Look – a new squirrel! It even has a name …
There’s a new squirrel around for us to gawp at. It’s female and has a name. Clearly, our attention must be diverted from the real issue: illegal migrants. One might think that neither Labour nor some Cons nor the Westminster MSM are interested in getting to grips with the waves of dinghy drivers crossing the Channel. It doesn’t need saying that the relevant HO civil serpents also have no interest whatsoever, given their increasingly ridiculous proposals.
What the above mentioned are really interested in, what they are working really hard at, what they are wasting their time on is the removal of the new Home Secretary. Thus: here’s a new squirrel, to be gawped at and to be hunted.
Surely we plebs who are paying for all this: from Whitehall salaries and pensions to HoC peacocks and ministers, SpAds and ‘researchers’ included, can expect better? Surely we can expect better from those others we’re paying for, i.e. the police and border forces and their trade union representatives, including ‘security’ at all those hotels accommodating yon ‘new arrivals’? And that’s not even taking into account the stipend paid to all those gracious ‘human rights’ lawyers doing their utmost to prevent any deportation, especially of known criminals.
Why has hunting the new Home Secretary become a rallying cry for Lab, some Cons and the Westminster MSM? She’s not been in office long enough to have made an impact on this issue. If their righteous anger really was about ‘helping poor immigrants’, then surely they’d need to rail against ‘cruel Tories’ and the previous Home Secretary, correct? Anyway, Labour and the Westminster MSM don’t criticise Whitehall mandarins. They’re on the same dinner circuit so that would be awkward.
And so, while Ms Yvette Cooper led the HoC pack yesterday in trying to pour more oil onto the flames of the Anti-Braverman Campaign, there are some intriguing news items which have made it into this morning’s papers. The DT spent a few pixels on a ’parliamentary sketch’ which was aimed at depicting Ms Braverman as frit for sending one of her junior ministers to answer questions in the HoC. The sting was in the tail:
“Labour’s Ben Bradshaw tried to do the impossible – out-panto-ing Chris Bryant in the Commons. Puffing himself up to his full height, he scornfully reminded Jenrick of the PM’s promise to restore “integrity, professionalism and accountability” in Downing Street. “How is the Home Secretary’s failure to come here and answer a very important question… for the second day running consistent with that pledge?” Jenrick, in the spirit of Sunak, came back with an answer that was simultaneously boring and unimpeachable. “Because I’m the Minister of State for Immigration”, he replied and plonked himself down with aplomb. Right-o.” (paywalled link)
Outrageous, that, innit! No other minister of any other department has ever answered questions relating to his brief, ever! It gets better. In their leading article this morning, on Sunak apparently ‘seeking a deal’ with France, The Times informed us:
“There will also be new internal targets for Home Office staff to process 80 per cent of asylum claims within six months after it was revealed that the average case took 480 days. Staff could be awarded bonuses if they met certain targets, with one proposal including a new goal for each case worker to complete four asylum claims a week, more than doubling the present rate.” (link, paywalled)
Astonishing, isn’t it: civil serpents need ‘bonuses’ to do their job properly! And never mind being outraged about the length of time this asylum seekers linger … However, interested readers would like to know: is this proposal a Rishi attempt or did it come from Ms Braverman who mustn’t be named? Meanwhile, The Times also reports that, actually,
“MI5 has a “strong and trusted working relationship” with Suella Braverman, a security source said last night amid mounting questions over whether the home secretary has the confidence of the intelligence services.” (link, paywalled)
This unprecedented intervention won’t help, I’m afraid, because the Westminster cabal prefers to repeat their Cummings ‘hunt’ which saw him resign. That was such fun, wasn’t it! It gets even better – or worse, actually. We’re being told about ‘Home Office Plans’ which allegedly were proposed ‘a few weeks ago’. The DM has copied the relevant report in The Times so you can peruse it paywall-free. The headline is stunning (my emphasis):
“Emergency plan to house Channel migrants in TENTS in London parks was proposed by Home Office civil servants, report reveals, as Sunak hopes to negotiate new small boats deal with France” (link)
Note that these ‘emergency plans’ came from civil servants, not the Home Sec. Note also the elegant introduction of the PM into this issue. Let’s forget, shall we, that the apparent reason for this proposal was the situation at that ‘refugee processing camp’ at Marston Airport. The Times reports:
“The idea arose during discussions on how to deal with overcrowding at the temporary asylum processing site at Manston Airport, which is only designed to hold Channel migrants for up to 24 hours. David Neal, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration who visited the site on Monday, told MPs that some people had been living at the centre for up to 32 days and were forced to sleep on camping mats. The site is overcrowded because of continuing Channel crossings but also because the Home Office has struggled to find enough accommodation elsewhere.” (link, paywalled)
Please don’t ask why yon ‘independent chief inspector’ visited the site only on Monday but not earlier. Please don’t ask why those tent-city plans, apparently proposed before that inspection visit, are the lead for this report rather than the situation at Marston. Please don’t ask why we must accept the continuing ‘Channel Crossings’ as if they were an Act of God. Above all, please don’t ask why Labour would rather spend time on getting rid of Ms Braverman “because: security!” than on the general situation of all those poor dears, having to sleep on camping mats.
Meanwhile, there’s a rather scathing comment piece in the DM, on the ‘asylum system’ being out of control (link), also putting that particular hot potato into Sunak’s hands. Funny, innit, how suddenly the arguments on the whole ‘asylum issue’ which we usually hear only from Nigel Farage have become acceptable!
Clearly we must forget the decades of facilitated illegal immigration – thank you, TBlair! If you believe our wonderful MSM, this dire situation only arose since Mr Sunak stepped into No 10. Labour and the local Labour councils (hello, Mr Khan!) are innocent. Don’t believe for a moment that the Westminster MSM’s hearts suddenly bleed for those poor things! It’s their new, wonderful stick with which to beat Sunak, Braverman and the Tories.
But never mind all that jazz! There’s this new squirrel on the block, the squirrel we must all gawp at, disregarding everything else. The novel thing about that squirrel is that it has a name. What fun times ahead!
I very much like Jenrick’s answer in the HoC.
It is a refreshing change from the usual excess verbosity.
O.K., it would have been better still if he had said against illegal immigration but that is not his job title.
Suella Braverman told us she had resigned as Home Secretary because she had breached security standards. She went on to tell us she set the highest standards of personal integrity and thus resigning from holding high office was the right thing to do. Two weeks later her personal commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity are swept aside as she marches back into the same job. With that kind of integrity I would argue that she deserves being cast onto the political scrap heap.
No Jake Bennett, 11.56am. I do not agree. For one thing, being invited back shows that the breach was not serious and had done no harm.
Surely all the outcry against her shows that the people making it are worried she might actually solve the problem.
Pauline Her words – not mine! As for actually solving the problem to our satisfaction – that one really is for the fairies. Her role is to create the illusion that something will be done in time for the next election. Remember 2010, 2015, 2017 Tory manifesto; ‘net migration will be in the tens of thousands’ ? Let me remind readers that the Tories have signed up to the Global Compact on Migration which basically aims to give rights of movement to all people (Russians?) thus no more embarassing Channel dinghies – illegal immigration solved as they will all be legal migrants.
The only Home Secretary who demonstrated any scintilla of honesty on this issue was David Blunkett who said ‘there is no limit to immigration figures. At least you know where you stand with Labour.
Pauline…..and I too agree with your reply to Jake. Suella Braverman represents the best chance the current government has of putting an end to the English Channel migrant crisis. She voted to leave the European Union in 2016, is a Conservative right winger, and is in support of this country withdrawing from ECHR (European Court for Human Rights). Leaving that treaty will enable us to effectively deal with the migrant situation. Braverman resigned from Truss’ government and was not dismissed as has been reported. Any other MP in that position in my opinion would have tried to hang on as long as possible before probably being sacked. So, at least Braverman had principles which is more than can be said for most MP’s these days. Jake has a bee in his bonnet about the Conservative Party per se these days, but like it or not, they represent the best chance of us getting the hard Brexit that we voted for in 2016 and doing something positive about the English Channel migrant crisis. The alternative doesn’t bare thinking about. Labour under Kier Starmer (I refuse to address him as Sir) will just allow anybody to come into this country, and everything that is presently wrong with this country will be even worse, probably doubly so. Also, the rational among us have to realise that we are not going to have a UKIP/Reform UK/Reclaim/Heritage Party/SDP government any time soon, and that is an undeniable fact. I am prepared to give Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak the benefit of the doubt, for now that is. If they do not deliver on policy and setting this country straight, I will re-start my written verbal offensive of calling everyone in government a buffoon or half wit. At least that will send Biscotte into a flying rage, if nothing else.
Colin. Suella Braverman is to the Tory Party what Popeye is to spinach – a marketing gimmick.
Tents in the park, negotiating with France!
What utter nonsense; all to avoid dealing with the issue. Far better to stop subscribing to the globalist organisations such as the ECHR and do what we all know is necessary for our country and its people. It might be more difficult to apply the solution used by the Aussies, i.e. turn them back, given the confines of the Channel but surely something like the Rwanda solution would work. All that is needed is to convince the illegals that they will be deported, no exceptions.
Yes Jack. That’s more like it.
Voice of Europe website used to provide a shocking chronicle of all the “problems” to put it mildly, in mainland Europe from the dinghy invasion since 2015; but it was wiped off the internet totally about 2 years ago, not a trace left.
Our self -serving politicians have a cynical solution up their sleeves to stop illegal
immigration ; they will make all migration legal. Then there won’t be any more illegal immigrants ! QED !
Isn’t that what the UN Global Compact for Migration sets out to do? Its gone very quiet lately about this Compact. Plus needless to say our esteemed MSM of course kept it very quiet right from the start.
You did an excellent 2 part piece about this Compact Viv a couple of years ago; I was trying to dig this out as a reminder but I can’t find it on the internet.
It was more like four years ago – but yes, it’s important still.
I’ll try and dig it out.
The plan to accommodate invaders in London parks required borough council approvals which was not forthcoming – for now. (I doubt St James’ was one of the parks considered). Meanwhile, the residents of Old Folkestone Road. near a beach where illegals land, are now sleeping with sledge hammers and the like by their beds after an illegal gained access to one of the homes on that road.
It is suggested that Rashee Sanood realised the invasion may become an existential issue for his government and that accounts for his re-appointment of Braverman. What the media are ignoring is the fundamental immorality of modern politics. People have been subjected to illegal immigrant led crime waves, some serious such a rape, but left to endure it until the problem grows to a point that might affect politicians’ jobs. Then and only then is the welfare of indigenous citizens relevant to them.
Quite. Existential for the country, nothing to see here and I think my toe nails need clipping, but existential for the Party, that’s different, and existential for my leadership, well, action this day.
The Minister concerned apparently titles himself ‘ Minister for Immigration’, says it all really.
Norman, he should re-title himself Minister for Illegal Immigration as it’s a whole new lucrative business model.