Say whatever you want about Suella Braverman, the worst Home Secretary of all time - but please, don’t bring her ethnicity into it I talk about Suella Braverman a lot. I think she is a disgrace to the office that she holds. I not only disagree with her worldview profoundly, I sense a great deal of flippant opportunism in the way she talks about home affairs. If she was serious about her view that immigration into the UK should be much lower, she wouldn’t throw around stupid words like “wokerati”, or talk about the Rwanda scheme as part of her “dream”. These are the words of a fundamentally unserious person.
You are right to draw attention to the racist aspect of criticising Braverman, Nick, but I do take issue with your statement that no-one would dream of deporting Deadwood. Sajid Javid made it fashionable for passports to be taken away from British citizens, and I have since made the statement on more than one occasion that Johnson's passport should also be withdrawn, preferably when he was out of the UK. I recently suggested the same course of action should have been taken during Braverman's photo-op in Rwanda, and I would see no problem with doing the same to Deadwood, were he not such an inconsequential twat that I doubt anyone listens to him anyway. Other than that, I believe your post to be thoughtful and well timed. I may have RTd that Braverman/Auschwitz one, I will have a look and delete it, if I did.
Thanks for these observations. Braverman is extremely adept at using her ethnicity as a weapon in what is, I think we would agree, her bid for leadership of the Conservative Party. Her Brexit stance is not an opportunistic one, but stems from her very peculiar reading of the role of the ECJ in the administration of property law in the UK. A reading which is shared by many in the Law profession, who warmly advocated Leave in 2016. We know that members of the Indian and other diasporas voted Leave some because they confused UK immigration policy towards them as being driven by the counting of people coming in under 'Free Movement' as immigrants when their legal status was different. And of course the impact of 'austerity' on their circumstances. Yes Braverman's actions are profoundly unchristian, but that is not a criticism she would recognize.
Very good observation. On a simple strategic level, when you play your opponent's game on their field by their rules, you are going to lose, and lose big.
A great read, as always. The point has also been made by some Black activists that Patel and Braverman have dared go further (with party support) than any White Home Secretary would have done- that their skin colour has political symbolism. Leaving aside the merits of that argument, I think it's a legitimate point to raise- so I would have felt more comfortable if your criticism had been directed specifically at "White" people on the left who raise the Home Secretary's ethnicity.
You are right to draw attention to the racist aspect of criticising Braverman, Nick, but I do take issue with your statement that no-one would dream of deporting Deadwood. Sajid Javid made it fashionable for passports to be taken away from British citizens, and I have since made the statement on more than one occasion that Johnson's passport should also be withdrawn, preferably when he was out of the UK. I recently suggested the same course of action should have been taken during Braverman's photo-op in Rwanda, and I would see no problem with doing the same to Deadwood, were he not such an inconsequential twat that I doubt anyone listens to him anyway. Other than that, I believe your post to be thoughtful and well timed. I may have RTd that Braverman/Auschwitz one, I will have a look and delete it, if I did.
Thanks for these observations. Braverman is extremely adept at using her ethnicity as a weapon in what is, I think we would agree, her bid for leadership of the Conservative Party. Her Brexit stance is not an opportunistic one, but stems from her very peculiar reading of the role of the ECJ in the administration of property law in the UK. A reading which is shared by many in the Law profession, who warmly advocated Leave in 2016. We know that members of the Indian and other diasporas voted Leave some because they confused UK immigration policy towards them as being driven by the counting of people coming in under 'Free Movement' as immigrants when their legal status was different. And of course the impact of 'austerity' on their circumstances. Yes Braverman's actions are profoundly unchristian, but that is not a criticism she would recognize.
Very good observation. On a simple strategic level, when you play your opponent's game on their field by their rules, you are going to lose, and lose big.
A great read, as always. The point has also been made by some Black activists that Patel and Braverman have dared go further (with party support) than any White Home Secretary would have done- that their skin colour has political symbolism. Leaving aside the merits of that argument, I think it's a legitimate point to raise- so I would have felt more comfortable if your criticism had been directed specifically at "White" people on the left who raise the Home Secretary's ethnicity.