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.

Interpretation of Article 8 seems to be the basis for women having little power over their single sex spaces today and having to allow males access.

Obviously a fair few other non EU countries are not within the ECHR and sadly suffer from gender extremes too. But other than that do well.

The U.K. does lead on rights often, time to swing back to women’s rights not men’s.

@lechiffre55 - why? Its complimentary. Perhaps you might explain how primary legislation which can be changed at the whim of any government, including a Labour one, can remain static.

And when you've done that, you can tell me how an international law treaty works regarding binding a country such that it treats its citizens correctly in accordance with the articles written by those English lawyers all those many years ago.

Then, you tell me which one is better in terms of a guarantee of rights.

None.
It is the conflation being made here between the legal rights, and the EU court as the ultimate enforcer of those rights that I disagree with.

You can have those rights enforced by the UK legal system, espeically as apparently they were drawn up by the UK legal system originally.

The ECHR is not the only legal organisation capable of upholding those rights. The UK legal system can enforce those right too. Unless of course you think the UK is incabale of doing anything without the EU overseeing it?

So I would change none of those rights, but I would make legal enforcment of those rights a soverign matter not ultimately arbitrated by countries outside of the UK.

@lechiffre55 - ignorant. EU court: which one manages the ECHR?

What does the EU have to do with the ECHR?

Absolutely not.

I'm not sure that articles 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 have proved to have any strength in protecting women from this political movement. I'm quite certain that the right political movement could happily convince people in power that breaches of articles 1, 2, 3 and so on were all ok so long as it was in the name of progress and the right side of history and other marketing bollocks.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced it does it's job any more. Not impartially and for all, only for the right kind of people.

I won't wait for an answer. Any good lawyer, irrespective of politics knows that @lechiffre55 is wrong.

And how rights work for the ECHR in black and white. I hope this is ignorance and not something more calculated.

However you vote, don't vote in ignorance. Know how your rights are secured. If you don't know, then it's time to educate yourself.

Why does the U.K. need to rely on the an outside body such as the ECHR but Australia and NZ do not?

They seem ok as autonomous legal set ups, with good human rights bar gender ones which undermine women

Because both Aus and NZ guarantee rights via their constitution.

The UK does not have a written constitution and so the ECHR binds our government and guarantees our rights.

I think it may prevent the "UK" in that Northern Ireland is supposed to be signed up.

But England, Wales and Scotland can pull out presumably without making a difference.

It literally can be changed by any UK government right now.
The UK is soverign, it makes its own laws. No government can make a law that successive governments can't change.
Right now at this very moment a UK goverment current or future could leave the convention, and change those human rights by changing the existing law.
( As far I'm aware but I'm not a lawyer ) It's not possible in UK law to make a law that can't in the future be unmade or changed by a future government.

I don't want to see the existing human rights removed or watered down any more than you do. But I accept it is possible in law.
Leaving the convention would have one effect and one effect only. What court is the final arbiter of a human rights case. Right now you would have to go all the way through the UK courts before you were able to appeal to the ECHR as the very last resort. Leaving the ECHR means that last step would either be removed or be replaced by a UK equivalent. If you think the EU would be better for any hypothetical case that might arise then that's your opinion and that's fine.

All our UK human rights are determined by UK politicians and the UK laws they make. That's the way it has always been, and will always be.

Why are you talking about the EU?

A dictatorship of the right. An authoritarian political system within a capitalist, private-ownership economic system.

Government by dictatorship rather than democratic mandate. Whether that involves the literal termination of democratic process (as in an actual fascist state, like Nazi Germany), or just the suppression, perversion and corruption of that process to the point that it becomes largely meaningless (eg through criminalising peaceful protest and introducing laws to manipulate the scope of the electorate in your favour, as in a fascist tendency like that of the Tories in current-day Britain). That latter can turn very quickly into the former and it astounds me that more people don't see where we're actually at in that respect. In the USA it very nearly happened - it WOULD have happened if events on the capitol had transpired slightly differently. And yet Trump is still highly popular and quite likely to become president again.

And cultural factors such as:

A tendency toward authoritarianism and the importance of obedience. Suppressing dissent and freedom of thought and expression.

Government control of the media (again, whether by legal dictat or simply what we have, by unity of purpose between the government and the small number of very rich individuals who happen to own almost all the "free" press).

Strong dependance on propaganda rather than rational thought and debate. Cynical and manipulative use of forceful repetition of things that are either plainly untrue or lacking evidence, to make them "true" (Hitler's "big lie"; Jeremy Corbyn's "antisemitism"; Johnson's Covid parties-not-parties).

Scapegoating of minorities and divisive manipulation of public opinion against those minorities, exploiting racism, nationalism & cultural myths etc. Distrust of jusidicial thoroughness and appealing instead to peoples' desire for simple, strong and quick solutions.

PP are right to point out that some of these cultural factors are strong in the current Labour party as well, and I won't be voting for them either. Starmer is an authoritarian through and through. The post-war democratic consensus is basically in meltdown and its institutions have been / are being corrupted beyond the point of being able to deliver their original objectives.

But the Tories are the pits. And the right of the Tories, like Badenoch, the pits of the pits.

A quick google

‘Unlike many other nations, New Zealand has no single constitutional document. It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an "unwritten constitution", although the New Zealand constitution is in fact an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources.’

No.

Sounds similar

Status: The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document.

Simon somebody in the Guardian says the Tories could do worse. Because Badenoch believes in the same stuff as Patel , Braverman and Truss but she is not ' doctrinaire'. Instead she is pragmatic you see.

I think this could mean one of two things - or maybe a bit of both. Firstly , it's OK folks she is just showboating to get the nutters on the backbenches and membership onside. Once elected she will tack back towards the centre.

Secondly , it means she is less deranged than Patel , Braverman and Truss , as well as being more intelligent than the last named. Therefore Simon can commend her to us without looking like a raving fascist. Possibly.

On to the sainted Rory Stewart , the new King over the water like his illustrious almost namesake James II. He voted for Osborne's Austerity nonsense and still stands by it 100%. And since it is Austerity which is the source of all Britain's woes and discontents since 2010...

It's not that the UK government is incapable of protecting human rights. It's that they don't want to. They want to change UK law so that it doesn't align with the ECHR. They have already gone against the UN on human rights with the Illegal Migrants Act.

Who drafted it 75+ years ago has no effect on what a government in 2023 does with it.

No I can’t vote Tory because Badenoch and the Tories are still Tories. I am extremely grateful to her flushing this issue out into the media and into her party consciousness after it being sequestered to discussion on this board and a few other places for over a decade though.
I’m not a single issue voter until I see what Labour have to actually say on this. I can’t forgive the Tories for what they have done to this country over the past 13 years with Brexit, housing crisis, Covid mishandling, climate crisis, cost of living crisis, corrupt and incompetent government, Child poverty through the roof.

I believe we can have a decent government from a different party and still achieve change from a GC perspective. This is already happening across politics and media. Like with that Westminster Hall debate and more people coming out publicly to support GC views.

To the messages above. The European Court of Human Rights ( legal court ) is the final arbiter of legal matters brought under the European Convention of Human Rights ( a treaty ).

The Tories are not talking about leaving the treaty part, they are talking about leaving the court part. So the rights would stand, as already ensconced in UK law, only the final artbiter of any cases would not be the EU court.
But I think the convention call for the EU court to be the final arbiter, so it may not be possible to ditch the EU court while retaining the treaty.

Absolutely not she has terrible views on a lot of things which would be incredibly damaging to women and children. My vote has to be about more than a single issue

Yes

No. But I don’t vote Tory anyway.

It's amazing to me that this is board about women's rights which is intimately tied up with the ECHR and the guarantees given and this is the level of knowledge,.

The conflation of sex and gender in the rights of women was done by guidance. Not operation of law.

It is properly written and scrutinised law that will solve this.

Not some half cocked ignorance about the ECHR being a problem. People who believe this stuff are either ignorant or not being candid about their intentions.