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.

Agreed. It's also why Labour keep losing. They assume an awful lot about the electorate just based on their own superior musings, not based on evidence. Through their stranglehold of institutions (which usually, not unrelatedly, are failing e.g. the NHS) impose a 'right think' culture which means that people who vote Tory don't let anyone know that's what they do. Because it's not 'socially acceptable'.

The next step is obviously to restrict democracy if you follow this the Labour mindset to its logical conclusion, I don't know why people think this is limited to the right wing of the Tories.

Neither are particularly attractive options. However, I'm leaning Tory because at least they're fairly honest about their desire to enrich themselves at the expense of the poorest in society. In Labour that's offered up with a side order of gaslighting and coercive control.

And under the Tories I can freely say that women aren't men. Whereas Labour want to re-educate me to believe in lady penis.

It is choosing between a rock and a self-identified soft (really hard, but you're not allowed to say that) place.

Implying that the Tories have no worth is not the same as saying that "no other ideas" have any worth, though. What the Tories say is only one set of ideas. Indeed, while most people in the country are talking about voting either Labour or Lib Dem "to get the Tories out", very little of that seems to be based on positive, motivated loyalty to Starmer or his ideas (if indeed he has any). Starmer's following is probably the least partisan Labour support in living memory, and consists mostly of people who have just accepted that the Tories are now beyond the pale.

@Rudderneck - you sound rather Bennite! In the "who are you and how do we get rid of you aspect in your post.

The ECHR is not a problem imo. It is classic externalising by British politicians when they have failed. International obligations are not bad in themselves.

The ECHR was our way of addressing the grosser depravity of WW2; in time it's obviously had to cover matters in Ireland where British treatment of the Irish needed robbed guaranteed because frankly there were times when we fell sort and breached our own convention. There have been other times, such as ensuring due process of law, ensuring that governments cannot change criminal sentences for their own convenience, or moments when soldiers can sue to ensure they are not given defective equipment in wartime when serving for the U.K. I remember these cases in part because the government of the day said soldiers did not have such rights, nor did certain groups in Ireland, or prisoners could be resentenced to meet a Daily Mail headline. They lost, as they should have done.

It sets parameters for the treatment of people.

Now, I think this system does very well against the abuse of the citizen. But I do thank you for your well thought out response because I understand it's origin. But I am just not satisfied that my own government, left or right, would respect my rights domestically without this bigger stick that is the external court.

In the end I believe you must look at the worst politician and say do you want that person with command of your treatment. If it was Braverman or Badenoch or Starmer or Corbyn. That prospect to me is more concerning because currently, under our system, there is nearly no way of stopping primary legislation being overwritten in what Halisham called "our elective dictatorship".

"robbed" = "rights"

Or those who intend to vote Tory don’t want to put their head above the parapet for fear of abuse. Because people say they (as Tories) have no worth and are beyond the pale.

This sums up my position perfectly.

there is nearly no way of stopping primary legislation being overwritten

why is this a bad thing? Surely we want to over-write bad laws and outdated laws? Otherwise women would not have the vote, capital punishment would still be a thing for stealing bread, and most of the country would still be serfs.

I wouldn't vote for her if my life depended upon it.

Trying to pick someone good from the current "cream of the crop" in the Conservative party is like deciding which of seven turds you'd like to eat.

The Conservative tradition is about "conserving", maintaining the good things that keep our economy and society strong, and making sensible (and gradual) changes to areas that need attention. However a succession of increasingly poor "leaders" have trashed that notion, as well as the economy and our society, in the pursuit of their own power and enrichment. They've also forced out almost all of the sensible truly Conservative people from the party.

The only hope they've got left to achieve electoral success is divisive nonsense such as "war on woke". I am a feminist, and some might label me a TERF due to my holding gender-critical views (even though I respect the right of adults to identify how they please) but if Kemi, Suella, Priti or Rishi think they will capture my attention and gain my vote because of their racist, divisive reduction of our society's problems to simplistic nonsense like the "war on woke" then they are very much mistaken.

@ReverseFerret insulting tories like you are partly why people never vote for anything but Tory.

I vote based on track record and the Tory one is appalling, its the Tories that tried to remove the rights of people not to be able to vote, targeting groups more likely to vote Labour.
So we got Bus pass ok for voter ID, Student ID not ok.

As for Freedom to say what you wish on Trans issues, a Tory london council leader was removed form Bravermans speech yesterday for quietly reminding her she was demonising people for political gain.

No one should be enriching themselves at the expense of the poorest, it beggars belief that you would.

Tories have had their chances, 13 years worth, time for a new broom, regardless of their leader, KB will never be tory leader, if the Tories lose, they will go through 2 or 3 ones before the next GE.

In the context of say, a government that abuses power, then you have a problem. This all goes to why the ECHR exists, why we wrote it, adopted it and supported it.

And governments do abuse their power. Britain is better at not doing so than many.

Lets us say that we get rid of it next week. My name is Suella Braverman. I would like a law that keeps people locked up on the basis that I think they are a danger to society. Indefinitely. That is s bad law. But under this ECHR free system she faces no challenge.

My name is Keir Starmer. I would like a law that GB News watchers should be monitored for state sedition. What stops me?

In both instances SB and KS have huge majorities. What stops this abuse?

True.

Another couple of examples, if the electorate strongly feel gender ideology is not working for women and they don’t think we can keep structures successfully with increased migration and vote accordingly those things should see change

Voters usually decide, I’d prioritise that

I don't believe that anyone genuinely interested in the topic could fail to be aware of the numerous incidents. Google is your friend. You don't need British Jews to do your work for you.

The fact that you think your views on antisemitism are more reliable than those of 85% of British Jews says quite enough.

If you think 85% of British Jews are either lying deliberately to attack the left or are just too stupid to recognise what antisemitism looks like, you might want to question your own attitudes on this issue, and quite how unbiased you actually are.

Corbyn has had ample time to sue, if this accusation was fake. He's never going to, because he's a massive antisemite. As is anyone who claims 'it was a scam' or refers to the 'big lie' (always good to parrot Goebbels while claiming not to be an antisemite, eh?), etc.

And yes, I am angry. Corbyn put and his supporters continue to put me and my family at risk. I am a victim of crime thanks to Corbyn and his lies.

anyone who votes for the Tories after hearing the speech of that disgusting Home Secretary is a disgrace. Absolutely not.

One example: you know the fuss about him calling people from Hamas his "friends"?

How Corbyn was spinning it, is that you need to talk to people from different sides for "peace".

However, he did more than just call them friends...

https://www.cufi.org.uk/news/corbyn-did-not-just-call-hamas-his-friends-he-said-much-worse-but-too-many-ignored-it/

“The idea that an organisation that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake and I would invite the government to reconsider their position on this matter and start talking directly to Hamas and Hezbollah…”

So he is acting as an apologist for a crazy terror group that wants to destroy the lawfully existing state of Israel.

Indeterminate sentences (IPPs) have been used to lock people up for ever and not just murderers.
Might have been banned in 2012 but we still introduced them & people are still in prison under them.

I'd not be so sure Govts cannot abuse power, let alone that we are better than many in this regard (in Europe)

All it needs is a Govt with a large majority, the HoLs can't block the 'commons will and the Crown will never refuse to give assent - just look at what BJ did.

@Bananasandcorn - that is exactly my point.

The House of Lords is part of this for all its flaws.

Also what stops you is a general election or UK courts. But this is where PR like in Scotland becomes a problem - MPs represent the party not the people so do not rebel. This is why the SNP have been such a profoundly undemocratic party - you don’t need an overwhelming majority if you have made your MPs vow always to follow the party line. One thing I do like about the Tories is their tendency to rebel. Scotland is also a unicameral system so between the SNP allowing no dissent, lack of revision and ideologically driven civil service, they keep the courts busy with their terribly drafted laws.

The ECHR as final authority is flawed - case are judged on arguments presented with no consideration of wider contexts cf Goodwin vs UK. Judges have their own biases. Bad law can be passed. And as each case is determined it has set a direction for the next so it is no longer just ‘base principles’. The ECHR is no more infallible than the pope was when he had supreme authority over our government and monarchy.

Governments can do bad things.

But then the ECHR can also do bad things and violate people's rights with dodgy decisions.

There isn't a perfect system here, and if the British government was ever really committed to some evil totalitarian path, the ECHR has zero power to stop them just pulling out.

I know my argument in my last post was a bit muddled. I don’t think there is an easy answer. I see pros and cons about leaving ECHR. Neither staying or going has all the answers.

It's clear that people are passionate about politics, but whatever your politics you will never convince anyone the merits of your argument by insulting them. No one ever came over to the other side of an argument because someone screamed incoherent abuse at them.
Discussing politics and subject people feel very stringly about like gender criticallity can be frustrating and emotional, but abuse doesn't help win over opposing minds. Same with dehumanising people you disagree with, calling them bots, assuming their intentions are evil, talking down to people, etc....
These are not productive arguments.

We’ve had a pretty stable society for a long time, hence an uncodified constitution and very well regarded legal systems globally and democratic process

We’ve had this pre ECHR and would continue with similar. We would have greater representation from a vote though

And that was the elective dictatorship that Lord Halisham talked about.

@SaffronSpice / clarify please what you mean by "dodgy" decisions.

A democratic process by votes is a dictatorship?

Is that what NZ have?