think any peaceful protest should be allowed to go ahead on Armistice Day or any other. My personal view is that the timing is distasteful and probably offensive and I don't think it will help the Palestinian cause, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Therefore, Sunak is as guilty as Braverman in trying to lean on the police to ban it. Armistice day is rightly commemorating those who fought for these exact freedoms, so it should go ahead, and the police should keep the protests away from commemoration events. That's the obvious compromise.
2 - Braverman is right on a point of fact that the police have historically been (at best) inconsistent on which protests to shut down for "security" reasons and which to allow. During lockdown she rightly raised the example of the BLM protest being allowed but anti lockdown protests (and the Sarah Everard vigil for that matter) being broken up. Since lockdown the inconsistencies are maintained. A woman was arrested for praying outside an abortion clinic, and a van was stopped from displaying photos of kidnapped Israelis, and peaceful republicans were arrested at the Coronation, but the police then claim they couldn't take action against people shouting "Jihad". For the bar to be so low in terms of stopping the first three, their position that they were powerless to prevent the fourth isn't credible. Most reasonable people don't understand the basis for police deciding what is allowed and what is not, this has clearly affected confidence in the police.
3 - the reason she may have to be sacked is more technical - she seems to have flagrantly gone against the wishes of #10 in what she said in her Times column. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, insubordination like this isn't sustainable.
 
Which wouldn't look as bad of the population as a whole hadn't increased by about 7% in that time. Meaning the proportional number of police is still down by a lot since 2010.

And they are far less experienced too.

There are now fewer senior full-time police officers than in 2010.

The number of inspectors is down 14% to 6,245. The number of superintendents and sergeants has also fallen.

Currently, a third of all police officers in England and Wales have fewer than five years' experience where the length of service is known. This is more than double the number six years ago.

The Public Accounts Committee has linked falling levels of experience with the government's drive to recruit new officers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/65377091.amp
Dame Meg Hillier, who heads the committee, said: "The danger is if you go up and down with police numbers and then recruit very quickly, you end up with a larger number of more junior officers, without the experienced people above them."
 
Last edited:
Which wouldn't look as bad of the population as a whole hadn't increased by about 7% in that time.

Indeed. Even without factoring in population growth, it is a 5% reduction, not a 20,000 increase. The 20,000 increase they talk about doesn't even reinstate the cuts they made themselves. In other words, another blatant lie.

Like the way they say 'we are spending more than ever on the NHS' - but that is if you don't factor in inflation, increased population, and increased % of older people. More lies.
 
Don't forget the number of operations we now don't do on the nhs nowadays, varicose vein stripping, tonsillectomy (for snoring) breast reductions, some dentistry, removal of skin lesions, the list goes on and on.
 
How much more are we supposed to spend on the NHS ? This country has huge issue, but with tax as a proportion of GDP already at a post war high there's just no way that the answer can be shovelling in more money. The country simply cannot afford it.

1699708355251.png
 
In the last 5 years i have used the nhs twice, 2018 open aortic surgary and 2022 heart attack, other times 1958 run over by a car 1966 ear op, you walk in any a&e half the feckers don't even need to be there and weekends at night you could write a book called self inflicted wastage of valuable time, this country needs over hauling from top to bottom
 
How much more are we supposed to spend on the NHS ? This country has huge issue, but with tax as a proportion of GDP already at a post war high there's just no way that the answer can be shovelling in more money. The country simply cannot afford it.

View attachment 91744
From the Health Foundation:

"In 2019, the UK spent £3,055 per person, 18% below the EU14 average. Over the decade, only four countries in the EU14 spent less per head of population: Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Finland had very similar spending per head to the UK."

Article is here:
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-...ext=In 2019, the UK spent,per head to the UK.
If you want to focus on % of gdp, then according to ONS:

  • As a percentage of GDP, UK healthcare spending fell from 9.8% in 2013 to 9.6% in 2017, while healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP rose for four of the remaining six G7 countries.
As for 'the country simply cannot afford it', that is a political choice. Apparently we can afford to remove the cap on bankers bonuses, for example.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top