Reform wants women barefoot and pregnant

[Sweetiedarling7]

Reform candidate Matt Goodwin wants women to have children early in life and introduce extra taxes as punishment for anyone who chooses not to have children.

Misogyny in plain sight.

How long till they ban abortion too?

Women voting Reform may want to consider if they are turkeys voting for christmas.

Any government with a majority can remove any rights or give any rights. If its politically feasible for them to do so. Judges have been making laws rather than applying the law. Many European countries agree.

We don't need the ECHR to give us the rights listed in this embarrassing smug film. We simply legislate for ourselves.

Peace in Northern Ireland does not depend on the ECHR. That's a fallacy.

And we didnt commit the acts in the War referred to in the film as a reason to need the ECHR.

https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/britains-looming-demographic-crisis

For the person that asked, I've had a quick look and seems to be behind a paywall so anyone that wants to read it would need to do that I guess. I don't have time to look further but I do recognise Labour desperation and that's my comment, the thread is leaping from one imaginary scenario to another.

Starting a national conversation about birth rate is difficult. I've listened to an interesting radio programme on the subject with a fertility doctor. He said they're in a difficult situation with celebrities using surrogates as it misrepresents how difficult it may be to get pregnant during perimenopause.

Overall it's an interesting subject and I may read it behind the paywall when I have time. However, it's Goodwin's blog and not Reform policy, he wasn't campaning as a Reform MP 18 months ago when it was written.

Labour are desperate though and sounding unhinged with this latest smear campagin on Goodwin. Labour have nothing to offer potential Reform or Green voters and it really shows.

Vote how you wish - but if Labour are doing such a shit job, why would you vote for them?

What has the ECHR ever done for us

It's not a smug video. The ECHR. Is fundamental to the Good Friday agreement. To leave the ECHR would require by international law, renegiations and the cost of two referendums.

davidallengreen.com/2023/07/why-the-united-kingdom-government-cannot-leave-the-echr-without-either-breaching-or-re-negotiating-the-good-friday-agreement/

We only know Starmer is toothless because of events throughout his time in power. We were all fooled before the GE into believing he would stick to his manifesto, but we didn’t know then what we know now re the resistance from his party. Time and time again he has to u-turn due to his back benches blocking everything. Maybe Farage will be toothless too? We won’t know until he’s tested will we….

You could look at Kent Council, Reform's flagship.

You think that @Livelovebehappy so please don't use 'we', unless you're posting on behalf of a political party.

im sorry you mabye didn’t see my reply. I probably posted wrongly. Anyway, it’s not specific rights I fear losing but the entire Act. Given the rhetoric from previous Conservative governments and now Reform, I simply do not trust them not to abuse its loss. They inevitably will come after other groups and whoever is not deemed loyal. That’s without me even discussing their disgusting racism. I do not think merely it being Britain guarantees anything, other than a badge they hide behind.
i would like to ask if and why you want it removed?

The United Kingdom was instrumental in drafting and establishing the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) after WWII, with British jurists shaping it around common law principles.

The UK was the first nation to ratify it in 1951.

Today, the ECHR is incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), allowing citizens to invoke these rights in domestic courts.

But I’m being factual? Starmer has u-turned several times due to pushback from his party. Farage hasn’t been tested yet as he’s not been in Government. Starmer got in on the basis of his manifesto, but hasn’t been able to deliver. So all my ‘we’ comments are entirely factual.

Were you ‘fooled’? That’s on you if so. I don’t tend to think politics is quite so simple. A large majority won in messy circumstances was always going to be hard to manage. And we can call it u-turns or we can call it parliamentary democracy - backbenchers have the power to vote with their party or on behalf of their constituents. It can be a pain in the arse but I think it’s better than them all blindly having to follow the leader.

Unfortunately I can well see what a Reform government would look like because I live in a Reform LA. They’re hopeless, lack transparency and have either ignored or gone back on their policy commitments. If you want to give that a go, of course you’ll vote for them. I will probably emigrate if they get in, I’m not sure I could bear the futility.

Did we have a right to life before the ECHR? Property rights? These didnt appear suddenly in 1998 and won't disappear suddenly if we repealed the HRA.

And your point is?

Its not magic. We reform the ECHR so it is not abused by the vast army of human rights lawyers. Or we leave the ECHR. We repeal the HRA. And we replace the lot with a domestic law (not already covered by existing laws) of the parts we like. We are founder members of the ECHR after all...so we should know what should go in domestic law to protect rights!

Of the 83 key pledges made by Labour, they have already achieved 18 of these, according to Full Fact’s Government Tracker

19 more pledges ‘appear on track’ another 20 ‘in progress.’

What human rights do you think people can do without then?

I don't believe you when you say I dislike Trump, Farage, and all of those right wing knobs.

Why not just be honest. The rest of your post was clear on where you align yourself.

Don't be a knob yourself. Though I suspect you will vote for a massive one.

You were anti-Starmer before he came to power. You have a memorable username.

At least be genuine. Nobody was fooled. Look at what Labour has achieved before saying the electorate was fooled.

The issue is the interpretation of the ECHR by the judges and some peculiar judgements that go against what the ECHR was established for. Eg the chicken nuggets case. The result is judge made law which a significant amount of European countries are also concerned about. This is hampering our ability to control our own borders which is the first task of any state. So hopefully the ECHR can be reformed. But laws are made by Parliament and can be changed or repealed by Parliament. Parliament should decide what rights we have and if its everything in the current ECHR then thats fine. We also had perfectly good laws before the HRA.

That just encourages vulnerable women to have more children when they cannot look after them.

By the chicken nuggets case, do you mean the case where the student challenged unhealthy meals at school? Do you disagree with that?

And yes the UK has a common law system, ie lots of judge made law. That differs from a lot of other countries, but is neither inherently right or wrong, and the common law system could be reformed by parliament if they wished.

Can you give an example of the how either of these things affect border control?

No I mean the man who couldnt be deported because his child didnt like the chicken nuggets in his country of origin. Ie border control.

Oh right. That case wasn’t really about chicken nuggets though was it, it was about a child’s emotional and practical dependence on their father as a reason not to deport him. And the case hasn’t concluded, nor did it go to Europe. The Upper Tribunal (in UK) sent itback to a different judge in the UK. So it’s a reach to say it’s affecting control over borders, and entirely wrong to say it’s to do with Europe.

Except that that didn't happen, because it wasn't about chicken nuggets at all. It's much more complex than that.

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-004546

I do wonder why Reform supporters actually want to believe all this nonsense?

This isn't quite true although teen marriages and pregnancies tend to have poor outcomes the sweet spot is actually about 25-35 from what I understand. The main reason to start young is to avoid the heart ache of infertility.