To this is fucking dangerous and why we must get the Tories out?

[dontlookbackyourenotgoingthatway]

This:

nationalconservatism.org/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles/

Look at the speakers;

nationalconservatism.org/natcon-uk-2023/

How can anybody who has studied any history whatsoever vote for this?

Are living in some kind of shit, TV movie about the fall of the UK?

Oh dear. You are getting yourself in a muddle now.

Not at all.

I'm just fed up with people going, "OMG the Tories do X!" and repeatedly ignoring the fact that Labour also do X.

What do you call wanting to extend the vote to younger people and other people not currently able to vote, then? Is that not electoral reform?

Don’t play

This sounds like Drakeford responding to a reasonable and measured question with you’re shrill, bigoted and I won’t answer

I do want to know the answer so I can decide

Women’s rights are important to me. They obviously aren’t to you but the attempts from the left to shut down questioning is concerning.

Why so authoritarian?

@MargotBamborough You didn't post in good faith. No intention of ever voting for the LP.
There are bigger issues than gender ID. Only someone financially insulated from the cost of living crisis etc can fixate on one issue alone.
Fact is it suits the tories if labour voters abstain too hence all the posts about labour being as bad.

I call that wanting to reform the electoral system in a way that specifically benefits Labour, not wanting to reform the electoral system in a way that allows everyone's vote to count, allows for the possibility of a party other than the Tories or Labour winning an election, and forces parties like the Tories and Labour to actually win people's votes, rather than relying on people wanting the other lot out after a while.

Shoring up support for Labour through changing the franchise

Something you seemed to oppose earlier with a smaller impact from tories

@MargotBamborough aren't labour considering PR ?

@SunnyEgg lol. Didn't Rees Mogg admit the voter ID legislation had backfired ? It actually prevented elderly conservative voters from voting...
https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602

Maybe Starmer is more EU focussed, who knows, but historically Labour have been very close to US by choice

Harold Wilson was asked by Lyndon Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam. He refused.

Oh, so it is only "electoral reform" when the Tories try to gerrymander? Got it.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/inside-national-conservatism-conference-suella-braverman-immigration-wind-farms-rifles/

If they put it in their manifesto and commit to delivering it within the next parliament I might hold my nose and vote for them. It's the only policy that could win my vote now, and only then in the hope that I might be able to cast a meaningful vote for someone else next time.

Huh?

No. Nothing the Tories have done is electoral reform.

It is not catastrophising to point out the destruction of women's rights under the Tory government. They have destroyed our rights, our economy, our environment and reduced us to basketball status on the international stage.

Their intentions to fuck us up further cannot be ignored.

Rather stupid to think that young and poor people are less likely to have photo ID than old people who still have paper driving licences and haven't been abroad in the last decade.

Exactly

In which case it may be worth you researching which of any of the parties are likely to propose changes in the voting system or the utterly undemocratic House of Lords.

But there is absolutely zero evidence that their intentions are to ban abortion, as suggested by some people on this thread. That is catastrophising.

That is what we are currently discussing. Do keep up.

How long ago did Miriam Cates stand up for women's rights, just a few days ago she was advocating less education for girls so that the birth rate in the UK could be increased? When did she change her mind?

But there is absolutely zero evidence that their intentions are to ban abortion, as suggested by some people on this thread. That is catastrophising.

People made similar comments when Roe vs Wade was overturned and yet here we are; Arkansas is about to ban all abortions including for medical reasons - including a molar pregnancy. Which is a type of cancer.

Since you are interested in woman's rights will join me in condeming Suella Braverman, JRM, Miriam Cates and others who attended the NatC event where many speakers including some of those I named advocated attacks on woman's rights?

How long ago did Miriam Cates stand up for women's rights, just a few days ago she was advocating less education for girls so that the birth rate in the UK could be increased? When did she change her mind?

Where did she say that women / girls should be less educated? Your previous 'evidence' didn't say that at all.

Can you show us some evidence of her saying those exact words?