Rwanda, Suella Braverman and the truth

 This morning the Supreme Court of the UK, not a European quango or court, deemed Suella Bravermans Rwanda policy illegal. Braverman did not stay long enough in the job to see the abject failure of her key policy. If you read her rather pathetic letter to Rishi Sunak properly, she gives the game away. The key passage is 

I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect.

This demonstrates that she knew full well that the Rwanda plan was illegal under the current law. To change the law requires an act of Parliament and to get this passed through Parliament, which is not always straightforward, with such contentious bills. There was absolutely no point trying to bring in such a plan without doing this. Her own words demonstrate the fact that she was basically completely incompetent. She continues

For a year, as Home Secretary I have sent numerous letters to you on the key subjects contained in our agreement, made requests to discuss them with you and your team, and put forward proposals on how we might deliver these goals. I worked up the legal advice, policy detail and action to take on these issues. This was often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest.

Again this is rather disingenious. Braverman was a senior member of the cabinet. It is beyond belief that she hadn't raised any issues at cabinet meetings, with regards to an absolute keynote policy. The only reasonable conclusion is that she did not have the support of the cabinet with her 'proposals'. Braverman was sacked by Sunak, she didn't walk away. If she'd flounced out, having had zero support from Sunak, with serious cabinet support, this would be credible. 

I'm not a fan of Sunak or his government, but I have a degree of sympathy with him in relation to Braverman. She clearly has a far higher opinion of her own talents than her colleagues do. It has been interesting how few have  supported her. Those that do, have axes to grind of their own. There does not seem to be a flood of letters into the 1922 committee demanding a leadership contest. 

It seems to me that Suella Braverman is the sort of character who believes she is always right, far cleverer than everyone else and not bound by the rules that come with the job. I have worked with people like her. They fire off email after email, so that they have an 'audit trail' to support their absurd behaviour. Often they don't read replies, or dismiss them out of hand. He claims of "equivocationm disregard and a lack of interest" reminds me of such colleagues. They send long emails and when you calmly explain that such things are not possible, you get just such accusations. I suspect that Braverman was given to going off on one in Cabinet, and colleagues would sit on their hands, waiting for her to run out of steam before they got on with grown up business.

The sad truth is that a huge amount of cash and time has been spent on a policy that Braverman herself knew was illegal under the law as it stands. No decent person wants to see small boats crossing the channel. It is dangerous and people die. As I understand it, the vast majority of those crossing ion boats have a legal right to remain. Even if Rwanda had been legal, it would have meant a tiny number would have been sent there.  Bravermans gamble was that this would deter the boats. Given that there is a risk of dying getting in a boat, and the odds of deportation would be tiny, it seems to me a completely ridiculour proposition that the policy would ever have done more than give her a paper victory.

I suspect that Braverman's gamble was that the hard right in the Tory party would rally to her, bring down Sunak and install her as leader. I'd guess that any sane and rational Tory wouldn't touch her with a  bargepole.  The problem with sending letters like this, is that it shows everyone that you are a very vindictive person. Is that the person you'd want as your boss? I suspect that many MP's tell Braverman what she wants to hear, to get rid of her. I am very familiar with that when I have been canvassing. Every time I've stood, I've had far more people telling me they'd vote for me than votes I got. With the likes of Braverman, it is the best way to shut them up and get rid of them.

The problem with the likes of Braverman is that they have their own truth. It is one where they are always right. It is one where every bonkers scheme she proposed would work perfectly and the only reason they've all gone wrong is because 'dark forces' have sabotaged her. 

Finally, I have to say that I think Parliament needs people like Braverman. They say things that people don't like hearing. I feel the same about the likes of Jeremy Corbyn. There are over 600 MP's and we need people to say things that are offensive, unpopular and devisive at times. It is the only way that democracy works, when the majority decide to pass, bat can authentically state that the case has been made, listened to and dismissed. They should, however, never be let within a million miles of serious government job. 

.

Remembrance Sunday reflection 2023

One of the traditions of this blog is to write an armistice day reflection. I started in 2008, the first year of the Barnet Eye blog, publishing my fathers wartime diary from 1944, when he was serving with the RAF in Italy, as a bomber pilot. It is quite harrowing and ends with "Shufti" on the 30th June 1944, when he was shot down and taken prisoner of war. His first task was to identify the body of his rear gunner, John Charles Murphy (You can read more about my Fathers wartime experiences at the rather wonderful Aircrew Remembered site - R F/O. Lawrence Franklin Tichborne (aircrewremembered.com)).

This year, something has happened that makes this an almost impossible blog to write. The Cenotaph ceremony has been politicised by the Home secretary Suella Braverman. What should be all about the brave men and women who passed has become all about her. I cannot hide my disgust at this. I really didn't want to mention this, but it simply cannot be ignored. In some ways though, it brings me to my last proper conversation about the war with my Dad. He told me some things that I never truly understood until today. I have spent my life believing that everything we do, see and experience has a purpose, one which sometimes takes years to become clear, sometimes it never does. 

Dad died of  a heart attack in January 1987, aged 69. In November 1986, Mum had gone away, we went for a curry and then sat up until 3am drinking Scotch. We'd had a massive falling out earlier in the year and I'd only recently got back on speaking terms with him. One of my mates, Ernie Ferebee had taken me aside in June and shaken some sense into me. He'd said "Your Dad will not last forever, if he died tomorrow and you were not on good terms with him, how would you feel?". His words rang true, although I believed Dad to be indestructable. After all he'd survived being shot down. I made my peace. Unlike me, Dad was not a man to hold a grudge. He always said it was the Irish in me that made me fester for months or years if I felt wronged. What was it about? When I moved out, my parents had slung all my old stuff out that I'd left. Ticket stubs, football programmes, copies of the NME. They hadn't told me. I felt they'd erased my past and had a massive strop. It lasted nearly a year. How stupid was I? I collard my Dad after work in June, told him we needed to have a drink. We had a quick pint and said our sorry's. He said he'd never have slung the stuff out if he thought I'd wanted it and hadn't realised the significance. He said that if his wartime diary had been slung out, he'd probably have felt the same. I was just pleased to be back on terms with him. My mother, who I get my Irish sense of grudge from, was less welcoming for a while. Only a grovelling apology for my rant would do and that was harder, as I felt I was right. Dad advised that sometimes it is worth saying sorry when you are not. He said that Mum knew she was wrong, but that was not the issue, it was one of respect for her. Good advice. I was not living at home, I only saw them a couple of times, then in November Mum went to see her sister and I had a night out with Dad.

It was probably the only proper, adult conversation we had. We talked about many things. As I said, things happen for a reason. I believe that we fell out, so that when we had that night, everything would stay locked and fresh in my memory. despite the many beers and the scotches that followed.

We had long chat about the war. As it was November, he'd been to a remembrance day service. I asked him how he felt about the war. What he told me was quite stark really. He told me a story of when he arrived in England, on a troop ship from New York. Dad was an Aussie and he'd travelled from Australia via the USA. A whole bunch of fresh faced airmen arrived, full of excitement. All were volunteers from the Commonwealth. They were told to crew up. The RAF did this, allowing crews to select themselves. Dad's crew was unusual, in that all were officers. Once crews were selected, they were assigned aircraft, Vickers Wellingtons. They were then told to take them out for a test flight. 

As they were getting ready to take off, one of them shouted "Last one in the air buys the squadron beers when we land". Dad was lucky, his plane was first on the runway. He got up in the air, without a problem, flew a few circuits and the crew familiarised themselves with the aircraft. He then radiod for permission to land. He was told to divert to another airfield. He was surprised, but assumed that this was part of the exercise. He landed and was transported back to his own base. When he arrived, he was horrified to find himself on a charge. What had happened after he took off was quite incredible. The crews all made a mad scramble to take off and several aircraft had collided. 

They were all summonded for a dressing down. The officer told them that the RAF was considering sending them back where they came with dishonourable discharges. He then rounded on one airman, who was wearing a Royal Navy uniform. He said "look at you bedraggled lot. You haven't even got proper RAF kit, you are a disgrace". The airman then, to Dad's total surprise, replied to the officer "Sir, would you mind turning around?". The officer was surprised but did this. The airman shouted "Just as I suspected a shiny arse". He then rounded on the officer. He said "I'm wearing this because when I was being transported across the atlantic,  a U Boat sank our ship. All of my mates died, I was ina  dinghy for seventeen hours, before a boat rescued me. The convoy sailed past us leaving us to drown. I was nearly frozen to death when I was pulled out. I lost all of my kit and you and your mates have not seen fit to replace it, so don't lecture me on doing my job, sure we screwed up, but only because we were excited to be given the opportunity to die over Europe for the likes of you who never get off your arse and do anything useful". To Dad's amazement, the officer said "I am so sorry, I should have realised" and that was the end of the matter. Dad said that of the 100 or so men there, maybe a dozen survived. All were the best of the best. 

He then said "Your brothers are 40 years old now. Thank God, none will serve in a war. You are 24, you might. Just remember son, the officers, the top brass and the politicans are not your friend. They do not care for you and yoru well being. If ever you are called to do your duty, you don't do it for them, you do it for your family and friends, so that your kids might have a better future. Do your duty, but never trust them. They don't know you, they don't care for your safety.". When Dad was shot down, his CO wrote to my mum to say he'd been lost and was missing presumed dead. He said "Norman was a fine airman". My Dad's name was Lawrence. 

I think that this is the first Remembrance Sunday when I truly understood what he was getting at. 

The Suella Braverman lifestyle test

Suella Braverman is the home secretary. She recently stated that people are homeless as a lifestyle choice. I decided that as she clearly has an insight into homelessness that a poor, thick idiot like me lacks, I needed to try and work out what she knew that I don't. I have festered on this for a few days. Maybe what we all need is a  little test of lifestyle choices to assist us in our understanding of what our home secretary said, let me give some background. 

What have myself, Samantha Cameron and George Michael all got in common? We all volunteered at The Passage, a homeless day centre near Victoria. Sadly, I didn't have the pleasure of working with George, although deputy head chef Noor told me he was wonderful, really useful in the kitchen. George had been raised in the family restaurant business and was a dab hand at peeling spuds. He also did it with a smile on his face. As for Sam Cam, she got on with it and made herself useful. I was offered money by a Daily Mail journalist to dish a bit of dirt on her, as were a few other volunteers. It seemed beyond the wit of such an individual to understand that anyone who vounteers to help homeless people is most unlikely to want a few grubby tenners to dish the dirt on someone trying to make some sort of difference. But I will give a small insight for free. Sam Cam did it because she recognised that homeless people are people. They are going through a very hard time and any vaguely decent person, regardless of their politics, deserves the help and compassion of people who are able to. 

I volunteered for a good number of years. I did a breakfast shift on a Thursday. I'd arrive at 7am, help serve breakfast and leave between 9.30 and 10am for my office. I got to know many of the clients rather well. I was embarrassed when they'd bring me Xmas presents (usually books etc from charity shops) and thank me for my kindness. On cold wet November days, like today. They'd come in looking tired and bedraggled. It would be quiet, as they ate breakfast and warmed up. The Passage provided food, showers and access to cheap clothing. Everything, apart from tea, coffee and left over sarnies provided by the likes of M&S and Pret had to be paid for,  items such as sausages were a nominal 5p. The cash charge was to emphasise that it was not a hand out. For those who genuinely had no money, a free breakfast voucher was given that gave a full cooked breakfast, after an assessment. For some, they could only manage a tea and bowl of porridge, due to the damage caused by alcohol on the stomach. Clients were not admitted if visibly high or drunk, as they could be a risk. Drugs and alcohol were banned from the premises, although clients were not searched. 

Occasionally, we'd have a medical emergency, sometimes we'd hear the most terrible stories of abuse. All clients were offered support, the breakfast was a bait to lure them in so help could be offered. I was delighted to, on occasion, bump into former clients who'd got their lives together, sometimes years after. They would recognise me and come up and offer thanks. Invariably, they looked ten years younger once they were off the street, sometimes they were hard to recognise. 

The clients fell into four main categories. There were ex squaddies, who civilian life simply didn't work for, after a life in the military. They would be organised, clean but many had PTSD, other mental health challenges and often drug and alcohol issues, brought on by the need to block out dark memories. Then there were people who's lives had collapsed. They'd been married, in jobs, but it had all gone wrong and they had descended into a life on the streets. Many of these, with a bit of help, got themselves together. We'd try and get them accomodation, jobs etc. This was where most of our 'successes' were. The third group were migrant workers, who had been working and a contract finished and they'd simply run out of money. Many of these were drinking, but were basically sound individuals, who simply had no cash. Westminster Council had a policy of giving them a ticket home if they wanted one. Often this was the solution. Some just found work and disappeared. And finally. There were people who had something terrible in their life. They had mental health issues, PTSD, drink and drug problems. What was heartbreaking was that some were lovely, but simply unable to cope with anything. We did sometimes succeed in reaching them, getting them into safe accomodation etc. But often they'd reappear months or years later and it would start again. I never met a single soul who told me "It's great, I love this, it's the life for me".

So anyway, I thought I'd set you a little test, based on the stories I was told. Tick your favourite option.

1. When you are asleep at night, what do you most like to be woken up by

a) Being sexually assaulted/raped

b) Being set on fire

c) Being urinated on

d)  Being physically assaulted

e) None of the above

2.  When it is raining, windy and cold, where would you most like to sleep?

a) In a doorway on the high st

b) In a subway

c) In a derelict property

d) In a police cell

e) None of the above

3. When you wake up in the morning and are hungry, with no money, what would you most like to do

a) Beg for the price of a cup of tea in a cafe, until you've raised enough

b) Go to a homeless day centre, register as a client and persuade them to give you a breakfast

c) Steal a sandwich and a drink from the supermarket

d) Persuade a generous street food vendor to take pity on you and give you bite to eat

e) None of the above

4. It's chucking it down with rain. You are hungry and its 8pm at night. You are in your tent, that is a cold but dry, but you have no money, what would you most like to do.

a) Sit in your tent, be hungry and try and stay warm

b) Try and persuade the person in the tent next to you to give you can of their extra strong cider

c) Go out in the rain, get wet and try and find some food

d) Go to Vauxhall Bridge and throw yourself in the Thames, because you've had enough

e) None of the above

5. You are awoken by the sound of a bunch of drunk/high guys in suits urinating on your tent. What would you do?

a) Open the tent and verbally remonstrate with them, and expose yourself to a beating,

b) Sit in your tent in the knowledge that they will go away when they are bored

c) Say a few prayers to St Jude patron St of hopeless cases, that some kind soul may see what they are doing and take pity on you and give you some cash

d) Pull out your knife, stab a few of them, in the knowledge that the police will come, arrest you and at least you might have a warm room, decent food and some help for a while, and the Judge is likely to be vaguely understanding of what you did.

e) None of the above.

If you answered anything other than E to all of these questions, then a life on the streets, in a tent is for you. If you answered E, then hopefully, you'll realise just what a cruel, heartless and ignorant home secretary we have. Every single answer above, is based on a conversation I had with someone at some point in my years at the passage. You'd say "How are you getting on?". They'd say "I had an awful night, you'll never believe what happened" and tell me a story. Answer 4d, clearly the person didn't jump. They were spotted by a kindly soul who bought them some food in a cafe. Answer 5D, I spoke to one client who did just this. I believe they were drunk or high at the time. The guys urinating worked for a top merchant bank. The bloke who was stabbed was not hurt badly thankfully. The magistrate took the view that the assault was justified and the poor sod was released back onto the street with a telling off. A couple of months in the cells, a bit of help getting off drink/drugs and some support was what he needed but sadly, all he got was a breakfast at The Passage. 

This morning Ms Braverman had a go at the head of the Metropolitan Police about not banning the Palestinian protests at the weekend. It is her and her governments job to make the laws that the Met enforce. After 13 years of Tory government, for many on our streets, it is the only choice. Her and her party have comprehensively failed, but all she can do is blame everyone else. The Police, the victims of her policies,  anyone but her own government. 

I had always said I'd never speak about Samantha Cameron and her work at the Passage, but I have to say, she was a decent person who was a Conservative, but had compassion and was decent. I tended to try and avoid her. I was not a fan or her husbands politics, but she was trying to make a difference and I felt she deserved to be left to get on with it. If I saw her I'd smile and say hello and get on with dishing up the sausages. I'd love to hear her take on what Braverman had to say. As for George Michael, I am pretty sure I'd know exactly what he'd say. 

And why did I stop? Well in 2016 I had treatment for Cancer and by the time I felt up to doing it again, I was no longer working in town. Volunteering at The Passage was one of the best things I did with my life. The people I met enriched my life, both volunteers and clients. They all made me a better person. I can think of a few people, who could benefit. It took me six months to really realise and get the trust of the clients. Once they decide you are 'alright' and build trust, you start to really understand the issues they had. One of the criticisms I had was that many organisations would send teams of vounteers for 'activity days'. You will learn nothing doing one shift.

Please note that I am speaking for no one but myself and I no longer volunteer (although I may well in future). 

The 'Small boats crisis' is a manufactured scam to distract voters from the real econmic crisis working people are facing

 Nothing disgusts me more than politicians who talk about 'patriotic duty' whilst they work to shaft vast swathes of the population they are supposed to care about. Today we have seen the worst example of this in my lifetime. The language of Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman has been deliberately inflammatory and many working people, who consider loyalty to their country to be fundamental to their being have been taking to Twitter and Facebook to speak about how pleased they are that finally 'something will be done'. The sad truth is that by any measure, they have been mislead by the Conservative government. Not only this, but the timing has been cynically designed to distract from the absolute failure of their economic policies, which has seen massive inflation, shortages in shops and record breaking high energy bills.

The first point to note is that the 'Small boats crisis' is completely a result of the policy of the Conservatives, who have been in power for almost 13 years. If you believe it is the fault of 'lefty lawyers' such as Sir Keir Starmer, you really need to look at the facts. The government has a huge civil service and even Suella Braverman has described the resources at her disposal as 'an army of lawyers'. It is the governments job to make laws. The truth is that over 13 years, they have not used this 'army of lawyers' to address the issue of illegal immigration. Every year, we have a new initiative and the facts and figures prove none have worked. If you had a mechanic who fixed your car five times and each time, it broke down on the journey home, you'd get a new mechanic. You may well hate Starmer and his team, but it is simply untrue to blame them. 

I don't blame people who see the headlines in our press or the stories on the TV for being horrified by what they see. What sane person would think that people crossing the channel, managed by people traffickers is a good thing. I spoke to a leading expert on the subject. I asked how you fix the problem. What they told me was quite interesting. The first thing they said we need to do is have proper international co-operation. This does not mean French policemen on beaches. It means serious, cross border action to sieze the assets and cash of people smugglers. Interpol was set up to prevent cross border crime, so it needs a massive revamp. The second thing, is we need to process applications in France and other third countries. If there are genuine refugees, who have a genuine reason to come to the UK, it should be easy and safe for them to get here. This should never involve perilous journeys across the channel. If they know that starting the process abroad will make it easier and cheaper, this will remove them and the profits of their passage from unscrupulous trafficers. The third thing we need to do is to employ far more people to process applications. We need to process people who have no right to stay here quickly. If someone is shown to have entered illegally, with no good reason, then they should be deported to the country of origin and forbidden from re-entry for five years. If they do re-enter, they should be immediately deported.  Schemes such as the Rwanda scheme are a complete waste of resources. If the cash had been spent on more staff to process applications, that would have been a far more sensible way forward. As it is, millions has been spent on legal fees, with nothing achieved.

The truth is that this is not about small boats, or immigration. It is about making decent people feel threatened, so they re-elect a Conservative government that does not have their interests at heart. Any sane person would conclude that had they really wanted to fix the problem, they would have done so long ago. The current government is measurably corrupt. The money spent on dodgy schemes such as track and trace and dodgy PPE, with big name donors to the Conservative party has clobbered public finances. My learned friend said something rather amusing and very true. In times gone by, local villains would give cash bungs to the local bent coppers to look the other way, when they were up to no good. These days, you bung the Conservative party a million pounds, and you get all manner of dodgy deals passed your way, with a peerage thrown in for good luck. If you want to see an end to illegal immigration, I'd suggest that re-electing the mob who got us to the situation is the last way to fix it. Given that Sir Keir Starmer is meant to be such a clever chap, I struggle to understand how he's managed to fall into the Conservatives trap on this. 

Suella Braverman - Rishi Sunak's lightening rod

 Like everyone else, my jaw dropped to the floor when I heard that Rishi Sunak had been appointed. How could he appoint someone who had just 'resigned' for breaching the ministerial code.

Why did she resign a week ago?
Why was it right to resign then but OK to come back now? What's changed?

So much for everything stated in this letter. pic.twitter.com/jxvnxW3Fni

— Mags Campbell (@writersblock08) October 26, 2022

When I thought about it, I realised that he is a smart cookie. Every shrewd Prime Minister employs a lightening rod (google it if you don't know what it means). Blair had John Prescott, Heath had Enoch Powell, Wilson had Barbara Castle and Tony Benn. All people admired on the edgess of their own party and loathed by the opposition. As in the case of Powell and Benn, sometimes it can bite you on the backside, but having a team member who is absolutely hated by the other side, means that they take all of the focus. I've no idea what Sunak thinks of Braverman, but he clearly knows the value of having someone to take the bile. 

So what can we conclude. Sadly it isn't good. It's not Braverman's obnoxious views that really bother me, although I find them repugnant. What bothered me is that she resigned last week for a serious breach of the rules. Sunak is a Tory and I fully expect him to appoint people who's views I disagree with. I did, however, think that in appointing someone who doesn't beleive the rules apply to them, he has shown that he's not interested taking a new broom to concepts such as standards in public life and following the rules. 

He may find it useful having someone to deflect the lightening, but the person he's chosen is a lightening rod for all the wrong reasons. A Tory Prime Minister choosing hard line Tory is not a problem. A Tory Prime Minister choosing someone who has shown they think the rules don't apply to them is a huge error. The mere fact she has taken the job shows that she thinks she did nothing wrong. That is the problem