I know I said Cleverly would have been my preferred choice but I was starting to get a little worried with his good speeches to conference and his general moderate leanings, he could have taken the fight back to Labour in winning over swing voters and actually given us a risk that the Tories might actually be in power again relatively soon.

 

bit of a shock though, funny that it seems like a game of tactical voting gone wrong from Cleverly's team

 

Nice to know the remaining leadership contest will be a fight between two unlikeable stooges who'd probably be about as even as each other - I can't see either of them assembling a coalition to trouble Labour with Reform clearly distinct too.

 

essentially, a chance to avoid the death of the Tory party is gone, therefore: lol, lmao even

That’ll keep Labour in for a while yet.

Agree with Iz, I think Cleverley would have had a real good shot.

 

Can see both Jenrick and Kemi entering in to a working agreement/coalition with Reform. But not sure either of them are moderate enough to win a majority. Personally think Kemi is awful, she’s a Liz Truss disaster waiting to happen where the Members love her, but they completely forget that their messaging doesn’t cut through to the public.

Badenoch would be the one I'd be more worried about given she's big on the culture wars and it could form an audience, and could be open to a merge with Reform. Jenrick just seems out and out incompetent so I guess he'd be my preferred one as I can't imagine anyone would turn out in large numbers to vote for him.

Jenerick is a bit scary and has repulsive right wing views, hope he has no chance of no10. As others said Cleverley would have been a good leader - nodding right to the party and centrist to the electorate and is a good debater. Let hope the shadow cabinet is split because of this!

Jenerick is a bit scary and has repulsive right wing views, hope he has no chance of no10. As others said Cleverley would have been a good leader - nodding right to the party and centrist to the electorate and is a good debater. Let hope the shadow cabinet is split because of this!

That’s what Jenrick says now, but he has expressed more moderate views in the past. He could try and do a Starmer and resurrect his earlier views after winning. His problem is that it would be very easy for the right-wing nutjobs to call a vote of confidence if he did that. Even if he won that vote it would be damaging.

Badenoch would be the one I'd be more worried about given she's big on the culture wars and it could form an audience, and could be open to a merge with Reform. Jenrick just seems out and out incompetent so I guess he'd be my preferred one as I can't imagine anyone would turn out in large numbers to vote for him.

 

Badenoch is also prone to massive gaffs because she has a big mouth. I can't see how she won't fall in to traps others set for her. Both are going to lurch for the Right.

 

Just can't really see how either will really cut through to the wider elctorate unless things don't somewhat improve.

View this post on Instagram

Here are Badenochs controversial views around Autism and anxiety, she seems to lack an understanding into the difference between them both and put them all in the same box:

 

At the Conservative conference Badenoch’s team released a 36-page essay called Conservatism in Crisis which identifies many factors supposedly holding back growth. On anxiety and autism it says:

 

"It is a positive thing our society is now more open around mental health. However, the socialisation of mental health, whereby mental health moved from something that people worked on for their own benefit, to something where everyone had to treat you differently, has both created costs and failed to improve people’s mental health outcomes ….

 

[A change in the perception of harm] helps explains why people who had suffered events once seen as non-traumatic now feel entitled to support. This increases demand for psychologists and therapists, required to help people previously seen as able to cope. As will be set out in the forthcoming book [based on the essay] across the psychological and psychotherapy professions, numbers have risen from 102,000 in 200240 to 223,700 in 2023.

 

Being diagnosed as neuro-diverse was once seen as helpful as it meant you could understand your own brain, and so help you to deal with the world. It was an individual focused change. But now it also offers economic advantages and protections. If you have a neurodiversity diagnosis (e.g. anxiety, autism), then that is usually seen as a disability, a category similar to race or biological sex in terms of discrimination law and general attitudes.

 

If you are 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 under disability rules you can also require your employer makes ‘reasonable adjustments’ to your job (and you can reveal your disability once you have been employed rather than before).

 

In short, whereas once psychological and mental health was seen as something that people should work on themselves as individuals, mental health has become something that society, schools and employers have to adapt around."

Don’t really get what it’s getting at? Is it just a commentary or a criticism or proposal of some kind?

 

You can have numerous doctors and therapists who don’t understand autism so I wouldn’t expect a random politician to either, they should just leave that stuff to people who understand it. Calling things advantages which are designed to remove disadvantages is a fundamental misunderstanding as well.

I maintain the opinion that accommodations for neurodivergent people can benefit everyone in quite a lot of cases.

 

Why is adapting around that (and mental health) a bad thing? I'm genuinely not sure what point she's trying to make.

She’s playing up to the party members whos votes she needs to become Tory leader who are very right wing and most likely believe people get diagnosed these days in order to get advantages over others and linking this to slowing the economy down due to employers being effected, typical Tory values.

It's the cartoon villain-esque language.

 

Does she really think being autistic gives you economic advantages? She has no clue and maybe politicians are better off talking about things they have a clue about.

 

Thankfully she is probably unlikely to be in power.

Edited October 14, 2024Oct 14 by Hassaan

Agreed, she’s playing the pantomime villain to get what she wants which makes it even worse. Whether she actually believes that is another thing.

 

People within the party have attacked her which is good to see. As you say they should let the professionals write a report before coming up with their own biased opinions about this.

Kemi Badenoch wins the vote and is leader of the Conservative Party.

 

Lots of culture war nonsense to look forward to, yayyy :nocheer:

Not a fan but that’s four female leaders now and various ethnicities. Labour have only ever had white men. Nevertheless I have to agree she is very culture war focused and that seems dated at this point

Has anyone got a spare lettuce?

Lmaooo they really have gone off the boil

Not a fan but that’s four female leaders now and various ethnicities. Labour have only ever had white men. Nevertheless I have to agree she is very culture war focused and that seems dated at this point

 

And? Surely its about competency than gender and race?

Conservatives also tend to have four leaders in the same timeframe it takes Labour to have one.

 

Badenoch will be awful but likely ineffectual so good stuff.