Kemi Badenoch nails it

I'm impressed by Kemi's determination.
From the Telegraph 11/7 sorry no share token.
“For those of you who saw my toilet announcement on the abolition of gender neutral toilets, you wouldn’t believe how tough it was to get that through,” she said.

“I had civil servants writing on the notice which I had put out saying that ‘you can’t say that’ and ‘we need to check whether that’s something you are allowed to say’.”

Mrs Badenoch added that despite the intervention of Whitehall officials, she “didn’t change a word” which prompted cheers and applause from the audience.

Addressing a group of around 200 free speech campaigners, MPs and peers, she insisted that her speech was not a leadership pitch as the event was already in her diary before she launched her bid.

I believe the modus operandi is to make anything ‘trans’ related so vague and incomprehensible that it can mean anything they want it to mean.

Since backtracking from the stupid yet concrete ‘Girly clothes and toys make you trans’, there is no explanation so it all needs to be kept as wishy washy as possible.

Why is it there’s nothing some people who claim to be anti-racist like better than telling people of colour what to say?

I note that the extremely transparent lie-peddling account is singling out the two women of colour who are running.

I am also impressed with Kemi. I emailed her to thank her for her handling of the single sex toilets bill and to my surprise she sent a lovely short personal email back very quick. It's not my general experience to get a response like that when emailing MP's. So she already stands out to me.

She's a Tory. Obviously she's going to believe things I don't like. But she's having the conversation in public which means more sunlight. Mordant is also a Tory. Do TRAs agree with everything she says?

Can you please explain how Kemi Badenoch "voted ... [a]gainst marriage equality for LGB people", yorkshirefirst, when same sex marriage (England and Wales) has not been revoted in Parliament since legalised by the Marriage Act 2013, and Badenoch only became an MP in 2017?

As far as I am aware, the only relevant vote on same sex marriage in the UK Parliament since 2017 was on the McGinn amendment to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill -- upon which occasion Badenoch was recorded as absent.

Thanks!

Mrs Badenoch, who has been vilified by pro-trans campaigners for her opposition to gender-neutral toilets, warns that the Government is at risk of criminalising “factual statements” about biology and sex.
^^
“One of the things that I see is people saying that women are adult biological females is harmful speech. We can’t legislate for something that will create a crime out of such a simple, factual statement. And those are the things that I think we’re doing wrong. If I was prime minister, I would really cut that bill down to focus on what it was meant to do. And that’s what I mean by lean government. Fix the problem.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/09/kemi-badenoch-late-father-taught-responsibility/

Why is it there’s nothing some people who claim to be anti-racist like better than telling people of colour what to say?

"Much of the article was devoted to a condemnation of identity politics and “social justice”, particularly that based around race and culture, a common theme of Badenoch’s political discourse"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/09/kemi-badenoch-brings-culture-war-rhetoric-tory-leadership-race-boris-johnson

The Guardian telling her she is talking about race and culture too much.

I do not think she talks about it as much as The Guardian does they just do not like her opinions.

"Low tax and decreased public spending" is pretty much what we've had over the last twelve years of Tory rule - anyone think the country is in a better state because of them?

In general no, but there will be people who are better off. My father used to own his own business (he's now retired) but he voted Tory because they created a better climate for his business - which meant he was better able to provide for his family and give us safety and security.

So, it probably depends who you ask.

I am very concerned about the safeguarding risks to kids under a Labour or Lib Dem government. There's enough child abuse as it is with existing safeguards and they want to ride roughshod over what's left.

Well, I joined the conservative party so I'll be able to vote for her. I hope I'll get the opportunity.

There's always some waste in any large organisation, both private and public - if you search hard enough you'll probably find some efficiencies.

Having said that the costs of our ageing population, plus the cumulative effect of previous years of austerity, plus the prioritising of creating housing wealth over creating homes over the last thirty years, plus absorbing the costs of Brexit, plus the need for action on climate change, plus the need to increase defence spending far, far outstrip any efficiencies that might be there.

"Low tax and decreased public spending" is pretty much what we've had over the last twelve years of Tory rule - anyone think the country is in a better state because of them?

What does it mean to be a single issue voter. Does it mean if something is really really really important to you you will vote for the person who echoes your view regardless of their stance on other equally important stuff but just not quiet as important to you? I can kinda understand that but isn't it high risk.

Yes I'm afraid she is pretty right wing and is not who the country needs in a cost of living crisis.

I'm pleased she is standing though, as it means she will probably end up with a cabinet role (please god, not in the treasury) and her clarity on what a woman is will be hard to shake.

I do worry about the baby being thrown out with the bathwater when it comes to DEI. I have a horrible feeling that it would be the people who are actually doing good in that area who’d end up on the chopping block, while useless bastards on a power trip would be fine. I don’t know how anyone can solve that particular problem though! Useless bastards on a power trip are the true scourge of modern life.

@blahblahblahspoons

For me it’s even more insidious than that. The lanyards and badges are meant to indicate staff who are “safe” for LGBT people. So does that mean people not wearing badges are somehow dangerous? If they are dangerous, should they be working in the NHS? It doesn’t make sense, and is just a form of expensive showing off.

I'm also not convinced that rainbow everything creates a more inclusive workforce. It doesn't really do anything practical to increase diversity or eliminate discrimination, does it? If you're not careful and there are gaping holes in the reality of the organisation (like 40,000 nursing vacancies) then people become cynical and see the rainbow lanyards as a symbol of waste and lip service rather than anything meaningful. It can cause a lot of resentment along the lines of 'why on earth did they just spend 50k on rainbow lanyards when we're down to one nurse per 5 patients in ICU'?

I work for a super efficient private sector organisation. All employees work really hard. It feels too hard sometimes, but we're value for money that's for sure.

The main thing is really clear targets and accountability. Being honest and truthful is part of that.

And of course real efficiency does require truth. If you can't be truthful about the problem, you can't address it properly.

The next government needs to be no-holds-barred about efficiency. I’m all for having people be treated fairly. You shouldn’t experience discrimination when accessing medical services, but the rainbow badges, the gold/silver/bronze ratings, the lanyards, the pronouns, the song and dance of Stonewall, the LGBT Foundation, Mike Brady, paying people to write ideological dictionaries, the staff groups, all of that can get in the bin. Complete waste of public money we don’t actually have.

As it is it's pointless having any 'inclusion' jobs in the NHS because things are so dire with the staff shortages in frontline care EVERYONE is being excluded from timely medical care. It really is fiddling while Rome burns to spend money on pronoun badges. I suspect most people are so grateful when they finally see anyone medical after a 4-5 hour wait that they LAST thing they care about is pronouns.

Having said all this, I don't trust the 'market forces are everything' lie the Tories spout. All that privatising railways has done is transfer money into the pockets of rich shareholders while the system falls apart and gets more expensive. Virtually every country with a nationalised railway has a better system than us.

And if they really believed in market forces with a 40,000 staff shortage, in the NHS the market answer would be to get rid of the non-jobs and pay nurses more. I doubt if nurses earned 40k minimum we'd have a staff shortage.

*On the other hand it does give me pause when I hear how many diversity and inclusion jobs there are in the NHS paying 6 figures or high 5 figure when there are 100,000 frontline medical vacancies. Surely funding so many non frontline jobs is a total waste of money when we have 40,000 too few nurses.

See also the amount of police resource spent on interviewing Kellie-Jay, MM, KS, and many others for stating that science is real (XY can't become XX just by saying so). And yet, my friend had their bike stolen and it was advertised on FB marketplace and they provided details of the ad to the police and the police did fuck all. How much time would it really take to phone up and send one officer to retrieve the stolen goods? With rape basically legal I do sometimes what the police are for when they're not thought policing.*

I'd go further. It's not just paying for non-jobs or not investigating real crime but the impact of not investigating and the impact of "diversity" jobs that only really serve to put the frighteners on people who know what reality and truth is. There must be frontline ripple effects that could be linked to these non-activities that somehow got rocketed up the priority list.