Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Why are the Tories incapable of appointing a Home Secretary who is mildly competent and almost human. Three of the last four Tory Home Secretaries have been May, Patel and Braverman. They have all talked the talk but failed to walk the walk. Compared with these 3 even Grant Shapps seemed a relatively good Home Secretary.

They've all been appointed in an attempt to keep unity in the Tory party. Competance had absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

mattomac wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 10:48 pm My worry is she challenges Sunak and wins she is dangerous.

That will be the death of the Conservative party - as she stands on a podium in front of #10 ranting about tofu and yoghurt while A&E waiting tops 12 hours and school terms are cut short to save money.

One of the reasons she is dangerous is that she's thick.

Also a psychopath.

Home Secretary has moved from David Waddington and Douglas Hurd's thankless problem solver, to today's bad cop/dominatrix fantasy. TBF Labour bear some responsibility for this, putting clods like Blunkett in there, to talk tough.

It's entering conspiracy theory territory but I wouldn't even be surprised if she's manufactured the whole thing. Forced out over some triviality, what's all the fuss?, civil service and MSM carve-up, Sunak's got rid of another Leaver, spends the rest of this Parliament as Queen Over The Water ready for the leadership bid. It's all a bit tenuous but with this lot you never know.

I think that line of thought has cropped up in the past, in relation to other similar events

If she goes, she leaves some other poor sap responsible for the failure of the Tories' immigration policy. She's on the back benches, and the RW media circuit, and odds on to be the post-election party leader. She has a handy stab in the back myth ready. She wins.

If she stays, she gets to paint this as petty civil servants and "the blob" using desperate tactics to drive her from office, load of fuss about nothing, hey, who wouldn't want to get out of a speeding fine, eh?, at least she didn't (insert minor infraction done by a Labour, SNP or LD member), they'll probably say there's a dead body in the boot next*. Future allegations against cabinet colleagues are similarly labelled as mountains from molehills, favours are owed, she gets to be next party leader. She wins.

Thick and awful she may be, but there's a good amount of base cunning in there too.

*Old joke - someone's pulled over for speeding by a young traffic officer, first day out of Hendon. The driver tells the officer not to open the boot, even offering a bribe. When this is turned down, the passenger says "but what about the dead hooker and the drugs?". Thinking he's onto something big, the patrolman calls in support. Loads of police turn up, and the driver and passenger are pulled out of the car and cuffed. Gingerly, an officer opens the boot to reveal...nothing. Just a breakdown kit and a set of jump leads. The police search the car, again nothing incriminating save for an Ed Sheeran CD. Puzzled, they apologise. The driver says it doesn't matter, if anyone's at fault it's the overzealous patrolman. "And you know what, he probably said we were speeding too!"

Speeding finegate is an Al Capone tax charge, Swellin’s facing the music for what she’s got away with. Already forgotten the name of the bloke involved in the incident that sparked Johnson’s ejection but it doesn’t matter. He was ousted for being a liability who was overdue.

They all know the game will be up soon and they're looking for ways to keep the money rolling in. The ones who will lose their seats are looking further afield (30p Lee will be a staple on the GB News/Talk TV/I'm a Celeb circuit for years to come) while the ones left are keen to be in Sunak's government but not of it. The last thing any of them want is to be associated with him.

At least under Major, the likes of Jimmy Hanley and Iain Lang could get away with "essentially harmless". I can't think of any current Tories who fall into that category. Fuck, probably Hunt's the closest.

mattomac wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 10:48 pm My worry is she challenges Sunak and wins she is dangerous.

That's only a problem if it happens before the next election. I think that's unlikely. If she wins the leadership election whilst the Tories are in opposition it will just make it easier for Starmer to win his second term.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 12:18 pm At least under Major, the likes of Jimmy Hanley and Iain Lang could get away with "essentially harmless". I can't think of any current Tories who fall into that category. Fuck, probably Hunt's the closest.

And Gyles Brandreth.
There must be at least 150 Tory MPs I’ve never heard but no one is setting out their stool on the centre right. You’d at least have expected a few survivors or hacks moving in that direction.

I assume she was not on ministerial duty, otherwise she would have had a driver, so she's been done as a private citizen, should a private citizen be allowed to manipulate the law in this way? Most folks would have simply paid the fine and got on with life. So I started thinking (not quite tin foil hat level); a speed awareness course is not totally getting away with it, you still pay a (reduced by not much) fine, the bonus is no points. So is the real reason for the wriggling that points would have taken her over the limit and therefore a ban, or was it not "just" speeding that caught her out. Although as it was a speed camera offence the latter point is moot

The claim is that by arranging a private course session, she would avoid mingling with proles. Bit of a Streisand effect here, it seems.

Watchman wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:29 pm So is the real reason for the wriggling that points would have taken her over the limit and therefore a ban, or was it not "just" speeding that caught her out.

The real reason, I suspect, can be summed up in 6 words and the arrogant, self-important attitude and not particularly veiled threat that always accompanies them:

“Do you know who I am?”

Watchman wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:29 pm I assume she was not on ministerial duty, otherwise she would have had a driver, so she's been done as a private citizen, should a private citizen be allowed to manipulate the law in this way? Most folks would have simply paid the fine and got on with life. So I started thinking (not quite tin foil hat level); a speed awareness course is not totally getting away with it, you still pay a (reduced by not much) fine, the bonus is no points. So is the real reason for the wriggling that points would have taken her over the limit and therefore a ban, or was it not "just" speeding that caught her out. Although as it was a speed camera offence the latter point is moot

She's taken the points. Her argument was that for security reasons she should be able to do the course one to one. That's the security of nobody finding out.

And I'll bet good money that by about Thursday the narrative will have shifted to "Too many speed cameras and the poor motorist is paying."

As far as I can gather she asked an aide (who is a sort-of civil servant. ie paid by public money but not with civil service rank and responsibility) if they could sort this private course thing.
They said "Hang on, I'll check."
They were told by the Ethics Squad that they couldn't. They told her so.
She didn't push the matter* and paid up, took the points rather than go on a course.

I can't see much wrongdoing there. Lots of other things of note, but not badness.


*According to her account.

I think the problem she has made for herself is that with her general attitude, on top of previous breaches and multiple demonstrations of ignorance and stupidity, I now have absolutely no faith that she wasn’t trying to get out of it - or at the very least trying to use public resources to get preferential treatment.

I also suspect she has half an eye on this as an opportunity to be ‘forced out’ for a matter no one on the Tory benches will really care about, so she can then lie in wait to take over when Sunak is ousted post election. Or possibly pre election, if the loons have their way.

Edit: loons, not lions. Bloody autocorrect!