To think Kemi Badenoch is starting to talk an increasing amount of Sense? Part 2

[itsnotallaboutyouyousee]

Continuing this fascinating thread. I think it ended prematurely. We were just getting into the swing of things...

Part 1 here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5525758-to-think-kemi-badenoch-is-starting-to-talk-an-increasing-amount-of-sense?reply=152116138&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

They’re both as bad as each other. Badenoch’s behaviour at PMQs is appalling.

'Tory leadership candidate Kemi Badenoch has suggested maternity pay has "gone too far" and the government needed to interfere less in people's lives.
Speaking to Times Radio, Badenoch said statutory maternity pay, set up to support mothers for 39 weeks after having a baby, is a "function of tax" which she called "excessive".
She added that "the exact amount of maternity pay in my view is neither here nor there", adding: “We need to have more personal responsibility - there was a time when there wasn’t any maternity pay and people were having more babies."
She later said she had been "misrepresented", and she was making a wider comment about cutting regulatory burdens on business.'

If a person can't afford children - stop having children. Why is that contentious? I could afford two. So I had two. No more. And why should a small business bear the burden of a woman (lets be old skool) having babies one after another? No wonder the UK is in such a state.

So you’re as bad as her, it’s not something I’d boast about. Added to which the birth rate has reduced below replacement level.

Why is it 'bad' to think that people should bear personal responsibility for their actions?

It’s hardly feminist to say maternity benefits have “gone too far”, is it? Not conducive to women’s rights? My generation of second wave feminists fought hard for those rights, it’s utterly depressing to see them valued so little.

well said OP
they come here with their islamophobia slogans and think MN will delete completely valid comments as they used to. Why may I ask?

Who are "they"?

I actually can't identify any positive measurable impact this government has had on my family. If anything we are worse off under this government

• DH and I are paying more tax
• my nhs teams budget has been cut and wait times gone up
• my daughters school- funding has reduced by around 8% in real terms based on reports I have reviewed as a governor, and there has been a negative impact on the support children receive via them not being able to afford as many TA's
• cost of living is up
• my oldest is unlikely to get a decent secondary school place for 2027 - for the first time in 9 years most children in our village didn't get into the only decent secondary near to us. Due to the vat on school fees a private school near us has closed and these children have taken those places as closer to the school.

But whenever it's challenged the response is 'well they can't fix those mess in a year or 2 can they'. And no, I didn't expect them to wave a magic wand. But I didn't expect them to make things worse.

I voted Labour at the last election, particularly due to the universal free breakfast clubs (which never materialised) and the increased state school funding (which never materialised) and the increased nhs funding ( we haven't seen any of this and have had to cut 11% off our budget over past 2 years). My trust has gone. So if it's Kemi or Keir (and is has to be Labour or Conservative, we cannot have Reform in power) then I'm voting for Kemi

• DH and I are paying more tax

So are we but only because our income has increased.

Really sick of that lazy non-sequitur that conflates opposition to the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel with anti-semitism. There are many Jews speaking out against the actions of Israel and they are certainly not anti-Semitic!

Time off to have a baby could be considered a right.

I'm not so sure being paid for your job while you are not working because you have had a baby is really a right. It's a policy, and not an unreasonable one, but that isn't the same thing. Because that would mean it's an intrinsic duty of others to pay for the costs associated with being a parent. Notably here the employer.

We make policy decisions all the time about what costs related to parenthood are best shouldered by society as a whole, or by individual families, and it's a balance. No one says society should pay for everything. OTOH, not only does helping with things like education help society as a whole, you can make a very strong argument that society benefits from people having children so we should all contribute to their care, even (maybe especially) those with no children at all.

But there is a lot of room also to think about other effects policies to support families or mothers or children will have. One of those things is what is in fact fair to others to have them contribute. Taxes are taken from other people and there is a question of fairness around what levels are reasonable.

The question in this case around the impact of the policy on employers is an important one. Both monetarily and in terms of having an employee out for a long period which can be a problem in itself and maybe is in fact the more serious issue for many. If the burden is serious enough that it's regularly a problem for smaller businesses, that's not irrelevant just because we invoke women's rights. People do have a right to be able to make a go of a business, and it's good for society and the economy. We shouldn't be happy to have a situation where smaller businesses or entrepreneurs are not able to function because of the policies around any kind of employee support, unless we are happy to turn the entire economy over to big business.

If that is the case maybe there needs to be some serious thinking about other solutions.

Now, maybe this isn't really that big a problem, that is a fair response. But saying it can't be discussed, there is no balancing of goods here, and "if you believe in women's rights you can't even think about this" is one of the worst trends in politics that means we have bad policies that will inevitably lead to shitty results, because anyone who questions their efficacy overall is branded some kind of nasty person.

I helped vote Starmer in but for me, he’s been a massive disappointment. Kemi is brilliant in comparison but sadly the bar is extremely low.

its not "bad" but it is misguided.

Ignoring any emotional/rights based arguments, and looking purely logically:

Having children is an individual choice.

But enough people having children is a societal need. Hence where the logical justification comes in supporting families and mothers in having children. We need families to raise a sufficient number of children so to maintain society as we get older (especially if immigration is to be reduced), Any policy that increases the barriers to having children is very illogical for long term societal planning.

Kemi's point that when maternity leave was lower, people had more children - doesn't hold up well, because there are very significant extraneous variables to that relationship (Notably, the previous ability for one parent to support an entire family).

Indeed there are many Jews and many Israelis for that matter who may oppose actions of current Israeli Government. Entirely possible to do so without being antisemitic. Sadly, the demonization of Israel and positioning of Palestine as some uniquely moral cause together with the familiar old antisemitism mean that a lot of the focus on Israel is both driven by and a key cause of the rising hate towards Jews.
There is a huge problem with antisemitism in Britain's Muslim community (along with far left as well as the traditional far right). You can't ignore this.

I don't agree with Kemi on many things but she's totally clear eyed about this and articulates it well - I applaud her for her moral clarity.

You were the one wanted to single one group out for most pity when you said Muslims suffer the most hate crimes.

When it was pointed out that actually Jewish people do per capita, suddenly it’s not a competition 🙄

I applaud her on her moral clarity for that too.

Still feel politically homeless as not convinced by her or Starmer (& definitely wouldn’t vote for an extreme group like Reform or the Greens in their current form).

But she did impress me with that robust response to the heckler so will be watching her more closely before the General Election. In addition to the new Labour leader if Keir gets ousted as seems likely after the local elections.

The Muslim community is never ever mentioned when hate crimes and rights to protest are discussed. Given how 45% of hate crimes are aimed at the Muslim community I think that is pretty poor and concerning.

So you agree with her anti women’s rights, abelist views on Autism and Rwanda Come on you have never voted for Labour.

The need for Scottish independence summed up in one thread title.

Of course the Muslim community is mentioned and they also suffer hate crimes.

It’s just factually correct though to point out that Jewish people currently suffer more hate crimes in the UK per capita than Muslim people.

Exactly. There are nearly 4 million Muslims living in the UK whereas there are only about 280,000 Jews. This is not a competition or a race to the bottom but there is absolutely no doubt that Jews and Jewish insitutions are far more likely to be the target of hate crimes, added on with the target of terrorism campaigns from foreign governments and organizations as well as domestic, something that British Muslims don't need to worry about.

It is kinda ironic that the minority community which itself is victim to hate crimes would be the ones most likely to carry out a hate crime against a smaller minority.

Yet again dismissing the hate crime suffered by the Muslim community- 45% of all hate crime!!It beggars belief and says a lot about those who belittle it.

I’m mid 50s and have never voted for Conservatives. We have a Labour MP currently but I think Reform may be a threat next time so I would usually vote tactically and that would be Conservative here.

However I am completely unconvinced by Kemi and I am fed up voting tactically. As far as I can see Kemi is what was felt to be the best of what was left after the more moderate Tories went after Brexit.

The fact that Kemi thought Brexit was a good idea makes her a definite no as far as I’m concerned and that is without some of the other stuff mentioned above.

She’s replicating the Keir Starmer model of opposition then? I seem to remember the robust defence from Labour supporters endlessly stating that he did not need to announce any policies at all until the last possible moment before the GE. Certainly worked for Labour?