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?

There are plenty of issues with Islamism - which is a political ideology.

You cannot say the same of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddism, Taoism or pretty much any other religion. The vast majority of migrant Hindus, Sikhs and Chinese immigrants don't make demands suggesting that Britain's laws don't apply to them, or attempt to set up a whole separate jurisdiction of their own.

Of course Hindus and Muslims clash in India, and there is a movement amongst Sikh people to have their own state - because they see Hindus as the ruling/dominant class who are prioritised in India above all others.Some of those clashes have spilled over in Britain - in recent riots and disturbances in the Midlands....Badenioch made a point about that.

It is the not the country or regime of origin that is the issue - it is when those cultural issues are transplanted into the UK.

Those fleeing Hong Kong are integrating and embracing British culture - they are not bringing repressive chinese practices with them.

@short "The vast majority of migrant Hindus, Sikhs and Chinese immigrants don't make demands suggesting that Britain's laws don't apply to them, or attempt to set up a whole separate jurisdiction of their own"

Are you saying that a large proportion of Islamic immigrants are doing this? The law should clearly apply to everyone, especially those freeman of the land dicks

No, I'm suggesting that adherents to Islamism do. Islamism as a political ideology has no clear equivalent in Hindui, Sikh, Buddhist or Taoist communities living in the UK. We don't hear of radicalised gurus or Hindu leaders preaching radicalisation and hate in British temples and other places of worship in the way that we do with some Islamist preachers.

I tend to agree.

My read is that she was making a broader point, and wasn't agile enough to state her view on maternity pay clearly.

My best guess is that she meant something like: "Businesses are over-regulated, and that has a real cost. We need to reduce regulation, and re-think what the right balance is. And yes, maternity pay isn't excluded from the list of things we should think about".

I think the BBC coverage was not unfair in isolation. But I think it is unbalanced in general. Things that deviate from a particular left-liberal-elite world view (from either left or right) get subjected to a much less charitable reading than things that align.

Eg If a politician had said: "I think we should always believe women." I think that would have gone un-commented on, as just a slight over-statement of the 'right' opinion. The BBC would not have run news items questioning whether the politician was intending to abolish the presumption of innocence in our court system, create a two-tier citizenship, etc.

So if there is an issue with some islamists, which makes them a fraction of a fraction of the Muslim immigrants... would it not be fair to say that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants aren't doing the bad things that the Hindus aren't doing either?

I'm always puzzled that when someone says something opposing something bad, it's so often assumed to be motivated by an unspoken bigotry instead. As if the hearer can't believe that anyone actually opposes the bad thing.

It's possible that Kemi is bigoted against Muslims, and that's the reason she pretends to worry about women not being permitted to speak with politicians on the doorstep.

But how hard is it to believe that she actually doesn't like the exclusion of women from public life?

It does seem to happen more from lefties than the reverse. I've never heard: Leftie: "I'm really worried about children living in poverty". Rightie: "Oh here we go, no-one could care about that, you must be an anti-Traveller bigot".

We're not the nasty Tories is pretty good for now.

Maybe I'd have a bit of respect for the Tories if they'd had a bit of humility and admitted they'd got a shitload wromg. But no they've gone straight for the usual personality politics. I understand why because sadly our media give it so much publicity and the public lap it up.

People voted Labour because they were fed up with public services going down the toilet. They recognised that tax cuts/breaks for the wealthy wouldnt help them at all.

The Tories had 14 years to try and get things right. Yet Starmer is supposed to turn things round in a few weeks. Anyone who thinks the Tories left the coountry in a better place than they found it just deludes themselves.

The problem for Starmer is that people didn't vote for a twenty year project which includes more austerity; cuts to winter fuel allowances, child benefit caps and so on. People wanted to see an immediate improvement - but now in government Labour is realising that governing is far more difficult than opposing - and already have conceded that things are going to take far longer than they had anticipated. The health service is broken, and it requires fundamental change. The asylum back-log will take at least three years and not one as they suggested.

All over Europe economies are struggling - it is not just Britain; covid and the lockdown, high energy costs due to the war in Ukraine, plus migration issues everywhere puttng pressure on domestic systems. Not everything can be blamed on the Tories - and people will very soon tire of Starmer trying to shift the responsibility...many already have.

Integration and embrace of cultural norms and values is the issue i'd say. A family friend of ours is Muslim, from Pakistan - but he is fully integrated; wears westernised clothing; is married to a white British woman with whom he has two children; he studied for a degree here and is employed in a senior role with responsibility in a university. He still prays, though and observes Ramadan.

I think some of the problem is with uneducated migrants who tend to cling more to their home culture. Men bringing in wives from Pakistan or their home village because they are seen as more traditional and observant; and these women don't integrate well; often don't really speak English; are not educated.Women wearing the veil is also an issue. It is against the law in France because the veil goes against all French values ; it also signals a wilful separation from the host culture.

Some European countries have been witnessing large influxes of migrants - mainly muslim - who simply do not integrate - and in some areas of some cities there have developed areas where women effectively cannot go without being intimidated. Areas which are dominated by the largely male street culture of the countries these migrants have come from.

Personally, I've been the subject of intimidating 'hisses' and other noises of disapproval made by Muslim men whilst walking on the streets in my city. In one case by a group of men on their way to Friday prayers at a local mosque.Some mosques have quite radicalised immams. You just don't get this with other religious communities in Britain.

Where are the Sikh equivalent of ISIS, The Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State, people cheering Hamas or Hezbollah; groups that have carried out terrorist attacks in mainland Europe and in Britain, or who plan to? Groups whose aim is to establish an Islamic caliphate and spread Islam by the sword?

So not content when describing maternity pay as "excessive", Badenoch is going after autistic children and the fact some of them get transport to school.

Does she really think stupidity and performative cruelty are the way forward for the Tory party?

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

Does she really think stupidity and performative cruelty are the way forward for the Tory party?

It's working; she's out in front.

There has been some studies around groups that integrate vs those that don't that are rather interesting. I do think that is to a large extent the crux of the issue, certain Muslim groups seem to maintain very separate communities.

That being said, I would not say it has only been an issue with Muslims, I've certainly seen more localized problems where it's been an issue with other groups. One being, typically relatively uneducated, Indians, who are usually Hindu; and the other being groups coming and settling from refugee camps in Africa. I had a couple of kids I tutored whose parents had that background, and initially they had moved to an area where there was a population of people from the same place. However - there were terrible problems with the young men becoming involved in gangs. They moved away to a place where there were few other people from their language group specifically so they could avoid that kind of problem.

It may be working for KB, it didn't work for the Tory party.

Surely it's par for the course with the Tories. Let the bodies pile high Johnson was very popular.

The disgusting and ignorant attack on autistic children and their parents is par for the Tory course, she is just more open about her predjudices than most. She is telling you who the Tories really are, for those who haven't been paying attention for the past 14 years. Disconcerting nevertheless.

So does anyone have a link to the whole of what she actually said about autistic students?

It's page 6 of a 40 page document. Here's a not very good screenshot.

This ridiculous and egregious document also equates anxiety and autism....tell me that you know nothing about mental health issues without telling me you know nothing about mental health issues...

Anxiety = normal human emotion common to every human being
Anxiety disorder = a mental illness
Autism = a neurodevelopmental condition

HTH

Oh wow I can't read that at all it is eeny weeny.

^Here's a C&P. Sorry for any reformatting mistakes.^

The Socialisation of Mental Health

While people talking about mental health is a positive, the socialisation of mental health so everyone has to treat you differently has failed to improve people’s mental health outcomes. As one academic put it, across the West, ‘the meaning of ‘safety underwent a process of ‘concept creep’ and expanded to included ‘emotional safety’… The subjective experience of ‘harm’ became definitional in assessing trauma’. Psychological and psychotherapy professions numbers went from 102,000 in 2002 to 223,700 in 2023. In 1999 the NHS spent £4 billion on mental health, which had risen to £16.8 billion by 2023/4.

This approach now offers economic advantages and protections. If you have a neurodiversity diagnosis (e.g. anxiety, autism), you are in a category similar to race or biological sex in terms of discrimination law and general attitudes. As a child, you may well get better treatment or equipment at school – even transport to and from home. If you are in the workforce, you are protected in employment terms from day 1, you can more easily claim for unfair dismissal, and can also require your employer makes ‘reasonable adjustments’ to your job (only revealed after you are employed).

By 2024, mental health was the number 1 issue for new welfare claimants, with this as the primary claim for 41% of all new disability related benefit claims.

Her views on autistic children are both untrue and so ignorant of families who are suffering in reality… just completely horrible

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5187294-to-not-recognise-kemi-badenochs-views-on-asd

I can't see what is so terrible in what she is saying there; is she not just trying to make a larger point about protected categories and funding?

She was not saying anything horrible or prejudiced about people with autism per se. I don't read that as her saying that people with diagnosed autism are just like others who self diagnose various mental health issues ( which has now become a generational issue affecting lots of young people, especially)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/14/autistic-children-culture-wars-kemi-badenoch