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

Goodwin vs UK

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}

No because of her views on education. She honestly believes that there are lots of TAs in schools that are not needed and should be got rid if. It would save money apparently. I just wonder where these TAs are as I am sitting in my classroom on my own supporting my most needy knowing others need help as my TA is covering in another class.

If she is really that unaware of reality in schools what else is she ignorant of?

Yes it was such a failing for women it makes me question the institution

She's about the only Tory I'd vore for at the moment.

What specific court case do you mean @SaffronSpice?

Yes.

All sides are not heard. In the case that led to the GRA there was no one in court to argue that the definition of women mattered, that undermining this would undermine women’s rights and deprive us of our safety, privacy and dignity. It was a man saying ‘I want this’ and the government saying ‘we don’t allow it’.

You want your government to have a final say. Good luck. The operation of power of both right and left shows the evil that can be perpetrated.

I know there are good Tories who don't believe this stuff. Who won't overthrow something that we did as a nation.

The GRA is primary legislation and can be revised.

Do not listen to the whistlers on immigration and rejection of the ECHR.

They want power for themselves. They will tell you that it's all what the people want. But if you want that, you don't want law that applies fairly, or away from the judiciary.

Law is what separates us from pure power; in this country it gives freedom of speech, a fair trial, freedom from torture and basic rights to life so that governments could not persecute minorities, pick on racial characteristics or sexual preference. It means I can't lawfully be taken away by secret police as is possible in many other countries in the world. And it means that the government, if it wishes to impinge on my rights must justify that in law.

If you are a liberal person you will see this stuff for what it is. I am with the people who ask for answers and what would be better.

This is not some sort of left wing conspiracy. It was done out of a recognition that government, left or right, abuse their power.

I've had her pegged as a leader for quite some time. I'll be doing a lot of research in the coming year before making a decision on who to vote for. I very much doubt it'll be Labour but who knows as I don't do tribal voting.

Unworkable, expensive, populist nonsense.

There is a court case where both sides put their legal arguments.

@MadderthanMorris

When a government wants to do something that goes beyond the general run of policy making and challenges really fundamental issues about what it means to people to be part of a society in the first place, there should be someone else charged with looking at it from a different angle. It's one of the justifications for our House of Lords, or the American constitution.

And what happens when they "discover" a right for transgender people to falsify their sex on their birth certificate etc.?

It's not like that was ever clearly in the law. Judges just decide it's implied by the law, when a different group of judges could reach the opposite decision.

Why should they get the final say about something that's not even clearly in the law, or clearly a real human right?

In fighting is a good thing - if you want to see what happens with the alternative you only need to look at the elected dictatorship that was the SNP. Why do you think elected MPs standing up against the government on issues they disagree with is a bad thing?

But all that is apart from the silent coup in the civil service which refuses to write instructed reports, which follows the agenda of unelected organisations like Stonewall and puts points for them above implementing government policy. Whether the policy is good or bad is irrelevant.

Well I'll take the comment about the election in the chin. The rest of it stands though, and that's why I wouldn't trust a UK government to form an alternative to the ECHR without extra constitutional reform. Which I would not want this particularly untrustworthy govt to lead on.

No. No matter who the leader is the Tories need to go.

I think it's a question of checks and balances isn't it? Yes, the "unelected" ECHR has the "final" say about certain issues - those that come under its scope and progress past the point of being resolvable within their origin countries. That doesn't mean it has all the say about everything. The idea is that there are certain constants limiting what governments are allowed to do that have a higher threshold of resistance to change than a simple 3-5 year election cycle in an often unrepresentative and corrupted electoral system.

What the right wing rhetoric about having to deal with complex slow-moving bureaucracies misses is that some things should have to do that. When a government wants to do something that goes beyond the general run of policy making and challenges really fundamental issues about what it means to people to be part of a society in the first place, there should be someone else charged with looking at it from a different angle. It's one of the justifications for our House of Lords, or the American constitution.

That’s the U.K. system. It’s still democratic

It’s a bit Trump the election was stolen territory

Corbyn lost by a fair length

Personally I would favour something like if a court makes a crazy decision, the government doesn't overturn it, but they can put it to a referendum.

“Zebedee999 · Today 14:53

You're clearly too young to remember Labour's illegal war that killed millions and resulted in terrorism in this country killing kids at pop concerts etc. If you deem that to be better than what the tories have done then shame on you.
Personally I'd take someone eating cake when they shouldn't over illegal wars any time... but that is just me I guess. Lots still vote Labour (sadly I voted for them and am therefore partly guilty for the millions of deaths they caused).”

you brought up the topic of the Iraq war and ignored all my examples of what tories have done lately and how they also voted for that war. You’ve literally just lied as you clearly said “shame on you” There’s disingenuous, dishonest and then @Zebedee999 it would seem.

I wouldn't t vote Tory whoever was leader.

But my bigger concern is the silent left-wing coup that has taken over the civil service. I think the Tories are being hobbled by that and I fear what extremes they will go to with labour in charge.

The Tories are being "hobbled" by their own lies, corruption, in fighting and incompetence How can you not see that?

It's the other way round, surely. First come the authoritarian laws - ostensibly brought in to protect a culture/way of life/group of people by forbidding dissent against it/them. Then, when dissent occurs, or is manufactured by the authoritarian government to have occurred, the dissenters/class of dissenting peoples are stripped of their rights.

No, absolutely not.

No I said shame on me (and anyone else) for voting for Labour who created an illegal war killing millions. But you live and learn. You are jumping to conclusions and stereotyping... I haven't even decided if I will vote next time, they are all equally useless. But it most likely will not be Labour as there were never any repercussions for creating an illegal war killing millions and I have an issue with that, whilst you are ok with that.

Well, if you dismiss the fact that it was essentially another Brexit vote based on lies and proven interference from outside sources, nothing I suppose. However I would suggest that a system in which allows members of its government to lie, break the law, abuse the procedures of parliament and show themselves to be corrupt and none of that triggers a general election, it can't really be called democratic. When people used to do the honourable thing and resign, maybe.

Additionally although the current leader and the one before were elected by their constituents as MPs neither of them had been given a public mandate to form a government. Was the current PM even elected as leader by his party rather than just MPs? I can't remember. How can the fact it's perfectly possible he wasn't be considered a democratic system?