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.

What possible advantage is there to leaving the ECHR ? i see the argument we have an amazing justice system as bit like the ones when we say x or y is world beating etc.

One only has to look at how long it takes for victims of crime to get a court date or the disaster that is legal aid to see this isn;t the case, we have chosen to underfund the justice system & need the ECHR more than ever.

No, I despise this current iteration of the Tory party’s ideology.

However I can’t vote for any of the left or centre left parties which purport not to know what a woman is either, so I’m politically homeless until this madness passes.

By the way, seen the vid of Priti dancing with Farage? Bet it was so she could say to Stella "you didn't get to dance with Nige".

If that was on the SNP I agree it’s a poorer set up

Suella...funny name so predicted out.

@PorcelinaV / is that not a very reductive argument? That simply because a government determined to be outside the ECHR means it is no value?

Russia is such a country. But the majority of signatories share the aims because that was the intention of it in the first place. You may reject that idea, but that is the point of international treaties and law.

The argument is of course an interesting one because it does seem to be what is happening with asylum. Should Braverman fail legally the UK will have a stark choice. It can simply ignore the ECHR and continue with its policy regardless.

Now, my concern is there that if you can do that to a minority in your own country, ignore your own commitments, where do you stop?

And if a government is returned that is very left wing, and sees this abuse, and like politicians forever sees this popular, and ignores the ECHR, what then?

Interesting argument made by a Tory party member "We should leave the ECHR because they are aligned to the EU and we are no longer in the EU...therefore a conflict of interest"

Doubtless he also voted for Truss & would go to the ECHR if Labour win and bought in laws he didn't agree with.

What possible advantage is there to leaving the ECHR ?

The primacy of democracy over unelected judges unable to consider broader implications in their determinations but bringing their own ideologies and biases to those decisions.

@EasternStandard
Trying to play devil's advocate here and approach this from a pro ECHR point of view it probably does offer some benefits in that's it's slow and difficult to change much like a constitution which has popped up several times.
Taking the US as an example I believe the constitution if not the amendments can be changed but the political procedural bar is much higher to make changes than for normal legislation. I think they need a 2/3rds or 3/4s majority in the house which pretty much implies cross party support to reach that high a bar. This difficult requirement stops short term flip flopping of something fundamental by successive opposing goverments going back and forth. Making a fundamental change is possible but difficult. e.g. 2nd amendment bestowing the right to bear arms. But even looking at that example it's supposed to be a fundmental right in the american constitution and yet there's all sort of laws and emergeny powers that try to get around that fundamental legal right from a weak government that doesn't have the political support to change the amendemnt directly. These are being undone by the US Supreme Court which some could argue is acting like the ECHR proving balance against the political administration. I'm not pro gun, I think less Americans would die with fewer guns on the street, I'm just using this as an example in the context of the discussion here.
I think a written constitution would be a good thing for the UK, and a great place to put a bill of human rights. I think it should be agreed across all political parties, and difficult to change e.g. maybe requires a referendum with more that 70% of people who take part in the referendum to enact and then in the future to change. It would both fufil the requirment of not binding future governments with law they can't change, but would make it difficult to do so. It would also be written, enacted, and ajudicated by UK institutions without oversight external to UK sovereignty.

Well it's interesting but also wrong. The EU has its own charter of human rights. People forget that or do not know.

No

They never could. It is the legitimate job of politicians to shape such matters. Judges telling politicians that the law does not permit their desired wants is good. A decent politician can work around that. A bad one blames the law itself, imo.

I think a written constitution would be a good thing for the UK, and a great place to put a bill of human rights. I think it should be agreed across all political parties

So who instigates this? Who writes it? Who votes on it? How do you stop the incumbent government exerting undue influence? Or if you involve other parties how do you decide their relative influence? You can’t go by voter support because this changes over time and would give more influence to the government. But if you give all parties equal weight you give undue weight to extreme views. And what is the civil servants writing it are keen to get more points for a lobbyists charter mark?

Ok but all judges in the UK are unelected and UK judges sit on the ECHR & your argument applies equally to UK courts.

Judges under go years of training to ignore their own bias etc and of course thats why there is the rule that states that the number of judges hearing a case is the same number as in the national court of the country of the case being heard.

I look at where we are and it’s not working for women. Half the population are up against institutions who have adopted gender ideology wholesale

NZ seems to be an example of a country with an uncodified constitution and scores highly on human rights. It’s international standing is fine.

Although it’s one of the worst on gender ideology

Human rights has become men’s rights. To get a good score the more you ignore women the better.

If voters don’t want that then I’d pull the plug on all that is keeping us here. The U.K. can lead for women.

@Bananasandcorn
And yet I remember reading an article just the other day details a bunch of different judges who had made some very questionable comments around rape trials, one of the judges even got a formal repremand.
It is the purpose of a judge to behave neutrally, but at the end of the day they are only human and makes mistakes like other humans. Judges aren't perfect. Isn't there a thread on this board about a tribunual about gender critical beliefs that just started with the judge announcing their pronouns?

You ve made a great argument to keep us in the ECHR & one i agree with, its too late now for a written constitution and any Bill of Human Rights etc would be totally distorted by the govt of the day, we need a PR system first so all voters are represented in Parliament, then maybe we can move forward?

we need a PR system first so all voters are represented in Parliament

A PR system means no voters are represented in parliament, only political parties.

Of course, which is why we have a Court of appeal, the High court, the Supreme court, to correct mistakes made, a case in the ECHR has almost certainly gone through domestic courts first.

But voting in a Judge into position will not take away the bias of a judge, in fact as we see in the USA, we could end up with huge political bias.

Very true.

I saw this with Brexit and we know how that ended up.....

I have people I know who are well educated who literally do just sweep aside all concerns of people in areas disproportionately affected by immigration (and often also poverty) as 'racist' whilst enjoying their nice middle class lives.

It's breathtakingly tribalistic and truly bigoted in the real meaning of the word - simply dismissing a massive group of people just because they voted for Brexit / have concerns about immigration with absolutely no interest in finding out why or considering that they might have good reasons. Essentially the thinking is that they're 'lessers'. Not going to convince anyone with that superior attitude and it's not that far on the slippery slope from thinking that people with such inferior attitudes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I don't understand?

Those parties are voted in by voters, who else? in the 2015 GE, Ukip got over 3m votes, yet had no representation in parliament, same goes for the Green Party.

Or despite getting just a few 100k votes more than May, Boris Johnson got an 80 seat majority (May had none)

there is a very good reason why almost no one in Europe uses FPTP

No. This is a women’s rights issue (and with a few honourable exceptions - back benchers who spoke out early) the Tories are only interested in the culture war.

Labour have not always acted well, but lead by Starmer they are pragmatic and are not the greens/libdems/SNP who make promises on the basis that they don’t have to take responsibility. A party in government is not the same as a party in opposition. The Conservatives were very hung ho on self ID until the legislative problems became obvious.

Why do you ask? I've researched before voting in every elect and have yet to think Tory is the best option. This time around seems a whole new level of no.

Maggie Chapman is a Green MSP loon. No one voted for her. Her name did not even appear on the constituency list. But the Green Party decided to put her top of their list for that region. 6% of voters in the region voted Green (NOT for Maggie Chapman) and she now is a MSP in the Scottish Government. Does she have any interest in what her constituents think? Of course not, she was appointed by the party and her loyalty is to them and their misogynistic batshit policies.

MPs rebel in parliament because they are there as independent MPs each representing their constituents. If they represented parties we could almost do away with MPs and just give parties different numbers of votes. If the governing parties have a majority you could almost get rid of parliament entirely. Which is pretty much what has happened in Scotland.

Labour have not always acted well, but lead by Starmer they are pragmatic and are not the greens/libdems/SNP who make promises on the basis that they don’t have to take responsibility. A party in government is not the same as a party in opposition.

SNP/Greens are the parties of government in Scotland