Just wondering if you did the sensible thing and at least had a draft mail in case Jenrick won? And if so, would you mind sharing it? It would be a fun read no matter how painful for you to write.
I agree with most of this analysis of Badenoch. But two points:
- she is not ‘.anti-trans’. She has the mainstream view that trans people should not be harassed or penalised for just being trans,
*and* that the law needs to protect single-sex spaces, women’s sport and children from harmful medicalisation.
- Foucault was a fertile thinker but there are good reasons to treat him with suspicion: he argued that the ‘sexual element’ of rape should be ignored in criminal justice (and treated like any other act of violence.) This denies the essential nature of rape. It’s saying, ‘oh, the sex act is just a trifle’. He explicitly says this in a discussion of an actual rape case.
Plus he publicly supported the decriminalisation of sex between adults and children.
These are not minor blemishes and it’s mad that liberals and progressives give him a pass on this - and open the way for reactionaries like Badenoch to say, ‘see who these lefties like’.
I don’t find Badenoch in the least bit interesting. She’s just the latest in a succession of scumbags. I’m sick to absolute death of the Conservative Party. The very fact that they get to campaign even pisses me off after what they’ve done. And the list of the damage they’ve done is so big I can’t even write it all down. AND they want Trump to win. I don’t give a damn about whether they believe in their ideas. What difference does it make when they scorch the earth anyway? This is about what the members want isn’t it? This is what it takes to get ahead. A true believer or a cynical actor who are both toxic? Who’s worse for the country in Opposition? I think if you immerse yourself in their heinous kind of politics eventually you end up believing it anyway. You can convince yourself because you WANT to believe it. People with integrity are less corruptible. So people with integrity aren’t going to get anywhere in the party now.
This is the one part of Ian's analysis I slightly disagree with. I don't want politicians who are 'interesting' for saying or doing crazy things - we had more than enough of that with Johnson. I'm more than happy to have boringly competent politicians.
I struggle to imagine Cleverly, Badenoch, Jenrick or any of the last decade’s generation of still serving Tory MPs winning the next election. They irreparably tarnished themselves by association in the same way that current Republicans are tarnished by association with Trump.
“Anti-trans” is wild, not many MPs have done as much to protect gender non-conforming children as her. We might still be pushing dangerous meds on gay kids if she hadn’t stepped in
Mrs Badenoch didn’t just want to stop transgender teens from taking puberty blockers, which incidentally the Cass report didn’t actually recommend. She wanted to allow teachers to refuse to use a child or teen’s preferred pronouns (green light for bullies) and to force teachers to tell parents about a child’s gender identity *even if the child explicitly didn’t want that*. This was condemned by children’s charities as being against safeguarding standards. That’s not protective, that is an attack.
So much for her 'morals'. Within days of becoming leader, she denied the fact the Conservatives hoisting a swift two fingers to the rest of the population during lockdown was in any way wrong. Nice, of her to start by insulting all those people who couldn't visit sick relatives, go to funerals, attend weddings, or suffered from mental health issues, while Johnson and the rest of the party got pissed and boogied on down. Good start Kemi, good start.
"We should also be able to say that the Conservatives' success rate at doing this - when it comes to women, when it comes to ethnic minorities - is now so persistent, and Labour's so poor, that it points to something meaningful. It's not just a fluke." I instinctively think Ian is right here, but what does he (or anyone) think the "something meaningful" is? I'm struggling a bit with that.
That the Labour party is now so conservative its unthinkable that a woman or member of an ethnic minority could become leader? Or, and less complex, just because someone is from an ethnic minority or a woman, doesn't mean that they don't share, and promote the same vile views as the rest of the Conservative party. Or, they are so immoral, that they know the party actually despises them, does its best to make the lives of minority groups as difficult as possible, yet they are so poisonous as individuals, they really couldn't care less that the party is simply using them to win votes from the ethnic minorities and women. Because, as the excellent book I'm currently reading, so eloquently points out, that's all the Conservative party is, and ever has been - an election winning machine.
Just wondering if you did the sensible thing and at least had a draft mail in case Jenrick won? And if so, would you mind sharing it? It would be a fun read no matter how painful for you to write.
Also no. I'm not that organised, especially not on a Saturday morning.
He might be able to use it in a couple of years. If batshit but principled doesn't work, I can see the Tories reverting to empty cynicism .
I agree with most of this analysis of Badenoch. But two points:
- she is not ‘.anti-trans’. She has the mainstream view that trans people should not be harassed or penalised for just being trans,
*and* that the law needs to protect single-sex spaces, women’s sport and children from harmful medicalisation.
- Foucault was a fertile thinker but there are good reasons to treat him with suspicion: he argued that the ‘sexual element’ of rape should be ignored in criminal justice (and treated like any other act of violence.) This denies the essential nature of rape. It’s saying, ‘oh, the sex act is just a trifle’. He explicitly says this in a discussion of an actual rape case.
Plus he publicly supported the decriminalisation of sex between adults and children.
These are not minor blemishes and it’s mad that liberals and progressives give him a pass on this - and open the way for reactionaries like Badenoch to say, ‘see who these lefties like’.
Spot on again. I have yet to disagree with your analysis.
I don’t find Badenoch in the least bit interesting. She’s just the latest in a succession of scumbags. I’m sick to absolute death of the Conservative Party. The very fact that they get to campaign even pisses me off after what they’ve done. And the list of the damage they’ve done is so big I can’t even write it all down. AND they want Trump to win. I don’t give a damn about whether they believe in their ideas. What difference does it make when they scorch the earth anyway? This is about what the members want isn’t it? This is what it takes to get ahead. A true believer or a cynical actor who are both toxic? Who’s worse for the country in Opposition? I think if you immerse yourself in their heinous kind of politics eventually you end up believing it anyway. You can convince yourself because you WANT to believe it. People with integrity are less corruptible. So people with integrity aren’t going to get anywhere in the party now.
This is the one part of Ian's analysis I slightly disagree with. I don't want politicians who are 'interesting' for saying or doing crazy things - we had more than enough of that with Johnson. I'm more than happy to have boringly competent politicians.
I struggle to imagine Cleverly, Badenoch, Jenrick or any of the last decade’s generation of still serving Tory MPs winning the next election. They irreparably tarnished themselves by association in the same way that current Republicans are tarnished by association with Trump.
Well done for Badenoch… bad enough.
Bet that’s been up the sleeve for a while!
“Anti-trans” is wild, not many MPs have done as much to protect gender non-conforming children as her. We might still be pushing dangerous meds on gay kids if she hadn’t stepped in
Mrs Badenoch didn’t just want to stop transgender teens from taking puberty blockers, which incidentally the Cass report didn’t actually recommend. She wanted to allow teachers to refuse to use a child or teen’s preferred pronouns (green light for bullies) and to force teachers to tell parents about a child’s gender identity *even if the child explicitly didn’t want that*. This was condemned by children’s charities as being against safeguarding standards. That’s not protective, that is an attack.
Can you insert the word ‘used’ before the word ‘loo’ thanks
Funnily enough I had in fact mentally added it and went back to check whether it was there!
So much for her 'morals'. Within days of becoming leader, she denied the fact the Conservatives hoisting a swift two fingers to the rest of the population during lockdown was in any way wrong. Nice, of her to start by insulting all those people who couldn't visit sick relatives, go to funerals, attend weddings, or suffered from mental health issues, while Johnson and the rest of the party got pissed and boogied on down. Good start Kemi, good start.
I can't hold 8 things in my head and haven't go a pen (winter sun holiday) ...
1. Trump
2. true
3. Yes
4. YES!!!
5. misapplied IQ
...
erm
Jimmy Dimly *was* the threat, but he trusted fuckwits who cuddent do sumz
6. see 5 (IQ analyses, but then synthesises wonky conclusion)
7. see 4 (engaging, PMQs could be good viewing)
I caught 8 ...
"We should also be able to say that the Conservatives' success rate at doing this - when it comes to women, when it comes to ethnic minorities - is now so persistent, and Labour's so poor, that it points to something meaningful. It's not just a fluke." I instinctively think Ian is right here, but what does he (or anyone) think the "something meaningful" is? I'm struggling a bit with that.
That the Labour party is now so conservative its unthinkable that a woman or member of an ethnic minority could become leader? Or, and less complex, just because someone is from an ethnic minority or a woman, doesn't mean that they don't share, and promote the same vile views as the rest of the Conservative party. Or, they are so immoral, that they know the party actually despises them, does its best to make the lives of minority groups as difficult as possible, yet they are so poisonous as individuals, they really couldn't care less that the party is simply using them to win votes from the ethnic minorities and women. Because, as the excellent book I'm currently reading, so eloquently points out, that's all the Conservative party is, and ever has been - an election winning machine.
Many thanks Ian. And best regards from Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Could KB mutate into the British Trump, absorbing Farange and others?
Already bought your books the fascism one and the conspiracy, I quite enjoyed them