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.

That it was important for countries to listen to a single international authority to stop them behaving in ‘wrong’ ways. Otherwise monarchs could decide to do what they like, for example getting divorced or translating the Bible into a language to people could read.

@fearfuloffluff - there are many that oppose them from within their own party. These are not lefties but thoughtful Tories. Many of them are former Ministers.

If the Tory Party campaign for this I will make common cause with these former Ministers and get campaigning.

And don't get me started on suspicion of elites, bureaucrats etc which usually means people who have an education and stick to fundamental principles of fairness instead of going along with populist nonsense.

Yes, elites would never do anything corrupt, or unfair, or out of selfish interest, or out of incompetence.

I mean you have just said that governments do bad things, sure government elites do bad things; but the international elites, wonderful people, you would have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to question that level of elites.

Otherwise a government could decide that, for example, Romany people have to only live in certain reservations and can't park up where they like. The population may well support that, it would probably be a popular policy but it would also be a breach of their human rights that could basically confine them to prison camps.

Yes, like confining them to prison camps, or you know, land that they own, or have the landowners permission to be on. It's a terrible human rights violation of course, but the ECHR doesn't prevent a determined government from doing something like that if they really wanted and had the public backing; so any protection of "rights" here is only limited.

I'm not sure where you two are on the argument but the Catholic Church is a good example of fallibility. The Pope may have sat above kings in a sense but the Catholic Church has one of the worst histories of abuse.

Whoever is at the top, who makes sure they behave properly?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yes, that was my point. Fallibility and lack of accountability.

Here too. We use votes as an electorate for accountability

Also changing ideas of what is ‘good’.

So Kemi Badenoch has written to ECHR about proposed legislation that would do what you want it to do, and they have said that would be acceptable under ECHR. Why would you need to leave ECHR then?

The politicians who complain about ECHR previously complained about the EU in the same way - blaming it for decisions that were really within the remit of the national government: if only we were freed from the restrictions imposed on us by this institution, everything would be perfect

It's not true. The government should take accountability for its own decisions.

I agree with you.
It's sort of a what holds up the sky question.
Every time you put a new oversight body at the top of the tree, that body itself then needs oversight.

I think at the very least having multiple layers like the court systems is good, but in the end how do we deal with rulings that seem patently absurd coming from the top layer?
I think the only way to keep that scrutiny at the top is to close the circle and send it back to the populance. To a degree voters and goverment do that.
Example : SNP and their crazy rapist gender. SNP was an absolute power in Scotland, now they are waiting to see if anyone goes to prison. The press and voters have been instrumental in that and it will become even more apparent at the next general election.

It’s not a done deal. I’m watching legal challenge which is always possible.

The other side is citizens rights to security and I think this will become more strained as mass displacement occurred

I don’t think things will be ‘perfect’ but I’m ready to talk about what is causing this huge problem for women in a society based on a legal lie and make some changes to institutional structures to resolve it.

So who is the equivalent of the pope in the UK political system?

The Catholic Church has done many bad things, but it's a faith rather than a democratically elected body.

You seem to be saying that an 'elite' comprising lawyers, judges, civil servants - who else? Are somehow acting against the will of 'the people'

In a democracy there is an executive, a legislature, a judiciary. That's the separation of powers. They balance each other out.

I don't really get what you're saying - the educated professionals at the higher echelons of these institutions are all corrupt and should be replaced? The institutions are corrupt?

You seem to be saying that sometimes things happen that you don't like, and therefore they must be against 'the will of the people' but there is no 'people', there are many different opinions and viewpoints and a mature democracy needs to balance them all, which means sometimes decisions are made that you don't like. But you suck that up and campaign if you want things to change, including voting for the party that will change things the way you want.

There seems to be a really nihilistic, destructive spirit out there led by this wing of the Tory party that wants to tear things down without really having an articulate vision of what's wrong with them, what should replace them, what their vision of the future looks like.

So who is the equivalent of the pope in the UK political system?

ECHR

SNP was an absolute power in Scotland

I thought they weren’t, which is why it was blocked/delayed (not sure which) Subsequently the bill has also loss political support.

Presumably you're talking about the Catholic Church's wrongs in terms of child abuse, beating, Magdalen nurseries, taking children away from unmarried mothers, financial corruption and political interference etc.

What actions of the ECHR are comparable to that?

ECHR rules on whether national laws are witihin the limits of human rights law. Very often the rulings are in favour of the government, but individuals take the case to ECHR to test the law. Papers report this as being something outrageous that shouldn't happen, but not all claims succeed, especially if they have no merit.

They rule on whether a government is staying within the rules that it signed up to. I don't see any comparison to the Catholic Church at all, it's an entirely different thing.

Do you think Aus and NZ are lacking from being outside an institution such as ECHR?

@fearfuloffluff

This adds up to saying you don't believe in the rule of law. Which is fascist. The alternative to rule of law is tyranny and being unable to challenge the executive.

That's a massive and illogical leap on your part.

Pointing out real issues with having a ECHR style system, isn't anything like saying I don't believe in the rule of law.

There was the threat of a legal challenge from the UK government to the Scottish government about it about which authority had the right to make law in that area.

I don't think human rights came into it. Where to put trans prisoners is a challenge - I don't think they should be in women's prisons but they're at risk in male prisons and of course, some male prisoners will feign being trans to be in a woman's prison.

No

I wouldn't vote for any Tory and I certainly wouldn't vote for this culture war stoking , self publicising, piece of work with a voting record that shows she doesn't care about people or the environment.

No, I am talking about the Pope’s power prior to the reformation.

I don't know, I don't know enough about them tbh.

I don't see the point of leaving the ECHR though. It's been built up to be some corrupt terrible thing - it's not. They tell governments if they are acting within the set of rules they signed up to.

The judges are elected from across Europe from the full range of countries - likely to be less liberal than ours, tbh.

https://www.echr.coe.int/composition-of-the-court

Women’s rights to single sex spaces and sport

These aren’t rights.

However there are rights under which the argument could be made (E.g. right not to suffer discrimination) that these things should be legal and available.

Without a rights framework a government could legislate to ban both.

Really? Actually really? Like the Spanish inquisition and Crusades etc - you think that's equivalent to the ECHR?

Equivalent to a judicial body elected in regular terms by the nations who are signatories to it, who produce rulings on whether legislation upholds human rights?

I for one don't want to live in a country where the government can do anything it likes to me with no hope of redress, thanks.

Are you serious? Good lord.

The downstream impact of the Goodwin ECHR ruling is playing out at this very moment with FWR Scotland arguing an appeal against what is effectively a ban on single sex spaces.