Miriam Cates under investigation

[Arealnumber]

Why has Miriam Cates suddenly gone under investigation? The comments in The Times are usually highly supportive of the MPs that speak out against Gender Ideology but they're properly railing against her. What has been her downfall?

😂

The treatment of huge numbers of young people, that will impact them and society for decades, is not a minor difference of policy.

Rumour has it, the Tories are looking to help young people onto the housing ladder, a noble aim, yet it is their policies that have wrecked the housing and rental markets, not least because of the amount of debt the young & successful now have to pay back, that and Truss of course.

Not sure I understand. I was responding to jgw's suggestion that MPs should not remain within a party if they did not agree with each and every policy.

Cates will have her views, as will her colleagues. They will arrive at a party policy. You then have an opposition who will similarly share a variety of views, albeit to the left but aim to have a coherent and united policy go offer as an alternative.

I am glad that Cates is raising women's issues. A lot of men, from both sides of the house, don't get why they are important. I amsure that I would disagree with her on other issues.

Interesting you raise China.
A country where boys are valued more highly than girls so the birthrate is somewhat uneven.

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough.

Cates is apparently criticising the results of a policy that has been a policy of the party she chooses to be a member. Indeed it has been a policy of theirs for at least the last 13 years.

There is a difference between not agreeing with the details of a policy and openly rubbishing a policy of your party.

So should Cates only be a member of a party she totally agrees with (a difficult position to hold when the party’s policy changes) or should she be free to disagree with a policy of her party? Or something else? You seem naïve about the reality of being an MP, and unaware of the whipping system which constrains how an MP can vote. Politics is messy, partly because politicians are usually trying to get what they see as the best practical outcome, not aiming for perfection and inevitably missing the target by miles.

It really is sad, especially as I attended one of the best universities in the country for my subject - thankfully fees were only a grand a year when I went to uni so not being able to get much paid work in the arts isn’t as painful for me as it is for more recent graduates.

I seem to recall hearing that around 30,000 students graduate from visual arts degrees at U.K. universities every year but can’t work out what to Google to check that number (just get loads of adverts for courses).

Sometimes I think about doing a conversion MA in a subject that actually has a job at the end of it but then I come back to my senses!

Definitely won’t be encouraging my children to get into debt for a non-vocational degree.

Surely all MPs have been at odds with party policy at some point?

Some may well be too chickenshit to say so publicly, of course.

It's not about being'chicken shit', rather politics is about discussions at all levels.

People have been surprised at some of the WhatsApp messages that have been used during the Covid Inquiry. It's my belief that MPs should have the freedom to discuss ideas privately as well as publicly. Most discussions in parliament take place in informal settings. Not everything an MP says or does should be scrutinised so minutely as it is.

MPs are accountable at the ballot box. Their actions should be judged then. They will galvanise around a party manifesto, perhaps disagreeing with parts of it but knowing that they can fight their cause if returned to Westminster.

Of course. But jgw seems to think that all MPs in each party think exactly the same as all others in their party and all agree in totality with all the policies of their party.

There’s always some jostling with views. We’ve seen a fair bit lately, the opposition usually has an easier time out of power but even they have experienced it. Gaza and now the off shore processing. Not all will agree

Like i said, Uni fee's are not a minor policy.

I 'm not saying she should quit the Tories btw but i do find it strange that a newly elected tory MP is so at odds with her party, be it on women's issues or tuition fees.

Yes lots of men don't get womens issues, Cleverly certainly doesn't!!

(i wonder what many posters on here would have to say if a Labour front bencher told a similar joke?)

Thats why i support a party far more women MPs than one that hasn't, women obviously must feel comfortable within Labour.

women obviously must feel comfortable within Labour

Really? How comfortable would Rosie Duffield be feeling with her party’s treatment of pro women views

What are you suggesting Rosie Duffield do, since she is very clearly at odds with her own party.

The gap between Sunak and Cates on women's issues seems less wide than the gap between Starmer and Duffield. At least Sunak is not afraid to say what a woman is, and appointed Badenoch as Women's Minister with a clear remit to row back on gender ideology and Stonewall influence.

There is no problem you preferring Labour for a whole variety of reasons, but it is really a stretch to suggest they have been more effective or committed on the defence of women's rights.

Your trust in Sunak and the Tories seems to ignore the reality of Tory policy on Gender and on women in general, slashing funding for DV refuge's, their room tax.
I agree they say the things many wish to hear but the reality is they have removed rights & protections for women.

Labour cannot be effective on womens issues, they are not in Government.

Badenoch? whats she done? kicked every single womens issue down the road, blamed the ECHR, done zilch on GRA reform and has just signed off that its all ok for the NHS to treat 7yo's for gender issues (it was 4yo) woo weee!!!

Bottom line is far more women seek to join and then get elected (quite important that) for Labour than they do the Conservatives and who would blame them, which MP was caught looking at porn in the house of commons?
The Cleverly joke, shows to me, exactly what they think of women, as did Johnson and fathering so many children from multiple partners, he may have left the party now but he was very widely supported and on here too.

Duffield? just as i said with Cates, she doesn't have to resign and join another party, she was elected as Labour after all.

Just because people can appreciate the issues that the Tories, generally, have got right when it comes to the issue of women's rights versus gender ideology does not mean that people admire and "trust" the Conservatives more generally.

If you are expecting whiter than white behaviour from every Labour member then you'll be waiting a long time. Look at the very overt and disgraceful behaviour of Lloyd Russell Moyle, for one. There will always be scandals ehen it comes to the behaviour of politicians. This is the nature of modern social media and wall to wall news coverage.

If you cannot determine what a woman is, then how on earth can you be trusted with anything else when it comes to women. It all becomes meaningless.

That the Labour party seems to think a woman is just an adopted identity and set of poses is deeply concerning. Even if they don't really believe it that they are prepared to act and legislate as if they do is perhaps even worse. Can you imagine them suporting the concept of " identifying as black"? Me, neither!

Starmer speaks with a forked tongue on this issue.

Women's rights and protections are in jeopardy with both parties ( in differnt ways). The very existence of women as a distinct category of human being is threatened by the Labour party position. Meanwhile, they bleat on about violence against women and girls - whilst being porepared to admit males into women's protected spaces, services and sporting categories.

They suggest women and girls who feel uncomfortable undressing around males are hateful and should be ashamed of themselves. They are enabling the transition of young, same sex attracted girls - and supporting the use of public money, via the NHS, to remove the breasts of such young women, and the prescription of cross sex hormones - referring to this as 'trans healthcare'.

This is a thread about Miriam Cates and her suspension though. So Labour/Duffield/the conservatives and their endless stream of sexually inappropriate behaviour are all really irrelevant.

It seems to have moved to how much freedom MPs have within their parties

If a pp claims Labour are better for women Duffield is likely to come up as an obvious example of why not

So do we know why she is under investigation yet?

No, it's very quiet
She's written some pointless article in the express but otherwise nothing. I don't know how long these things usually take

I'm responding to someone's point about who can be trusted or not - so it is not irrelevent in the least. We are supposed to believe that because Miriam Cates values motherhood and the family that she is somehow against women's rights - which is perverse. Most women are mothers and most people live in families.

Rather it could be seen as perverse that the Left wing ideal for women appears to be alignment and mergence with the masculine model of worth, value and society - to the point that male and female are supposedly indistinguinshable from each other; where women perceive motherhood as a punishment to be avoided at all costs.

Yet that appears to be the Tory approach.

Whilst you think the Tories "know what a woman is" the reality is they don't or rather don't care, they have systematically removed rights, protections and pandered to the Gender ideology, why after 13 years have they done nothing, nothing at all about the GRA? why have they made a GRC cheaper? why have they opened more NHS GR clinics? why do they allow 100s of men each year to be legally classed as women? and without any surgical intervention at all and why do they allow non violent men to be sent to womens prisons?

This is the evidence that counters "they know what a woman is"

Where is there any evidence at all that Cates supports motherhood? let alone the Government, which is focused completely on getting women out to work and full time too.

Yet you think Starmer speaks with a forked tonque.

It is rather difficult to argue with your POV though, as you seem to have taken a rather extreme view on Labour, one which is at odds with why so many women belong to the Labour party and are MPs.

No. There's "no supposed to believe" about it. She actively supports policies that are harmful to women and even when she does say things that are sensible (e.g. tuition fees are too high) he party doesn't agree.

She's recently come out and said she's against reduction of the wage needed for migrants to bring their families from £39,000 to £29,000, yet says keeping families together is important to her.

She's against immigration, but is concerned about UK population collapse and thinks we should have more babies.

At best she makes no sense, at worst she's damaging to any British person who isn't in a white, nuclear family set up.

The only reason posters on the "feminism" board seem to like her is because she's happy to say women don't have penises. It's a low bar. Maybe we should look a bit broader into what the world would actually be like for women if she had her way regarding policies. I don't want to go back to the fifties thanks.