Miriam Cates/National Conservatives conference

@NoWordForFluffy

If people prioritise safeguarding in choosing how they vote, then they'll choose a party that's most-aligned with their priority. That's what floating voters do.

If it happens to be a right-wing party seemingly offer the better safeguarding options, maybe other parties need to check their safeguarding provisions to see if they can appeal to those voters.

It seems a dangerous practice, particularly now. Imagine if you vote on the promise of single-sex bathrooms, but the National Living Wage is lowered to well below poverty levels, so you cannot afford reasonable food and housing for your family any more? And you have no recourse for complaint?

But you do have your own bathrooms, I suppose.

I'm trying my best to be as diplomatic as possible. I don't like to be wilfully rude.

Most people people are pretty vacuous and unaware when it comes to the major issues of the day. They don't read mainstream media articles, watch TV news programmes, and you only have to watch your average TV quiz show to see how shallow most people's awareness is of politicians, even those on the front benches of either party. I suspect most people now get their 'news' entirely from social media echo chambers and workplace/playground gossip.

Could you possibly be any more patronising?

You seem to be arguing with your self.Alternatively known as shadow boxing. You have created an imaginary enemy - and you position everyone who posts here - who counters any of your social media lifted views - as that enemy. You mistake rational argument, debate and counter-point for endorsement.

Lots of people will share opinions with almost every candidate on almost every ballot paper. They won't all win.

Is it? If her constituents shared her views they’d vote for her, wouldn’t they? She’s got a tiny majority and there was a Tory groundswell when she was elected which suggests Tories in her constituency holding their noses.

Cates will lose her seat because lots of people agree with her?

I think that's a sizeable failure of logic on your part.

Surely if Cates opinions were ordinaray and shared by lots of people she wouldn't be likely to lose embarrsingly at the next GE?

But it isn't so much running out of steam as deliberately implementing policies that you know will make people poorer and reduce young people's wellbeing and safety.

This Guardian journalist went last year. It sounds like a depressing old 3 days!

I've yet to see any news report call it a fascist conference.

@JessS1990
Yes probably, but I'd have to look up your MP.

You can either have a very broad definition of fascism, and know that your working definition sweeps in a lot of ordinary people and opinions OR you keep it to the narrow dictionary definition that applies to very few people.

What I see time and again online is people using the former definition as a justification for treating people as you'd treat the latter group.

That'll be the run out of steam part of my post.

No. Which one?

Yes.

In part the safeguarding message isn't resonating with people because in a time of a government created cost of living crisis they have other priorities which the government is singularly failing to address, many of which have a massive impact on well-being and safeguarding of children.

Was it / he described as 'far right' or 'fascist'?

Do we know who paid for the NatC conference?

Well I'm more concerned as I've said before by organisations like WEF, Davos, WHO BlackRock etc and the billionaires behind them who like to manipulate the pawns globally than a little conference in Brussels .

I don't think it's the safeguarding message which is off putting for people in relation to the Tories, it's the cyclical 'time for change' which occurs when a party has been in government for a long time and has seemingly run out of steam.

It would be interesting to go back in time to change things, and have Corbyn still as leader of Labour to see if the polls were the same at this point, if such a thing were possible. That would be a good barometer of whether it's 'anybody but the Tories' or Labour being popular due to its own merits. I've a feeling it's a massive proportion of the former, which means that they may struggle with public support once in government (or at least be subject to more critical scrutiny far sooner).

Is it really that broad a definition to include those who attend the NatC events as far right or facist?

That was the reason given that my MP was reprimanded for attending the NatC conference in 2020. Was the person who reprimanded them wrong with their characterisation?

Hmm. I probably am obstinately attached to my opinion that I don't think fascists should have any place in UK politics. And I probably would be prejudiced against fascists if I met them.
I'm an anti-fascist bigot. Who'd have thought it.

How reasonable this is depends on how broad your definition of fascism is. If you equate people like Cates with fascism then you are likely less tolerant and more authoritarian than she is.

If on the other hand that if that increasingly right wing party is facing electoral wipeout, will they and their supporters stop and reflect that perhaps their message is not resonating with people and perhaps that their interpretation of safeguarding is rather off putting?

Labour needed to do that under Corbyn as well.

Well he has been paying for it!