Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was Tory the party leader and the election was tomorrow?

[lechiffre55]

Just curious to see what the answers here might be.
Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was the Tory party leader and the election was tomorrow?
Feel free to answer any way you like, and I don't care about derailing. The question is quite tongue in cheek, don't take it too seriously, and have fun with it if you want, rant if you want. I'm trying to get a picture of the MN mood.

Personally I would favour something like if a court makes a crazy decision, the government doesn't overturn it, but they can put it to a referendum.

That’s the U.K. system. It’s still democratic

It’s a bit Trump the election was stolen territory

Corbyn lost by a fair length

I think it's a question of checks and balances isn't it? Yes, the "unelected" ECHR has the "final" say about certain issues - those that come under its scope and progress past the point of being resolvable within their origin countries. That doesn't mean it has all the say about everything. The idea is that there are certain constants limiting what governments are allowed to do that have a higher threshold of resistance to change than a simple 3-5 year election cycle in an often unrepresentative and corrupted electoral system.

What the right wing rhetoric about having to deal with complex slow-moving bureaucracies misses is that some things should have to do that. When a government wants to do something that goes beyond the general run of policy making and challenges really fundamental issues about what it means to people to be part of a society in the first place, there should be someone else charged with looking at it from a different angle. It's one of the justifications for our House of Lords, or the American constitution.

No. No matter who the leader is the Tories need to go.

Well I'll take the comment about the election in the chin. The rest of it stands though, and that's why I wouldn't trust a UK government to form an alternative to the ECHR without extra constitutional reform. Which I would not want this particularly untrustworthy govt to lead on.

In fighting is a good thing - if you want to see what happens with the alternative you only need to look at the elected dictatorship that was the SNP. Why do you think elected MPs standing up against the government on issues they disagree with is a bad thing?

But all that is apart from the silent coup in the civil service which refuses to write instructed reports, which follows the agenda of unelected organisations like Stonewall and puts points for them above implementing government policy. Whether the policy is good or bad is irrelevant.

@MadderthanMorris

When a government wants to do something that goes beyond the general run of policy making and challenges really fundamental issues about what it means to people to be part of a society in the first place, there should be someone else charged with looking at it from a different angle. It's one of the justifications for our House of Lords, or the American constitution.

And what happens when they "discover" a right for transgender people to falsify their sex on their birth certificate etc.?

It's not like that was ever clearly in the law. Judges just decide it's implied by the law, when a different group of judges could reach the opposite decision.

Why should they get the final say about something that's not even clearly in the law, or clearly a real human right?

There is a court case where both sides put their legal arguments.

Unworkable, expensive, populist nonsense.

I've had her pegged as a leader for quite some time. I'll be doing a lot of research in the coming year before making a decision on who to vote for. I very much doubt it'll be Labour but who knows as I don't do tribal voting.

You want your government to have a final say. Good luck. The operation of power of both right and left shows the evil that can be perpetrated.

I know there are good Tories who don't believe this stuff. Who won't overthrow something that we did as a nation.

The GRA is primary legislation and can be revised.

Do not listen to the whistlers on immigration and rejection of the ECHR.

They want power for themselves. They will tell you that it's all what the people want. But if you want that, you don't want law that applies fairly, or away from the judiciary.

Law is what separates us from pure power; in this country it gives freedom of speech, a fair trial, freedom from torture and basic rights to life so that governments could not persecute minorities, pick on racial characteristics or sexual preference. It means I can't lawfully be taken away by secret police as is possible in many other countries in the world. And it means that the government, if it wishes to impinge on my rights must justify that in law.

If you are a liberal person you will see this stuff for what it is. I am with the people who ask for answers and what would be better.

This is not some sort of left wing conspiracy. It was done out of a recognition that government, left or right, abuse their power.

All sides are not heard. In the case that led to the GRA there was no one in court to argue that the definition of women mattered, that undermining this would undermine women’s rights and deprive us of our safety, privacy and dignity. It was a man saying ‘I want this’ and the government saying ‘we don’t allow it’.

Yes.

What specific court case do you mean @SaffronSpice?

She's about the only Tory I'd vore for at the moment.

Yes it was such a failing for women it makes me question the institution

No because of her views on education. She honestly believes that there are lots of TAs in schools that are not needed and should be got rid if. It would save money apparently. I just wonder where these TAs are as I am sitting in my classroom on my own supporting my most needy knowing others need help as my TA is covering in another class.

If she is really that unaware of reality in schools what else is she ignorant of?

Goodwin vs UK

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}

Really good point by @stayingaliveisawayoflife . Education is struggling now, if we continue with the Tories it will be well and truly stuffed.

But there are plenty others. It costs a fortune to intervene and you have to know about the case in the first place. I am not even sure you can intervene at an employment tribunal.

If you think the Tories are bad, you should try the SNP.

No. As it happens she is my constituency MP and I won't be voting for her.

You are right, spinet. Sunak hasn’t even been elected by party members.

our electoral processes are woeful.

No. For reasons already said. Her views on education and because the Tory party is totally corrupt. They need a spell in opposition.

Thanks for the link @SaffronSpice.

As I said previously, it is the job of the judges to listen to both legal arguments. That's what happened in this case. The complainant's legal case was heard, the governments legal case was heard. Rulings were made and explanations of those rulings given.

All sides are not heard in court cases. The judges will only hear arguments specific to the plaintiff / defendant. In this case it was a transperson who brought the case and the government defending. The ECHR do not have the remit to extend the case further.