Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was Tory the party leader and the election was tomorrow?

768 replies

lechiffre55 · 03/10/2023 13:39

Just curious to see what the answers here might be.
Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was the Tory party leader and the election was tomorrow?
Feel free to answer any way you like, and I don't care about derailing. The question is quite tongue in cheek, don't take it too seriously, and have fun with it if you want, rant if you want. I'm trying to get a picture of the MN mood.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 10:19

we need a PR system first so all voters are represented in Parliament

A PR system means no voters are represented in parliament, only political parties.

Bananasandcorn · 04/10/2023 10:16

SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 10:11

I think a written constitution would be a good thing for the UK, and a great place to put a bill of human rights. I think it should be agreed across all political parties

So who instigates this? Who writes it? Who votes on it? How do you stop the incumbent government exerting undue influence? Or if you involve other parties how do you decide their relative influence? You can’t go by voter support because this changes over time and would give more influence to the government. But if you give all parties equal weight you give undue weight to extreme views. And what is the civil servants writing it are keen to get more points for a lobbyists charter mark?

You ve made a great argument to keep us in the ECHR & one i agree with, its too late now for a written constitution and any Bill of Human Rights etc would be totally distorted by the govt of the day, we need a PR system first so all voters are represented in Parliament, then maybe we can move forward?

Original poster
lechiffre55 · 04/10/2023 10:16

@Bananasandcorn
And yet I remember reading an article just the other day details a bunch of different judges who had made some very questionable comments around rape trials, one of the judges even got a formal repremand.
It is the purpose of a judge to behave neutrally, but at the end of the day they are only human and makes mistakes like other humans. Judges aren't perfect. Isn't there a thread on this board about a tribunual about gender critical beliefs that just started with the judge announcing their pronouns?

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 04/10/2023 10:16

lechiffre55 · 04/10/2023 10:04

@EasternStandard
Trying to play devil's advocate here and approach this from a pro ECHR point of view it probably does offer some benefits in that's it's slow and difficult to change much like a constitution which has popped up several times.
Taking the US as an example I believe the constitution if not the amendments can be changed but the political procedural bar is much higher to make changes than for normal legislation. I think they need a 2/3rds or 3/4s majority in the house which pretty much implies cross party support to reach that high a bar. This difficult requirement stops short term flip flopping of something fundamental by successive opposing goverments going back and forth. Making a fundamental change is possible but difficult. e.g. 2nd amendment bestowing the right to bear arms. But even looking at that example it's supposed to be a fundmental right in the american constitution and yet there's all sort of laws and emergeny powers that try to get around that fundamental legal right from a weak government that doesn't have the political support to change the amendemnt directly. These are being undone by the US Supreme Court which some could argue is acting like the ECHR proving balance against the political administration. I'm not pro gun, I think less Americans would die with fewer guns on the street, I'm just using this as an example in the context of the discussion here.
I think a written constitution would be a good thing for the UK, and a great place to put a bill of human rights. I think it should be agreed across all political parties, and difficult to change e.g. maybe requires a referendum with more that 70% of people who take part in the referendum to enact and then in the future to change. It would both fufil the requirment of not binding future governments with law they can't change, but would make it difficult to do so. It would also be written, enacted, and ajudicated by UK institutions without oversight external to UK sovereignty.

Edited

I look at where we are and it’s not working for women. Half the population are up against institutions who have adopted gender ideology wholesale

NZ seems to be an example of a country with an uncodified constitution and scores highly on human rights. It’s international standing is fine.

Although it’s one of the worst on gender ideology

Human rights has become men’s rights. To get a good score the more you ignore women the better.

If voters don’t want that then I’d pull the plug on all that is keeping us here. The U.K. can lead for women.

Bananasandcorn · 04/10/2023 10:12

SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 10:01

What possible advantage is there to leaving the ECHR ?

The primacy of democracy over unelected judges unable to consider broader implications in their determinations but bringing their own ideologies and biases to those decisions.

Ok but all judges in the UK are unelected and UK judges sit on the ECHR & your argument applies equally to UK courts.

Judges under go years of training to ignore their own bias etc and of course thats why there is the rule that states that the number of judges hearing a case is the same number as in the national court of the country of the case being heard.

SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 10:11

I think a written constitution would be a good thing for the UK, and a great place to put a bill of human rights. I think it should be agreed across all political parties

So who instigates this? Who writes it? Who votes on it? How do you stop the incumbent government exerting undue influence? Or if you involve other parties how do you decide their relative influence? You can’t go by voter support because this changes over time and would give more influence to the government. But if you give all parties equal weight you give undue weight to extreme views. And what is the civil servants writing it are keen to get more points for a lobbyists charter mark?

bombastix · 04/10/2023 10:10

SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 10:01

What possible advantage is there to leaving the ECHR ?

The primacy of democracy over unelected judges unable to consider broader implications in their determinations but bringing their own ideologies and biases to those decisions.

They never could. It is the legitimate job of politicians to shape such matters. Judges telling politicians that the law does not permit their desired wants is good. A decent politician can work around that. A bad one blames the law itself, imo.

Grumplechops · 04/10/2023 10:08

No

bombastix · 04/10/2023 10:07

Bananasandcorn · 04/10/2023 09:59

Interesting argument made by a Tory party member "We should leave the ECHR because they are aligned to the EU and we are no longer in the EU...therefore a conflict of interest"

Doubtless he also voted for Truss & would go to the ECHR if Labour win and bought in laws he didn't agree with.

Well it's interesting but also wrong. The EU has its own charter of human rights. People forget that or do not know.

Original poster
lechiffre55 · 04/10/2023 10:04

@EasternStandard
Trying to play devil's advocate here and approach this from a pro ECHR point of view it probably does offer some benefits in that's it's slow and difficult to change much like a constitution which has popped up several times.
Taking the US as an example I believe the constitution if not the amendments can be changed but the political procedural bar is much higher to make changes than for normal legislation. I think they need a 2/3rds or 3/4s majority in the house which pretty much implies cross party support to reach that high a bar. This difficult requirement stops short term flip flopping of something fundamental by successive opposing goverments going back and forth. Making a fundamental change is possible but difficult. e.g. 2nd amendment bestowing the right to bear arms. But even looking at that example it's supposed to be a fundmental right in the american constitution and yet there's all sort of laws and emergeny powers that try to get around that fundamental legal right from a weak government that doesn't have the political support to change the amendemnt directly. These are being undone by the US Supreme Court which some could argue is acting like the ECHR proving balance against the political administration. I'm not pro gun, I think less Americans would die with fewer guns on the street, I'm just using this as an example in the context of the discussion here.
I think a written constitution would be a good thing for the UK, and a great place to put a bill of human rights. I think it should be agreed across all political parties, and difficult to change e.g. maybe requires a referendum with more that 70% of people who take part in the referendum to enact and then in the future to change. It would both fufil the requirment of not binding future governments with law they can't change, but would make it difficult to do so. It would also be written, enacted, and ajudicated by UK institutions without oversight external to UK sovereignty.

OP posts:
SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 10:01

What possible advantage is there to leaving the ECHR ?

The primacy of democracy over unelected judges unable to consider broader implications in their determinations but bringing their own ideologies and biases to those decisions.

Bananasandcorn · 04/10/2023 09:59

Interesting argument made by a Tory party member "We should leave the ECHR because they are aligned to the EU and we are no longer in the EU...therefore a conflict of interest"

Doubtless he also voted for Truss & would go to the ECHR if Labour win and bought in laws he didn't agree with.

bombastix · 04/10/2023 09:55

@PorcelinaV / is that not a very reductive argument? That simply because a government determined to be outside the ECHR means it is no value?

Russia is such a country. But the majority of signatories share the aims because that was the intention of it in the first place. You may reject that idea, but that is the point of international treaties and law.

The argument is of course an interesting one because it does seem to be what is happening with asylum. Should Braverman fail legally the UK will have a stark choice. It can simply ignore the ECHR and continue with its policy regardless.

Now, my concern is there that if you can do that to a minority in your own country, ignore your own commitments, where do you stop?

And if a government is returned that is very left wing, and sees this abuse, and like politicians forever sees this popular, and ignores the ECHR, what then?

romatheroamer · 04/10/2023 09:52

Suella...funny name so predicted out.

EasternStandard · 04/10/2023 09:52

If that was on the SNP I agree it’s a poorer set up

romatheroamer · 04/10/2023 09:51

By the way, seen the vid of Priti dancing with Farage? Bet it was so she could say to Stella "you didn't get to dance with Nige".

SoundTheSirens · 04/10/2023 09:50

No, I despise this current iteration of the Tory party’s ideology.

However I can’t vote for any of the left or centre left parties which purport not to know what a woman is either, so I’m politically homeless until this madness passes.

Bananasandcorn · 04/10/2023 09:50

SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 09:43

I know my argument in my last post was a bit muddled. I don’t think there is an easy answer. I see pros and cons about leaving ECHR. Neither staying or going has all the answers.

What possible advantage is there to leaving the ECHR ? i see the argument we have an amazing justice system as bit like the ones when we say x or y is world beating etc.

One only has to look at how long it takes for victims of crime to get a court date or the disaster that is legal aid to see this isn;t the case, we have chosen to underfund the justice system & need the ECHR more than ever.

EasternStandard · 04/10/2023 09:49

A democratic process by votes is a dictatorship?

Is that what NZ have?

bombastix · 04/10/2023 09:48

And that was the elective dictatorship that Lord Halisham talked about.

@SaffronSpice / clarify please what you mean by "dodgy" decisions.

EasternStandard · 04/10/2023 09:44

We’ve had a pretty stable society for a long time, hence an uncodified constitution and very well regarded legal systems globally and democratic process

We’ve had this pre ECHR and would continue with similar. We would have greater representation from a vote though

Original poster
lechiffre55 · 04/10/2023 09:44

It's clear that people are passionate about politics, but whatever your politics you will never convince anyone the merits of your argument by insulting them. No one ever came over to the other side of an argument because someone screamed incoherent abuse at them.
Discussing politics and subject people feel very stringly about like gender criticallity can be frustrating and emotional, but abuse doesn't help win over opposing minds. Same with dehumanising people you disagree with, calling them bots, assuming their intentions are evil, talking down to people, etc....
These are not productive arguments.

OP posts:
SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 09:43

I know my argument in my last post was a bit muddled. I don’t think there is an easy answer. I see pros and cons about leaving ECHR. Neither staying or going has all the answers.

PorcelinaV · 04/10/2023 09:40

bombastix · 04/10/2023 09:26

@Bananasandcorn - that is exactly my point.

Governments can do bad things.

But then the ECHR can also do bad things and violate people's rights with dodgy decisions.

There isn't a perfect system here, and if the British government was ever really committed to some evil totalitarian path, the ECHR has zero power to stop them just pulling out.

SaffronSpice · 04/10/2023 09:36

bombastix · 04/10/2023 09:09

And governments do abuse their power. Britain is better at not doing so than many.

Lets us say that we get rid of it next week. My name is Suella Braverman. I would like a law that keeps people locked up on the basis that I think they are a danger to society. Indefinitely. That is s bad law. But under this ECHR free system she faces no challenge.

My name is Keir Starmer. I would like a law that GB News watchers should be monitored for state sedition. What stops me?

In both instances SB and KS have huge majorities. What stops this abuse?

The House of Lords is part of this for all its flaws.

Also what stops you is a general election or UK courts. But this is where PR like in Scotland becomes a problem - MPs represent the party not the people so do not rebel. This is why the SNP have been such a profoundly undemocratic party - you don’t need an overwhelming majority if you have made your MPs vow always to follow the party line. One thing I do like about the Tories is their tendency to rebel. Scotland is also a unicameral system so between the SNP allowing no dissent, lack of revision and ideologically driven civil service, they keep the courts busy with their terribly drafted laws.

The ECHR as final authority is flawed - case are judged on arguments presented with no consideration of wider contexts cf Goodwin vs UK. Judges have their own biases. Bad law can be passed. And as each case is determined it has set a direction for the next so it is no longer just ‘base principles’. The ECHR is no more infallible than the pope was when he had supreme authority over our government and monarchy.