Miriam Cates/National Conservatives conference

[AdamRyan]

Miriam Cates was due to speak at the NatCon conference in Brussels tomorrow, on the topic of "Save The Children!"
The conference has been shut down because the Mayor will not tolerate the far right.

Here is a tweet to GB news discussing why the conference was shut down:

https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1780239986861744280?s=19&t=hHgjMANzaGdj92-GTys1ig

I'm putting this here because I know a lot of GC feminists support Cates - I don't, and this stuff is why. She is awful.

No, according to Wes Streeting, they have moved from traditional conservatism to adopting Labour policies, like the smoking ban.

Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, told the Commons: “Of all the policies the Conservatives have adopted from the Labour party in the past few years, nothing shows our dominance in the battle of ideas more than this latest capitulation.

“We happily align ourselves with big health in defence of the nation and we are only too happy to defend the health secretary against the siren voices of big tobacco we see gathered around our former prime minister in the corner of the chamber.

“A stopped clock is right twice a day, and I find myself agreeing with the former prime minister. This is absolutely an un-Conservative bill, it is a Labour bill, and we are delighted to see the government bring it forward.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/16/house-of-commons-votes-in-favour-of-smoking-ban-despite-opposition-from-dozens-of-tories

So you are saying that the Prime Minister isn't a Conservative.

Got it.

You've largely answered your own question. He was fiscally conservative, not socially. And he has moved further left over his career. David Cameron was conservative PM but was as centrist as they come. Tony Blair was PM for 12 years and as centrist as they come. Does ex leader Blair being a centrist show how left the labour party have gone?

This

Its interesting how being fairly centralist tends to win elections. When Labour dabbled with moving Left under Corbyn they didn't fare that well, and now the Conservatives have veered suddenly to the right and face winning fewer than 100 seats at the General Election later in the year.

On both those occassions it appears the supporters of the respective non-centralist positions fail to see that they are off putting to much of the electorate.

I agree entirely with this.

No, I said that Wes Streeting said that the bill was un-Conservative. This BBC report says that several Tory MPs have also said that the bill is un-Conservative.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68816566

the Conservatives have veered suddenly to the right

And yet with the smoking ban, they have taken a Labour policy and pushed it through parliament with opposition support despite many tories abstaining or voting against it.

Do you view the smoking ban as a left-wing or right-wing policy?

Cates is one of those people who is full of cant re freedoms but then is all for regulating personal freedoms for women, cf abortion limits, no fault divorce, paid childcare. To say she is antediluvian in her own party is putting it mildly.

I thought it unpleasant when farmers protesting in the UK Canada, Germany were labelled far right activists. There's definitely an agenda there.

@OldCrone yes the smoking ban was certainly considered left wing when Jacinda Ardern implemented a similar law in New Zealand. And Clarke who is being described as way to the left of the current party in this thread is against the ban and was a chair of a tobacco company. So it's not simple, but all I know is I'll try to avoid sharing a platform with Ken Clarke as then I would simultaneously be left and right, which effectively would make me wide.

I seem to remember Clarke having a whisky and a cigar in the Commons when he delivered the Budget! The attitudes to smoking have changed beyond all recognition in the last 30 years. Anti smoking used to be pretty crankish

I should have thought a smoker may well be more aware than a non-smoker of the harms of smoking and the importance of never starting given the difficulties of quitting.

Quite.
I also find it interesting this has turned into a chat about "free speech".

There are loads of conferences,it costs time and money to attend, most people in a job where conference attendance is useful have to prioritise which to go to.

Most people attend conferences to meet like minded colleagues, hear about development's "in their field" and spread their own messages to like minded people.

So therefore it says a lot to me that Braverman and Cates consider NatCon a valuable use of their time.

Funding for the event as always a bit dodge too
https://www.desmog.com/2024/04/16/national-conservatism-natcon-event-farage-braverman-organised-mcc-oil-funded-hungary-group/

MCC [funding the conference] is conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic, and “plays a key role in spreading the ideology of the Hungarian government”.
Balázs Orbán [chair of MCC and the Hungarian presidents political director] has said: “It is our goal for Hungary to become an intellectual powerhouse, in which MCC plays a key role.

I don't really want the UK to follow Hungary's example thanks.

Anyway, conference is going ahead today so let's see what she says.

Farage and Braverman must be furious that the reporting has been about the conference being shut down rather than their speeches.

And in other (kept very quiet) news, Yiannis Varoufakis has been banned from Germany. The ban covers any political activity -- even Zoom meetings.

See how this works, AdamRyan? See what happens? Suddenly, it's not so funny to go on about freezepeach anymore, is it?

Farage and Braverman must be furious that the reporting has been about the conference being shut down rather than their speeches.

I doubt it, I think for Farage in particular this plays right into his hands.

It seems like only yesterday AdamRyan was railing against Michael Gove widening the definition of terrorism.

The problem some Conservatives will have with the smoking ban is that it is state interference, and they want to see a small state.

Others might wonder if it will work. Prohibition was not a great success in America. There is a risk that requiring people to go to a black market, will encourage criminality and risk cigarettes becoming a gateway to other drugs. Probably other reasons as well.

The argument: cigarettes are bad therefore a cigarette ban is good, will be seen as some as over simplistic, and risks unintended consequences.

The next step…Cates did not vote for a cigarette ban so is therefore a bad person whose views on sex and gender and child safeguarding should be ignored, is plain silly.

There are certainly aspects of NatC views that fit Gove's definition.

It's quite hard to define the Conservative ethos. I think it's a smoking Christian who doesn't want women in challenging employment but then also have No state dependence while maintaining your comphet badge with your husband that you can't divorce freely

I don't think I was "railing" 😂More pointing out that ^his own party" meets his definitions. It's that legal pedantry again.

If you read back you'll see I said I disagreed with the conference being shut down.

Pretty bloody hilarious that many people on this thread are more bothered about that, than our mainstream politicians deciding this is the place to "conference" and what that says about them.

Children are already banned from smoking and purchasing tobacco products. This law creates a cohort of adults who are banned from purchasing tobacco products whilst other adults are allowed to do so.

Whilst I can see that ultimately this is likely to improve health outcomes over many decades it's a very nanny state/totalitarian way of doing it. So I understand why many MPs have reservations about the removal of liberty for some adults and not not others. Their objection is unlikely to be because they don't care about the ill effects of smoking.

At it's core it's an argument about how much freedom people are willing to trade for protection and the risk that the same logic will be applied to other things.

Yes, you don't agree with the conference being shut down just with shaming anyone who attends. Why not wait and actually watch the speeches with an open mind.

I don't see why anyone should be ashamed of their political views.

I think voters should know the political views of their MPs and the party they are voting for, amd people claiming they are being "shamed" are employing silencing tactics.

Ironically simular silencing tactics to those used by fetishists with "kink shaming".