Kemi Badenoch

[CassieMaddox]

Looking unlikely to win the Conservative leadership now and has gone very quiet about women's rights/the EA during her campaign.

Current favourite is Cleverly.

I know she had a lot of support on here so just wondering what people thought had gone wrong for her?

She didn't say that it was excessive though, she said the regulation on business was excessive.

Those are not at all the same thing.

I can't figure out if people are just accepting that others say she said that maternity pay was too high and not looking into it, or don't see that there is a difference between saying women get too much maternity pay and businesses are affected by over-regulation.

I think it's what she did say.

You seem to be imagining all kinds of things that aren't in the text at all are the case.

She didn't say that it was excessive though, she said the regulation on business was excessive.

She literally, actually, did say that Maternity pay was excessive. You can't blame people for taking her at her word.

I think it's what she did say.

You may think that, but you are making stuff up in your head/ doing mental gymnastics / imagining shit /gaslighting instead of addressing her actual words. The National Autistic Society along with others have called her out on her words. She could have explained if she thought they got it wrong, but she hasn't. Because they didn't get her wrong.

For the last time........ she said regulation on business was excessive.

So what was her point about maternity pay?

From my understanding, SMP was one of too many regulations on businesses. It wasn't fair that it came from tax payers money and people should take more responsibility for their lives (not rely on the state).

So does she think employers should pay it?

From my understanding she doesn't believe in regulation (typical neo liberal), and thinks NMW is too high and things like SMP should be scrapped. She said people should take responsibility which I take to mean, pay for themselves.

I would be very surprised if Badenoch believes in the welfare state.

She actually didn't' say at all how she thought it should work, nor do the interviewer pursue that. She did say that she thought the regulatory burden on business was a problem for businesses. She also pointed out that more and more women are working and therefore needing to claim maternity pay which is funded through taxes, but she didn't elaborate on that thought, nor did the interviewer.

She did in fact say that "of course" she believes women need maternity pay.

She did not at any time say that the pay was excessive, and this continual claim she did is a lie.

I really struggle to see how it demonstrates anything other than prejudice to represent meeting the needs of children with autism as giving them "better" treatment than other children, let alone to depict the provision of basic school transport as some sort of unusual privilege.

What she seems to be saying is that having certain kinds of diagnoses, which are significantly on the increase, is creating a situation where diagnosed kids are prioritized for access to certain kinds of help.

But that's obvious. That is what the law requires, and has done at least since the Education Act 1996. Has she only just discovered it? The point is that she is not just saying they are prioritised for access, she is saying that they get "better" treatment and equipment, "even" transport - and that word "even" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there in implying that transport is some sort of major privilege.

She also focuses on diagnosis as bringing all these privileges: obviously it helps to have a diagnosis to access the right sort of help for your child, but the fact remains that you can get an EHCP without any diagnosis at all - the criteria certainly don't demand one.

Oh right. So she just said maternity pay is excessive without expanding on why it excessive and who's funding that excessiveness.

Now she's moved on from women's maternity pay to disabled children's right to education and the provision of school transport.

New mothers, autistic school children, disabled people in the workplace? Who will she target next in the unnecessary, cruel, stupid culture wars she thinks are adequate replacement for policies and ideas?

She is saying that the law doesn't work as it was envisioned because it is creating two tiers of students, so yes, I rather imagine she does know what the law says.

Transport is a good example, it can be a major problem for some kids. There are parents who would like to send their children to a school that would be much better for them, for all kinds of reasons - access to programs, access to a different environment, getting away from bullying or other social problems just as some possibilities - and they can't because transportation is out of their means or can't be organized. No transportation help is available for those children even though it could create a far better educational experience for them.

Another example is the lack of help available for kids who are gifted to do well and make the best of school. It rather puts the lie to the idea that all children whatever their abilities need to be treated according to their needs.

No, as has been said several times, she did not say maternity pay was excessive.

Do you keep repeating that because you think the more you say something the more true it will become? Or you just want more people to believe that? Or you are taking a page from the Ronald Reagan school of truthiness?

Pay being excessive does not equal regulations being excessive. That shouldn't be too complicated to comprehend.

She also said she herself had claimed maternity pay when she had had her children so she knows how important it is to women. As others have said, it was the interviewer that mentioned maternity pay - kemi was talking about business regulations.

There is already an existing thread about the maternity pay issue/Kemi Badenoch on which this was more fully discussed.

That is a very blunt and un-nuanced interpretation - but yes she was talking about alternative ways to fund benefits ( pensions, health, maternity etc) - different schemes and ways which individuals would take more control over their own provisions.

At present NI is supposed to fund these things, but in reality it ends up just being another form of direct taxation - with no guaranteed future provision.

So a bit like curent NI - but maybe separate pots which have distinct labels - such as. 'Maternity', 'Health', 'Pension'. People already pay into private and company pensions schemes, and increasingly people are also opting into private health and dentistry schemes.......maybe the same could be rolled out for maternity?

She tends to be a 'big systems' thinker...maybe as a result of her engineering background......She's interested in systems and how to improve them generally. I think that is why some say she is not good on details.....but you cannot get the details right if you don't first of all understand how the system itself works or is not working.

It is just not true. The Western European tradition has laways provided for a basic safety net for those most in need but different countries fund their health provisons, for example, in different ways -using different systems.

The NI contribution scheme was originally initiated to fund provisions such as pensions, but in reality NI just gets swallowed up as general taxation. The new Labour government is about to put up NI contributions, whilst also floating the possibility that in future the state pension itself may not be universal and may have to be means tested.

If that was the case than NI contributions actually mean nothing. They guarantee nothing. People tend to say " Oh, but I've been paying in my whole life......" because of the unspoken understanding that NI was their insurance policy. In future, it may be that people have to take out specific insurance policies of some kind in order to guarantee benefits such as pensions, health provison and maternity pay.

‘Thinker’? Come off it. She’s a cheap populist trying to make a career name for herself at the expense of new mothers, autistic kids, anyone. Ask the National Autistic Society:

https://www.autism.org.uk/what-we-do/news/the-national-autistic-society-has-responded-to-kem

Mel Merritt, Head of Policy and Campaigns at the National Autistic Society, said: "Kemi Badenoch’s comments and the statements in the ‘Conservatism in Crisis’ document are not only offensive to autistic people but detached from reality and demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of autism and disability.

"Politicians need to stop looking to the autistic community as a political football and instead recognise the difficulties and challenges that so many autistic people face in their daily lives. They need to engage in good faith to make a positive impact rather than dismissing their needs. Our charity would be happy to provide factual and evidence-based information about autism through one of our excellent autism awareness training sessions.

"Autistic people and their families face huge delays and long fights to get support across all aspects of their lives, including diagnosis, health, education and social care. It is greatly concerning that in 2024, elected politicians still don’t understand that autism is not a mental health condition and to say that ‘anxiety’ is a neurodivergent condition, is completely incorrect.

"Being autistic doesn’t offer economic advantages and protections, only three in 10 autistic people are in any form of employment, the lowest of any disability. Reasonable adjustments are in no way an immediate pathway into economic privilege, but a legal right to make sure autistic people can participate in work, education and live a dignified life.

"To say children with a diagnosis of a neurodivergent condition, like autism, ‘may well get better treatment or equipment at school’ and ‘even transport to school’ is to misinterpret legal protections and adjustments that give young people access to the education they need and should be entitled to. Parents of autistic children have to fight too hard and too long for support; often having to pay for expensive legal battles, that overwhelming find in favour of families."

I was happy when Kemi Badenoch started speaking up about gender identity politics and would love the Tories to have had another woman leader. I am very disappointed in Labour that they haven’t promoted a woman in that way. I would love to see Yvette Cooper take over from Kier Starmer when the time comes.

I am very disappointed that KB hasn’t followed up her initial interest in gender identity politics with any concern for women’s rights. Quite the opposite. so I’m following the received wisdom on here about when people tell you who they are and that you should believe them. I really want a strong opposition, given the Lab majority. But it has to be rooted in reality and some genuine understanding of other people’s lives.

Why is that two tier? It sounds as if you think that children with SEND get carte blanche to demand transport to whichever school their parents fancy, and that simply isn't true. It's equally the case that autistic children can't get transport to schools that would be better for them if there is a school that is deemed adequate that is closer.

There is a fairly obvious difference between a child with learning difficulties who cannot access education at all and a gifted child who isn't getting the optimum school experience.

I'm enjoying this leadership contest- it's fun to see KB say something that seems outrageous and then a load of people pop up to tell us what she really meant, which isn't really outrageous at all, we're just too thick to understand.

I mean, it isn't like she's applying for a job that would require her to communicate complicated ideas in an easy to understand and convincing way to a sceptical, time-poor public, is it?

So autistic children are never supplied with a laptop that is not supplied to other children? I struggled with some aspects of school with little understanding or help from adults, because of traits that might have led to a diagnosis of ASC had I been born 30 years later, so I have a lot of sympathy for those who do have a diagnosis. This does not mean that the current system is fair to all, or effective. I have little doubt that it helps some children, but many are in practice left to struggle on just as my generation had to.

Autistic children would only be supplied with a laptop that isn't supplied to others if there were a fully evidenced need for it, for example hypermobile and painful joints which make handwriting difficult (hypermobility is quite often co-morbid with ASC). It's not a luxury or an unfair advantage, it's simply intended to put them on a level with their peers.

If some children are being "left to struggle on" just as your generation had to, @RapidOnsetGenderCritic, because they have unrecognised SEN, that's a failure of the SEN system. It doesn't mean that children who have been proved to need help shouldn't get it.