[Abernathy]

The current phone-in question on LBC is “Is Suella Braverman (<spits>)more dangerous inside the tent, or outside the tent”.

It’s an interesting one. Assuming the danger is to the interests of Sunak and/or the Conservative Party, it’s a good intellectual exercise to try to arrive at an answer.

If we assume that Sunak’s immediate objective is for the party that he leads to be re-elected to government some time in the next 13 months, then from that point of view, keeping Braverman (<spits>) in post at the Home Office looks like a kind of madness. Her frequently espoused toxically hardline views are not popular, despite the absurd “she’s just saying what most people are thinking” bollocks argument. She effectively embodies the “Nasty Party” nomenclature that Theresa May so avowedly wanted to shake off.
So I don’t really think keeping her in his government is a viable option for Sunak.

What happens when/if he sacks her? One theory is that Braverman (<spits>) badly wants to be sacked in order to cement her status as a true right-wing martyr, enable her to snipe at Sunak from the back benches with impugnity, and build her support base for the aftermath of the election defeat, when Sunak will all but certainly be obliged to resign, leaving Braverman (<spits>) with a clear run to the leadership and no doubt her twisted vision of a Tory future for the UK. So the serial “sack me” provocations have all been about Braverman’s (<spits>) personal ambition.

I think from Sunak’s point of view, he must surely be resigned to a heavy defeat at the election, and if he hasn’t quite realised yet that his time as Tory leader/PM is inexorably coming to an end, he surely must do so sometime soon. So he might as well take the path of least resistance and show Braverman (<spits>) the door tomorrow. There is a miniscule chance that he may actually careabout the future prospects of the Tories and of the UK, but I very much doubt it.

So, on balance, I’d say that Braverman (<spits>) is more dangerous inside the tent. She will be out the door tomorrow.

[Oboogie]

I assume that Sunak and Braverman have both given up any hope of a Tory victory at the next election whenever it is.
Sunak's ambitions seem to be about channelling as much British money as he can towards his father in law's firm and then buggering off to California to spend it. To that end, the longer he can spin out his leadership, the more money he can redirect.
Braverman apparently wants the leadership, I'm not sure why LOTO appeals to her so much, but this is what we read.
The question is not how much support does she have, but how much support does Sunak think she has.

[mattomac]

A couple of weeks ago the Home Office or Suella were briefing that the Rwanda scheme would be deemed lawful. I'm now starting to think that Suella is now aware that she is going to lose in court which is probably why she has been busily stealing the headlines for the last week.

Well they did spend most of the week of the by elections saying that they would win both.

[davidjay]

The current phone-in question on LBC is “Is Suella Braverman (<spits>)more dangerous inside the tent, or outside the tent”.

It’s an interesting one. Assuming the danger is to the interests of Sunak and/or the Conservative Party, it’s a good intellectual exercise to try to arrive at an answer.

If we assume that Sunak’s immediate objective is for the party that he leads to be re-elected to government some time in the next 13 months, then from that point of view, keeping Braverman (<spits>) in post at the Home Office looks like a kind of madness. Her frequently espoused toxically hardline views are not popular, despite the absurd “she’s just saying what most people are thinking” bollocks argument. She effectively embodies the “Nasty Party” nomenclature that Theresa May so avowedly wanted to shake off.
So I don’t really think keeping her in his government is a viable option for Sunak.

What happens when/if he sacks her? One theory is that Braverman (<spits>) badly wants to be sacked in order to cement her status as a true right-wing martyr, enable her to snipe at Sunak from the back benches with impugnity, and build her support base for the aftermath of the election defeat, when Sunak will all but certainly be obliged to resign, leaving Braverman (<spits>) with a clear run to the leadership and no doubt her twisted vision of a Tory future for the UK. So the serial “sack me” provocations have all been about Braverman’s (<spits>) personal ambition.

I think from Sunak’s point of view, he must surely be resigned to a heavy defeat at the election, and if he hasn’t quite realised yet that his time as Tory leader/PM is inexorably coming to an end, he surely must do so sometime soon. So he might as well take the path of least resistance and show Braverman (<spits>) the door tomorrow. There is a miniscule chance that he may actually careabout the future prospects of the Tories and of the UK, but I very much doubt it.

So, on balance, I’d say that Braverman (<spits>) is more dangerous inside the tent. She will be out the door tomorrow.

I don't think Sunak will do anything. He's hoping that if he ignores the whole situation it will go away.

[Abernathy]

Phil Moorhouse on why Dan Hodges has taken leave of his senses :

[Abernathy]

Oh, this is a good one. The Tories are apparently outraged that '''Laura Kuenssberg is biased against them. No, really.

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/bbc-row ... estigation

BBC row EXPLODES - Tories demand investigation into Laura Kuenssberg over Suella Braverman comments

[kreuzberger]

Rats in a sack. Let the games begin!

[Oboogie]

Oh, this is a good one. The Tories are apparently outraged that '''Laura Kuenssberg is biased against them. No, really.

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/bbc-row ... estigation

BBC row EXPLODES - Tories demand investigation into Laura Kuenssberg over Suella Braverman comments

Doesn't surprise me, they've been after her for years. Biased BBC innit!

[Dalem Lake]

Who reckons she's going to get the sack today?

[Watchman]

Well she’s “gone Trump” on TwittXer now, lashing out, attempting to rewrite yesterday. She is clearly out of control and doesn’t give a fuck

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... acked.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ngers.html

[Youngian]

Headbangers on the right will accuse Sunak of weakness for sacking her and Labour will if he doesn’t. And everyone else has already seen his weakness for not making a decision.
Sunak’s toast either way but it would be fun watching the Mail, Telegraph and GBN going into a froth if Swellin’s fired.

[Youngian]

They’ve started fuming already

[Andy McDandy]

Alien vs Predator time!

[Crabcakes]

I expect a lot of fuss now about letters being sent, but then not enough letter being sent. So then it will swap to pressure for a spring election so Sunak is out quickly and she can step in. Which to be honest would be perfect, as after an election drubbing making a bigoted imbecile leader might finally finish them off.

[Andy McDandy]

I'm not seeing a downside, except in one potential outcome. Here goes.

Right - we're broadly of a left-leaning, socially liberal, not-a-fucking-far-right-mentler mindset here. If so, my belief is that every day the current Tory administration is in power, the country suffers. While we can debate what follows, the first stage in repairing the damage is, as Abers is fond of saying, Getting the Tories Out.

She's sacked - if there's the promised backbench rebellion, that destroys the Tories in the current system - another change of PM, or a working majority gone. Either way, whatever reputation for competence they still had is kaput.

If she rebels and it's a damp squib, Sunak still has maybe a year to pretend to rediscover decency and improve polling. Meanwhile, Braverman might go off to Reform or Reclaim, splitting the right, and giving them a big name who's got top level political experience, and who isn't Laurence bloody Fox. She'll still be finished politically. GBNews or the jungle. Take your pick.

She rebels and wins - I'd not put it past her to go full V of Vendetta Norsefire at that point. They clearly wanted this weekend's march to be their Reichstag fire moment, and the amount of both sidesing and blaming the football hooligans for mucking the masterplan up going on in the right wing press is depressingly hilarious. Sadly (for them) it seems that the age of Thatcher's Boot Boys is over, and they can't trust the police to be their private army any more.

[Youngian]

This must be an AI joke report

[Crabcakes]

Dear god, Cleverley rumoured to be her replacement. Less of a bigot, arguably even thicker.

[Crabcakes]

This must be an AI joke report

I would have thought him not being an MP might be the deal breaker there.

[Andy McDandy]

How?

Yes, he could get an instant ennoblement, but I can't remember when we last had one of the Big 4 offices held by a Lord. Also, presumably this would mean moving Cleverly to the Home Office, but what instant advantage would Cameron bring? Nobody really cares who the FS is as long as they're not a complete doughnut. And in the public eye, Cameron is broadly seen as precisely that.

[davidjay]

The current phone-in question on LBC is “Is Suella Braverman (<spits>)more dangerous inside the tent, or outside the tent”.

It’s an interesting one. Assuming the danger is to the interests of Sunak and/or the Conservative Party, it’s a good intellectual exercise to try to arrive at an answer.

If we assume that Sunak’s immediate objective is for the party that he leads to be re-elected to government some time in the next 13 months, then from that point of view, keeping Braverman (<spits>) in post at the Home Office looks like a kind of madness. Her frequently espoused toxically hardline views are not popular, despite the absurd “she’s just saying what most people are thinking” bollocks argument. She effectively embodies the “Nasty Party” nomenclature that Theresa May so avowedly wanted to shake off.
So I don’t really think keeping her in his government is a viable option for Sunak.

What happens when/if he sacks her? One theory is that Braverman (<spits>) badly wants to be sacked in order to cement her status as a true right-wing martyr, enable her to snipe at Sunak from the back benches with impugnity, and build her support base for the aftermath of the election defeat, when Sunak will all but certainly be obliged to resign, leaving Braverman (<spits>) with a clear run to the leadership and no doubt her twisted vision of a Tory future for the UK. So the serial “sack me” provocations have all been about Braverman’s (<spits>) personal ambition.

I think from Sunak’s point of view, he must surely be resigned to a heavy defeat at the election, and if he hasn’t quite realised yet that his time as Tory leader/PM is inexorably coming to an end, he surely must do so sometime soon. So he might as well take the path of least resistance and show Braverman (<spits>) the door tomorrow. There is a miniscule chance that he may actually careabout the future prospects of the Tories and of the UK, but I very much doubt it.

So, on balance, I’d say that Braverman (<spits>) is more dangerous inside the tent. She will be out the door tomorrow.

I don't think Sunak will do anything. He's hoping that if he ignores the whole situation it will go away.

Nostradamus strikes again