Two days before news broke that the ever-divisive Home Secretary Suella Braverman was sacked by Rishi Sunak’s government, I told my friends over dinner that the Prime Minister was increasing his political liability by keeping Braverman in her position. Earlier that day, I had attended the pro-Palestine protest on Waverley Bridge, and was curious to hear about how the protests in London went. My news search led to seeing Braverman’s name in plenty of reports, notably her insubordination of Sunak’s leadership by publishing an opinion piece for the Times of London, claiming that the police were playing a “double standard” by allowing the protests to take place.
To me, it’s bizarre for Sunak to have kept her in the position for as long as he did, especially re-appointing her just six days after she was fired for the first time by Liz Truss. In that instance, she inappropriately used her personal email to send official government documents to a fellow MP. It’s as if a security breach didn’t already indicate her lack of professional conduct. That, coupled with her rise to notoriety for her distasteful remarks on immigration (that it’s her “dream” to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda), homeless people (describing rough sleeping as a “lifestyle choice”when defending her efforts to restrict the use of tents) and my personal favorite, environmental protests (with protesters classified as “the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati”), just goes to show how much Braverman has relied on one line zingers to stir up trouble.
I don’t know about you, but that leaves a sick feeling in my gut, though it’s not an unfamiliar one. As an International-American student getting more acquainted with British politics, I cannot help but feel a sense of déjà vu when learning about Braverman’s antics… need I mention the parallels to Trump 2016?
She’s exhibiting what I like to call the ‘Right-Wing Populist 101’ buzzwords: Exclude, Simplify, Divide, and Provoke. Upon consideration of how she fits under this label, I would most definitely say check, check, check, and check to all. She’s excluding asylum seekers, a possibly hypocritical stance considering her own parents are immigrants, and she’s simplifying complex issues into confrontational statements, garnering fairly steady support from her vocal conservative colleagues, ready to defend her at any moment (they already have).
Not to mention, her words in the opinion article have already divided the country on one of the world’s most controversial conflicts, labeling the pro-Palestine marches as “hate marches”, and in turn, stoking even greater tensions in local communities. Now I wonder, is Braverman being deliberate here? Does she truly mean what she says? Regardless, her words are simply cruel, and that cannot ever be discounted. So then, what is her approach here as (arguably) Britain’s most divisive politician? She’s made it clear before that her ambition is to one day be Prime Minister, so is this all a set-up for an eventual bid? Maybe Sunak, in anxiety over his party’s unpopularity with voters, made a mistake in firing the theatrical Suella the ‘Brave’ at this time, instead fueling his own downfall.
This recent turn of events at No. 10 definitely poses more questions than answers. While I’m not a psychic, uncertain of Suella-de-Vil’s future plans, I am sure that she’ll come back from this in one way or another.
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman speaks at policing conference” by UK Government is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
How did Suella Braverman last so long?
Two days before news broke that the ever-divisive Home Secretary Suella Braverman was sacked by Rishi Sunak’s government, I told my friends over dinner that the Prime Minister was increasing his political liability by keeping Braverman in her position. Earlier that day, I had attended the pro-Palestine protest on Waverley Bridge, and was curious to hear about how the protests in London went. My news search led to seeing Braverman’s name in plenty of reports, notably her insubordination of Sunak’s leadership by publishing an opinion piece for the Times of London, claiming that the police were playing a “double standard” by allowing the protests to take place.
To me, it’s bizarre for Sunak to have kept her in the position for as long as he did, especially re-appointing her just six days after she was fired for the first time by Liz Truss. In that instance, she inappropriately used her personal email to send official government documents to a fellow MP. It’s as if a security breach didn’t already indicate her lack of professional conduct. That, coupled with her rise to notoriety for her distasteful remarks on immigration (that it’s her “dream” to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda), homeless people (describing rough sleeping as a “lifestyle choice”when defending her efforts to restrict the use of tents) and my personal favorite, environmental protests (with protesters classified as “the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati”), just goes to show how much Braverman has relied on one line zingers to stir up trouble.
I don’t know about you, but that leaves a sick feeling in my gut, though it’s not an unfamiliar one. As an International-American student getting more acquainted with British politics, I cannot help but feel a sense of déjà vu when learning about Braverman’s antics… need I mention the parallels to Trump 2016?
She’s exhibiting what I like to call the ‘Right-Wing Populist 101’ buzzwords: Exclude, Simplify, Divide, and Provoke. Upon consideration of how she fits under this label, I would most definitely say check, check, check, and check to all. She’s excluding asylum seekers, a possibly hypocritical stance considering her own parents are immigrants, and she’s simplifying complex issues into confrontational statements, garnering fairly steady support from her vocal conservative colleagues, ready to defend her at any moment (they already have).
Not to mention, her words in the opinion article have already divided the country on one of the world’s most controversial conflicts, labeling the pro-Palestine marches as “hate marches”, and in turn, stoking even greater tensions in local communities. Now I wonder, is Braverman being deliberate here? Does she truly mean what she says? Regardless, her words are simply cruel, and that cannot ever be discounted. So then, what is her approach here as (arguably) Britain’s most divisive politician? She’s made it clear before that her ambition is to one day be Prime Minister, so is this all a set-up for an eventual bid? Maybe Sunak, in anxiety over his party’s unpopularity with voters, made a mistake in firing the theatrical Suella the ‘Brave’ at this time, instead fueling his own downfall.
This recent turn of events at No. 10 definitely poses more questions than answers. While I’m not a psychic, uncertain of Suella-de-Vil’s future plans, I am sure that she’ll come back from this in one way or another.
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman speaks at policing conference” by UK Government is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related