Kemi Badenoch

Yes she may well win. The field isn't exactly strong.😂 I mean, Jenrick?!

So she may well count as the best the Tories can offer at the moment.

There will be Johnson-types waiting to swan back in when there's an election in the offing, after someone else has kept the seat warm during the boring bits – just as Johnson did to May.

Yes, exactly @GoldenPheasant .

And it’s actually worse than that. There’s saying things she didn’t mean (supposedly).

And then there’s not saying things that she did mean (supposedly).

If she had meant these things, then even after a bad interview she could have come out and said them herself. But she didn’t.

Perhaps she was too busy whining she was being misrepresented to fit it in...

(Thanks again to her supporter who linked her maternity pay interview, so I could see she was not misrepresented.)

Two similar mess-ups in as many weeks...

Exactly.

Badenoch is a walking disaster. Fortunately she won't get to be present at any delicate negotiations with anyone outside the party.😉

I am hoping she wins this leadership race. I'd rather see the Tory Party go out with Badenoch's fury and fireworks rather with whimpers and squibs from Jenrick.😁

Another good post. Unfortunately, I imagine it will go straight over the heads of those whose political analysis is more 'Spitiing Image' charicaterisation than engagement with the detail of issues.

Rather many who have automatic antipathy to anyone in the Conservative party are relentless in their attempts to vilify and make out that Badenoch, and others, are heartless, evil people. It's the way that political engagement has gone, largely as a result of social media tribes and the way that they generate polarisation. Toxic.

1: has 3 children, generous maternity pay but F everyone else
2: parents came here for a better life for her but F everyone else
3: disgraceful remarks against carers (we just wipe bottoms apparently!) so F her!

No one is tying themselves in knots. What she is saying seems pretty clear.

It's just that you, and some others, seem to read her criticism of the way the system is (not) working as saying that kids with autism etc shouldn't get help, or be in school.

This seems to be a very typical way some people who are on the political progressive side interpret any kind of critical comment about a policy. It can be about education, the environment, women's rights, health policy - as soon as someone criticizes a policy as being unlikely to work, or creating unfairness, or having other problems - they are interpreted as not caring about education, the environment, or whatever else the good cause is.

That's not the only or even the most obvious reason, in a lot of cases it seems to be quite a stretch to make that interpretation. There seems to be a really strong disinclination to actually work through the criticisms or observations being made.

I suppose this is why so much of politics is about easily digestible sound bites, and why there is so little work done around the nitty gritty of producing good, practical, workable policies.

As to your other point - If you set up a regulatory hierarchy, that does imply the things that come first in the hierarchy are more value or more important. But if you don't want to allow for that interpretation, we can say it materially advantages them.

The idea that by giving advantages to a child we can balance out some other disadvantage they have, in a setting like school, is a problem. Especially when other kids may have as much or more financial need.

Jenrick just comes over as a posh Tory boy who will have no appeal to the electorate. The members will probably vote for him though.

What is rather evident here and amongst Badenoch's supporters is that they are tying themselves in knots trying to explain what she "really" meant. If a politician expresses herself so badly that people have to do this to undo the bad impression she is giving, she shouldn't be in politics, because she will be a walking disaster area. If she really didn't mean to say what she actually did say, how can she be let loose on communicating on, for example, really delicate foreign policy negotiations?

I really don't understand the relevance of transport here. Transport is not special educational provision, it is just a mean of accessing it if the provision is not available in a school which the child can get to easily. A child who struggles with noise and disruption is likely to have sensory and possibly attention difficulties for which they are equally deserving of support. Even if they don't qualify for their own provision, one means of helping that child would be to offer support to the noisy child so that that child is fully engaged in learning and no longer disrupting the class.

If the system is not working for all children, the system needs to be changed, but the way to do that is not to portray home to school transport as some sort of luxury which should not be offered to children with SEN.

But we come back to the fact that no-one is putting "more value" on children with SEN. The simple fact is that society has taken the view that help should be given to children with SEN to try to put them on a par with their peers, not least because it makes so much sense in economic terms if they are helped to reach their full potential. If a child with SEN is getting more help than others in the class, it is only because it has been proved they need it, not because they are somehow more valued.

I have no issue with gifted children being helped for similar reasons, i.e. because it makes sense in societal terms. Ironically, I'm in the position of having a child with SEN who is recognised as gifted. I know which has caused him more problems.

She is the most exciting of the candidates.

I actually think what Kemi Badenoch is focusing on is re-establishing clear principles and core values -rather than policy proposals at present.

I think Jenrick's team is fundamentally misunderstanding what motivates many Reform voters. It is not simply about "stopping the boats" but about key values around family, community, responsibility and so on. Also around personal liberty.

A lot of working class people became quite radicalised during lockdown. They didn't like government telling them where they could go; what they could or could not say, or think, or what they must or must not do. They also don't believe that men can become women and they don't like Drag Queen story time. It is not just about " the boats".

And if one assumes that lots of Reform voters watch GB news then one also has to assume that they prefer what Kemi Badenoch has to say, and the way in which she says it - to Jenrick's toadying to his own shadow backbenchers - who are still obsessed with Brexit and immigration. Certainly judging by the audinece reaction. Kemi is direct, forthright and "has balls". People seem to like her straight talking and ability to grasp the fundamentals.

They're both trying to win over Reform voters. They did show on GB News.

I imagine Badenoch rightly sees this as a matter for the members, not the general public - since it is they who will elect the new leader. Jenrick's team has been conducting a high profile media campaign, as well as attempting to smear Badenoch at every turn. Very dirty play. And that strategy hasn't worked out well for him by all accounts. He's trying to win over Reform voters and convince his own right wingers that he's the man for the job.......but he isn't. All he talks about is immigration.

The role is not PM.....the public will not be voting. The job on offer is Leader of the Opposition, whose job it will be to interrogate the government, not to formulate or implement policies. Five years is a long way off and you cannot make policies unless you know what conditions you are dealing with.

Is the debate not happening because Badenoch doesn't want to be questioned? Or because the Tory party can't profit from it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevy3jd42x8o

What's going on here then?

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/16/tories-wanted-to-charge-fee-bbc-leadership-debate/

Equality is therefore a concept - by your own diagnosis. There is no such thing as equality - because different people and different groups have different needs and requirements. Nobody is the exact same as anyone else.

It's not exactly my diagnosis, whatever you mean by that @Shortshriftandlethal . It's Equality as laid out in the Equality Act 2010. Here's an article that explains it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drnancydoyle/2024/10/15/kemi-badenoch-accidentally-describes-the-social-model-of-disability/

O.

O.

Nothing to do with what I said but par for the course I suppose.

Why would anyone assume their critical thinking skills are all that great?

Assuming your critical thinking skills are great is the opposite of Critical Thinking.

The National Autistic Society hasn't really covered itself with glort in terms of protecting those with autism from having their bodies fucked up by gender ideology.

Why would anyone assume their critical thinking skills are all that great? They don't engage with larger questions, they don't see it as their job.

Many lobby groups focus, in terms of political policy responses, solely on their own people, without any concern about what policies or direction means to anyone else. Some would say that's as it should be, I think it causes a lot of problems in the political process. But what it inevitably means is they don't engage with any of the larger questions and their opinions don't reflect the needs or other groups or people, or justice generally.

We've all seen how this works in terms of other interest groups.

I'm not guessing. Nor is the National Autistic Society, other SEN charities and the press who have reported on it.

If she was actually being misrepresented surely she would have clarified by now. It's a pretty important time for her and the Tory Party.

Do you want to try a wee critical thinking excercise @Shortshriftandlethal?

Read over those posts again, only this time replace Kemi Badenoch with Lisa Nandy, Nichola Sturgeon, Nigel Farage, any politician you disagree with really.

Would you agree with them? Would you defend what was said if they said it?

Do you know what she meant, or are you guessing too?