Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
It seems an appropriate time to remember this. Oh, and what was all the hoohah about unelected bureaucrats?
[Politics] The Right Honourable Suella Braverman. KC MP **Sacked 13/11**
- Thread starter Eeyore
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,917
- Thread starter
- #642
I don't agree. I think as FS he is a very good choice. If I was a PM of an all party government he'd be a consideration.
Last edited:
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,677
Don't mistake public school arrogance for competence. Yes, he seems very sure that he knows what he's doing. Patricians always do. However, he has proven beyond doubt that he will put what he believes is in the best interests of his political party ahead of what he believes is for the good of the nation. He seems more palatable than some because his education, his careers in both marketing and politics have all trained him to seem so. His hubris is his fatal flaw. He believes that he was born to rule and that the world will bend to his desire. - A very dangerous fallacy for a foreign secretary.
I'm trying to work out whether bringing back 'call me Dave' is a masterstroke or the actions of a madman.
On the one hand, Dave has all the experience of making one of the most monumental errors of judgement in the history of UK politics, an error that triggered his resignation. So presumably he has learned a lesson and won't make any more utterly stupid decisions, going forward. Unlike everyone else in the cabinet.
On the other hand, what better way to disguise the fact that you are the UK's fourth worst ever PM by bringing the UK's worst ever PM in as a cabinet member?
Mmmmm......it is definitely a win-win. As, I am sure, the electorate will agree, at some point.
Randy McNob
Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
- Jun 13, 2020
- 4,524
They are governing under Boris Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" mandate, with an unelected PM (not even elected by his own party), choosing an unelected former PM as Foreign Secretary who dissapeared from politics because he bet the house on a Remain campaign, to join the Brexit conservatives?
There is not one scintilla of this entire scenario that is democratic, therefore only a general election can fix this
nicko31
Well-known member
And Cameron won't be a threat to Sunak of making a run for PM.I'm trying to work out whether bringing back 'call me Dave' is a masterstroke or the actions of a madman.
On the one hand, Dave has all the experience of making one of the most monumental errors of judgement in the history of UK politics, an error that triggered his resignation. So presumably he has learned a lesson and won't make any more utterly stupid decisions, going forward. Unlike everyone else in the cabinet.
On the other hand, what better way to disguise the fact that you are the UK's fourth worst ever PM by bringing the UK's worst ever PM in as a cabinet member?
Mmmmm......it is definitely a win-win. As, I am sure, the electorate will agree, at some point.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
- Oct 17, 2008
- 11,031
Senior Conservative source leaks news!!!
We won’t divulge their name - let’s just call them Suella B…. wait that’s too obvious. S. Braverman
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,917
- Thread starter
- #649
It's not that uncommon for unelected people to take on ministerial roles. I've never personally had a problem with it if the government is looking for a horses for courses thing.
I think Cameron would make a decent foreign secretary at this time.
nicko31
Well-known member
Electing officials is so overrated, progressive Tories.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Who is he accountable to? How can he be questioned on policies in the House of Commons?
Randy McNob
Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
- Jun 13, 2020
- 4,524
OK, Cameron is the horse, he is centre right and a staunch remainer. The Get Brexit done / far right Tory party is the course.
Methinks that horse aint right for that course
‘Public school arrogance’?
Why not just say arrogance, if that is what you think about him.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 15,039
A great victory for the tofu-eating wokerati!
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,677
Because it's a specific type of self belief that seems unique to those who have been through the higher echelons of the British public school system, one of the life advantages that parents actually pay these 'charities' to give their offspring. Its a superficial charming confidence that can disarm and mask a belief in innate superiority. Had Boris Johnson not had it, he would never have got anywhere near public office. He was a proven liar many times over, but he didn't see consequences nor have to consider the fall out from his actions because he had been taught from a very early age that he was one of what Tom Wolfe called the 'Masters of the Universe' and that whatever was good for him, would be good for the world in general.
For Cameron it meant that he was quite willing to gamble the country's economic future, the British Union and peace in Northern Ireland to try to solve an internal wrangle in the Conservative Party - Like the arrogant fools who sent the Light Brigade into the Valley of Death and those who sent a generation to their deaths in the Somme, like those who messed up in Suez, or carved up continents to benefit them and their old school friends, he never considered that he may lose, because he'd been taught to believe in his own invincibility. He and his class knew what was best and the people whose lives they treated as currency just didn't matter because they were the pawns not the kings:
That's why public school arrogance. Those of us taught at comprehensives will generally always have doubt. Those who've been through that education system are blessed with the mistaken self belief that they are the best of us and can be trusted to make the decisions that are best for nations. I say blessed, because they can be sure that even if their decisions are catstrophiacally wrong, it will be others that face the worst of the consequences.
Last edited:
- Aug 24, 2020
- 5,511
Here is Jacob Rees-Mogg delivering his finger-on-pulse verdict:
'A 'mistake' to sack Braverman - Rees-Mogg
Former minister Jacob Rees-Mogg says Rishi Sunak's decision to sack Suella Braverman is a "mistake".
"Suella understood what the British voter thought and was trying to do something about it," the MP tells GB News, where he works as a presenter.
But he does have warm words for Rishi Sunak's choice as foreign secretary.
"David Cameron got the Brexit issue wrong in terms of the Conservative Party and indeed the country at large who voted to leave, but he did give us the choice to have the vote.
“Without him we wouldn't have had that referendum. He is a highly intelligent, capable individual."
As an old lefty, sorry to disagree. I don't think there is any evidence that 'public school charm' can be learned. With a different accent the supreme self belief manifests itself across society. One immediate example, a bloke I interviewed for doing my extension had it (partly the reason we went elsewhere). And there are plenty who were brutalized by public school. No.....
My theory is that those who have acquired wealth and perhaps some position, from which they create protection for their offspring, such as Johnson's dad, his dad, and Cameron's forbears likewise, have the genes that favour this type of success. Yes a lot of them end up sending their kids to public school. But they are the chicken and the public schools are merely the nests, not the eggs.
They are of a class because the class is created by them (or rather their forebears) to nurture their type.
I am not saying that the ruling classes are born to a station. I am a biologists, not a f***ing conservative. No, I mean that all living things survive because their genes allow them to thrive, and in the complex human world a great deal of niche characteristics facilitate (reproductive and societal) success. It used to simply be physical strength and ruthlessness that made you a prince or duke. Now (by now I mean in the last 300 years) having charm, no conscience and a modicum of cunning are all you need to become a baronet, buy a country pile and create a dynasty.
You don't have to ponce about, like the cock Mogg, in a top hat in order to ram the apparent superiority home, but on occasions it may help.
So the system (of privilege) has been created by those who benefit from it, because they can (and must). Other systems (such as the Welfare State, and the provision of opportunity to all, including oiks like myself, in the 1970s) are of course available. Socialism being the most prominent.
But don't expect those whose line has benefitted from the status quo to be clamoring for change any time soon. This is where the old labour idea, 'we are he masters now', gains traction. It is a natural goal to become the master when you are simply the servant. I would personally prefer to be a colleague rather than a master, but hey ho, call me a communist.
Be honest, people. You vote for self interest. This includes the notion of altruism being generally good (if you consider it would be generally good for yourself). I vote left because I feel more comfortable knowing that I am more likely to mix with and be judged by people more like me who, I like to tell myself, are more likely to be fair and collegiate. Were my personality different, and I found myself mainly drawn to the strong, self-made or well-established, the independent and, yes, wealthy, I may favour the right. Except....except they can be such ****s. Why send refugees to Rwanda? That is just ****ish.
No, I will stick with what I prefer, I think.
Last edited:
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,622
TL;DRAs an old lefty, sorry to disagree. I don't think there is any evidence that 'public school charm' can be learned. With a different accent the supreme self belief manifests itself across society. One immediate example, a bloke I interviewed for doing my extension had it (partly the reason we went elsewhere). And there are plenty who were brutalized by public school. No.....
My theory is that those who have acquired wealth and perhaps some position, from which they create protection for their offspring, such as Johnson's dad, his dad, and Cameron's forbears likewise, have the genes that favour this type of success. Yes a lot of them end up sending their kids to public school. But they are the chicken and the public schools are merely the nests, not the eggs.
They are of a class because the class is created by them (or rather their forebears) to nurture their type.
I am not saying that the ruling classes are born to a station. I am a biologists, not a f***ing conservative. No, I mean that all living things survive because their genes allow them to thrive, and in the complex human world a great deal of niche characteristics facilitate (reproductive and societal) success. It used to simply be physical strength and ruthlessness that made you a prince or duke. Now (by now I mean in the last 300 years) having charm, no conscience and a modicum of cunning are all you need to become a baronet, buy a country pile and create a dynasty.
You don't have to ponce about, like the cock Mogg, in a top hat in order to ram the apparent superiority home, but on occasions it may help.
So the system (of privilege) has been created by those who benefit from it, because they can (and must). Other systems (such as the Welfare State, and the provision of opportunity to all, including oiks like myself, in the 1970s) are of course available. Socialism being the most prominent.
But don't expect those whose line has benefitted from the status quo to be clamoring for change any time soon. This is where the old labour idea, 'we are he masters now', gains traction. It is a natural goal to become the master when you are simply the servant. I would personally prefer to be a colleague rather than a master, but hey ho, call me a poof.
Be honest, people. You vote for self interest. This includes the notion of altruism being generally good (if you consider it would be generally good for yourself). I vote left because I feel more comfortable knowing that I am more likely to mix with and be judged by people more like me who, I like to tell myself, are more likely to be fair and collegiate. Were my personality different, and I found myself mainly drawn to the strong, self-made or well-established, the independent and, yes, wealthy, I may favour the right. Except....except they can be such ****s. Why send refugees to Rwanda? That is just ****ish.
No, I will stick with what I prefer, I think.
Fancy that.....