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?

If your comment is genuine, you must have very little life experience and even less empathy not to be able to see what the problems are with what she’s saying about people with autism.

However, if you genuinely need help to understand, then this John Harris article explains clearly from a parents’ perspective why Kemi Badenoch is talking dangerous bullshit.

My question is where are all the other ‘compassionate’ conservatives jumping up to say how wrong she is? Where are the opposing voices speaking up to defend disabled children and their families.. ?

I would love to think Badenoch is an eccentric extremist out on her own politically but I don’t think she is. Thinking back to even Cameron’s interest in disabled children and families, this shows the disgusting race to the bottom that is currently going on within the Tory party. It’s very sad to see a political party casting about in such absolute ignorant disarray.

I'd first of all like you to pin point, firstly, which exact words, phrases or sentences you take issue with - and explain why. I'm struggling to identify your exact issue.

As for the personal insults I'm not sure that they are called for.

Personally, at most, I think her combining mental health( as in anxiety) with autism was clumsy rather than ill inentioned towards those with autism. She was really trying to make a larger point about protected characteristics and how special provisions are funded.

Maybe you read or interpreted that differently....but unless you spell out the precise issue with those two paragraphs how can anyone respond?

As for lack of empathy - I've a husband and a younger adult son with what I've long considered to be autistic traits, and my younger son also has self diagnosed mental health issues -which he's had since lockdown and has struggled with. Like many of his generation, young people are self diagnosing and universities are suggesting that up to one third of their annual intake is suffering from self diagnosed menatl health conditions - which is necessitating a large extra input of time and resources from the universities.

I also used to be a teacher so I don't appreciate your "lack of empathy" comments. I suggest that is just an emotional outburst which seeks to blur distinctions for maximum emotional effect.

Lastly, I'm not a Conservative voter and never have been.

That paragraph about mental health and autism is just awful. It lumps anxiety in with autism as a neurodivergent condition and misuses the term "neurodiversity". And then it completely misrepresents the experiences of autistic children and their families, which is that it's a massive struggle to access any kind of help, involving endless battles with local authorities and health services.

It's also very badly written.

I don't know if Badenoch wrote it or simply endorsed it, but it shows a staggering display of ignorance about a matter she really should be on top of.

The John Harris article is very good.

Thank you Too big for the larger copy.

I think some of the posts here, if that is really what they are based on, have either seriously misunderstood what she is saying, or are frankly deliberately misrepresenting it.

She has said very little about the nature of autism in itself, so to say she "misunderstands it" is a bit silly. Similarly, she hasn't said at all that autism and anxiety are the same.

It does somewhat clumsily put mh and diagnoses like autism in the same category however I would say that is because some of the effects in schools are similar, rather than because they are the same kind of cause. This part could be better written though.

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.

This is an interesting point, and I do think there are some worthwhile questions to be raised. On the one hand, I think people who see this as beyond the pale are thinking - well, no one complains if a blind child gets help with special devices, or other aids or help. I think that's largely true, and it's probably down to the fact that we can all see that such a child gets clear benefit from something like a special writing device; there aren't huge numbers of blind kids, and there is no sense really that this kid is being helped fundamentally at the expense of others.

On the other hand there also seem to be more and more cases of kids diagnosed with ASD, ADD, and similar kinds of things where they are receiving extra benefits that would be also just as useful to other kids in the class who struggle without a diagnosis, and sometimes these kids are actually directly causing a lot of disruption for other students and negatively affecting their education and well-being.

So what you get is a sense among parents that their own kids are being ignored in terms of resources they need because they are being directed to other kids that have a diagnosis, and that the well-being of their own kids is being sacrificed too. That is, there seems to be a hierarchy in the school.

And in a significant way it's because there is a legal obligation to direct resources and accommodate those kids no matter the effect on the others. So effectively, it does create a priority hierarchy even if that isn't the intent. First they must try and satisfy the needs of those kids, then the rest they do what they can.

Parents of the kids in question find this hard to believe because they are struggling to get their kids services they need. But it's absolutely how a parent whose child is struggling for help, who is being affected poorly in the classroom, but has no diagnosis, is going to feel - how is it fair for my kid to take a hit? Why can't my struggling child get extra helps? Why does she need to situ in a loud classroom with distractions because of this other child when it means she can't study? Why is this other child's need more important than hers?

You sometimes find the answers people will give on this are "well those parents/lids are struggling so much, this is what we have to do to balance things out." I think we are now starting to see the effect of this attitude though - people are not happy with the idea that it is ok to ignore the needs of kids who are average, or neurotypical, or whatever, or put them in a worse environment, because somehow this will "balance out" the struggle of other children. It doesn't balance it out.

There is also the question of parents seeking a diagnosis mainly to access extra help, and this certainly happens, in fact the system is designed that way. But of course, if your child needs help, but has no diagnosis, it seems like a real slap in the face.

As far as the mental health element and how schools have managed this, these is some good reason to question the path we've been on. It seems not to be working well. And I am 100% sure there are kids abusing and manipulating the situation. Gender ideology in schools is one element of this but it actually goes much wider and deeper. I don't however think it's an easy fix.

Or to put it another way - I think some people are interpreting it as saying "we don't want to help kids with problems" as an individual issue.

What it's really pointing out is a system problem where some kids end up being prioritized and some needs seem to carry more weight.

So the question would be, how to manage the needs of all.

Her comments are muddled and incoherent. She does seem to have form for putting out ill thought out views on SEND, which is such a delicate and contentious area.

The best I can for her is: it's pointing towards a genuine issue of a broken SEND system where demand and expectation cannot be met through the current system and which allows some parents and lobby groups to effectively utilise the system in their favour to the detriment of other groups.

It's in the interests of all parents of children with SEND to recognise that as fact and look seriously at how it's addressed.

But it's much more satisfying to suggest anyone who questions the allocation of resources is just has no empathy and is a hateful Tory. Which, what a suprise, just proves you always knew the Tories were hateful.

Labour aren't going to solve the SEND system, Empathy will not solve it. They have no money, and the revoluationary overhaul needed would be extremely contentious and unpopular. So they'll just say it needs to change and tweak a few bits, like the Tories did 2014, and the whole thing will continue to fail children.

Not sure who gets to claim the most 'empathy' in that.

But she absolutely does not have a firm grasp of fundamentals! How could anyone with basic knowledge of maternity pay possibly have come up with the idea that it was excessive? As recently demonstrated, her knowledge of basic facts around neurodiversity and provision for SEN is massively lacking but it hasn't prevented her from giving her objectionable opinions on them.

She was generally known as one of the most incompetent ministers in the last government, which was quite an achievement considering the competition. Much of that was because she couldn't be bothered to read a briefing.

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).

Autism and anxiety are completely different.
Autism is not a MH disorder.
Autistic children do not get better treatment or equipment.... If they are lucky, they get the adjustments they need.
Autistic children are not advantaged because of their autism.
As for her even transport... comment. WTAF is that about?🤯

Badenoch spouted stupidity and prejudice. That's why people, including the national autism society are calling her out.

Since when does maternity pay exempt fathers from supporting their families? The simple fact is that in most households it is essential that both parents work, if only to continue keeping a roof over their child's head, and that can mean that if one parent has to take a year off work it's potentially disastrous if it means that parent has no income.

As a matter of interest, who do you think should bear the burden if fathers are dead or severely disabled and unable to earn?

She definitely doesn't have a grasp of the fundamentals on SEND and is being badly advised based on a feeling that something is not right with it.
It leaves her very open to justifiable criticism.

When she does focus on something however she is very capable of getting a real grip of the brief and being prepared to argue it even when people howl that she's not being 'empathetic'.

That is what the SEND system needs actaully.
A) Someone prepared to really unedstand the issues
and
B) to say some unpalatable things.

No one is doing that.

Kemi may be attempting to here to make B) her usp, but she is failing on point A) and damaging herself in doing so.

She's criticising the fact that a child with autism "may well get better treatment or equipment at school – even transport to and from home." Just taking the transport issue on its own, why is it so outrageous that a child with autism who is unable to walk to school receives transport? The simple fact is that there are not enough special schools so if anything children with ASD are worse off because they have to spend far too long every day travelling to and from school: how are they supposed to get there if they are not provided with transport, bearing in mind that they tend to be at different schools from their siblings? After all, non-disabled children are also entitled to transport if they live more than 3 miles away from the nearest suitable school.

As for "better treatment or equipment" - what is that? They must receive provision that meets their needs, but that is not "better treatment", it's simply something that helps bring them up to something approaching a similar level to their peers'. What does she mean by "equipment"? IME equipment for children with ASD is stuff like fidget toys for sensory difficulties; they might just be given a tent or something similar by way of somewhere to escape to in the classroom, which rarely helps.

She really makes it SO obvious she has no clue what she is talking about and would really rather that we went back to the bad old days when children with ASD were bullied and left to sink in the education system. No thanks.

But it's much more satisfying to suggest anyone who questions the allocation of resources is just has no empathy and is a hateful Tory. Which, what a suprise, just proves you always knew the Tories were hateful.

She isn't just questioning the allocation of resources, though, is she? She's claiming that children with ASD and mental health difficulties are getting "better" resources than others. It simply is not true. She is peddling outright lies.

That is a resource allocation. issue.

'Better' than what or who though would be the question.

I agree it's incoherent and ill thought out and we can only guess at what she's actually trying to achieve because it's so muddled.

See my earlier posts for an alternative interpretation on why she's gone down this inadviabale route, rather than just she's a wicked Tory with no empathy.

I agree it's incoherent and ill thought out and we can only guess at what she's actually trying to achieve because it's so muddled.

Or we can actually read it and clearly see her ignorance, prejudice at play. Using adequate provision for autistic children as a political football is, or should be, an own goal.

I can see her ignorance.

And I can see your prejudice, which is filling in the blanks.

What prejudice is it you see? I don't think calling out lazy, ignorant, divisive MPs who spout bollocks about kids like mine, is a prejudice. Is it?

Ascribing negative intent because of of 'cruelty' would be one example.

Your posts certainly suggest you hate Tories and this influenecs your judgement of KB, in line with that belief. Which is what prejuduce is.

Maybe I'm wrong and you usually like her but think this is an exceptional but clear example of cruelty?
Or maybe you think it's just amazing cioincidence how everything the Tories do fits with your beliefs about them and it's because you are so right and not anything to do with preconceived bias?

Either way calling her names on the internet is not going to help SEND children and they definitely need the system sorting, but no one is going to do, partly because of all the name calling it would entail to try.

I think you have very deftly unpacked what I also think was Badenoch's reasoning and line of thought.

She didn't suggest it was. She was making a point about excessive regulation and trying to explain how the tax system works -when the interviewer inter-jected with a question about maternity pay - but Badenoch continued to answer the initial question, as she had not finished making her point.

Ascribing negative intent because of of 'cruelty' would be one example.

How else would you describe negative intent?

Your posts certainly suggest you hate Tories and this influenecs your judgement of KB, in line with that belief.

I hate the Tory Party because this is the sort of shit they pull. I'm judging Kemi on what she says. Believing someone when they show you who they are is not prejudice.

If tha6s what she meant, why didn't she say it?

Badenoch said what she did because that's what she wanted to say. Making stuff up and attributing it to her is weird.

She didn't say she didn't care about disabled kids either.

You are attributing intention to her. As others are also trying to unedrstand what she was saying or why.

It's really not clear what she was saying or why, because it doesn't really make sense.

Maybe she hates autistic kids and wants them to suffer or maybe there is some issue in the SEND system she was trying to describe?
Who knows? Because it's not clear.

Yet that is what some people are doing......I've explained what I thought she was saying in regards to both maternity pay and to the issue of protected characteristics. She didn't say she thought maternity pay was too high, and she didn't say that children with an autism diagnosis should not receive support.

She didn't say she thought maternity pay was too high.

No, she said that maternity pay was "excessive".