Is it the natural mindset of Suella Braverman that drives her opinion/treatment of asylum seekers? Do her actions deserve the description of ‘evil’?
I suppose the place to start is her now infamous quote regarding sending asylum seekers to Rwanda
Braverman is a former Attorney General remember, so she should be fully aware of whether her actions are lawful. It was her job after all. So I would contend that her law breaking is deliberate and designed to hurt.
As well as flouting the law, Braverman is now refusing to roll out a Home Office funded trial that had been proven to be more humane and cost-efficient.
Is her treatment of asylum seekers due to not having a clue what she is doing, but can’t admit it, and Sunak is too weak to tell her?
The asylum backlog is running at around 172,000 and it is taking around 82 weeks for an application to be fully processed. That’s 82 weeks an asylum seeker may need accommodation and possibly a subsistence payment.
The number of unprocessed asylum claims, and as a result the amount of money the goverment is paying in hotel accommodation is being used by Braverman as the reason to use barges Braverman and the Home Office are in addition proposing the use of former MoD sites.
After all the talk about needing to save the tax payer money, you would be assume that Braverman and the Home Office would be counting every penny?
Has she sat down with advisers and concluded that treating asylum seekers like animals and/or criminals is a vote winner for her and a platform to be Conservative Party Leader.
Bravermans sidekick, Robert Jenrick went on National TV and said that if the backlog on asylum claims was cleared the it would just “encourage more to arrive”. In addition he said that claiming asylum is “a privilege”
Other countries allow asylum seekers to work pending decisions. This would bring costs down and would mean they were contributing to our economy and not just being a drain.
Usual suspects and Braverman supporters, Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith don’t like this idea.
Her policies are generally lauded by the populist media outlets and a significant number of newspapers.mYou only need to look at social media to see the vitriol being thrown at anyone who even suggests we treat asylum seekers decently.
Or possibly a combination of the three?
I’ll let you decide.
I would say that the ‘nasty party’ is alive and well and Suella Braverman is the embodiment of it.
However, Braverman can only behave in this way if she has the support of the Conservative Party as a whole.
Update 26 September 2023
The United Nations has rebuked Braverman for her rhetoric in a speech given in Washington DC, to a right-leaning think tank.
Just think about that for a moment…we are now being criticised by the UN.
Braverman wishes to re-write the 1951 Convention on Human Rights. She believes that a woman or a LGBTQ person must be at greater risk than just discrimination. I am unsure that I would want Braverman making that determination of what constitutes mere discrimination.
Would that be along the lines of “as long as you keep quiet you’ll be OK?” Maybe a little bit like Britain before 1967.
I would advise everyone to read the text of her speech, it is a thing of beauty…but only if you couldn’t care less about human beings in fear of persecution, imprisonment or indeed their lives.
It is full of half truths, exaggeration and outright scaremongering. Forget ‘dog whistle’ politics, she is screaming through a loud hailer, whilst standing on a raised platform.