Is Badenoch trying to make Britain a “mini-USA”?

I find Ms Badenoch a bit of an enigma, in many ways.

Some of her previous speeches have been very well thought out and well presented.

Some have been utterly disastrous.

I think their conference and some of its elements, have absolutely been modelled on some thing the USA claim to do. Especially around freedom of speech. But as we all are only too aware, Trumps idea of freedom of speech is for all to agree with him.

Thank you for your well informed and interesting post, I have no specific data or stats to add, just my opinion that I think making the Conservative Party appear to be heading further right whilst rejecting Reform and Restore, will necessarily bring back those voters who’ve moved across to support these parties.

Thanks Cossy.

I like Kemi, she'll be getting my vote in 29, I don't agree with every Conservative policy there has been (or probably will be), I have no doubt she'll be a strong, no-nonsense leader, I don't like Socialism, there's too much 'don't do as I do, do as I say' hypocrisy for my liking, I'm no fan of the EU either, two world wars weren't fought just for Germany to 'drive the Bus' ........

Is Badenoch trying to make Britain a “mini-USA”?

No.

No, I don't think she is.

No I dont think so she is either, the concept of free speech was until about five minutes ago a broadly supported notion in this country.

In terms of Badenoch I find her interesting, I think she has improved, but I still sense elements of political immaturity.

Cillafan

I like Kemi, she'll be getting my vote in 29, I don't agree with every Conservative policy there has been (or probably will be), I have no doubt she'll be a strong, no-nonsense leader, I don't like Socialism, there's too much 'don't do as I do, do as I say' hypocrisy for my liking, I'm no fan of the EU either, two world wars weren't fought just for Germany to 'drive the Bus' ........

I suppose the question I'd ask is: how much of the Conservative vision actually works in your favour if you're not already relatively financially secure?

It's easy to dismiss social democracy as "socialism" or talk about individual responsibility when you have enough money, assets and security to absorb the consequences when things go wrong. But public services, workers' rights, social security, affordable housing, healthcare and education aren't abstract concepts: they're mechanisms that affect people's day-to-day security and opportunities.

You don't have to agree with every Conservative policy to recognise that a political programme can have very different consequences depending on your income, wealth and circumstances.

It's interesting to see that the moves towards a transactional society are welcomed by some.

A transactional society - the sort the Conservatives favour - is one where relationships and social obligations are increasingly understood in terms of exchange: “What do I get in return for what I give?”

Instead of seeing society as a community in which people have some responsibilities toward one another simply because they are members of it, a transactional outlook tends to emphasise individual contribution, entitlement and reciprocity.

For example:

Transactional: “I pay taxes, so I should get exactly what I personally paid for.”
Socially reciprocal: “I contribute through taxes, and the system supports people when they need it; over a lifetime, most of us will be both contributors and recipients in different ways.”

Transactional: “Why should my money pay for someone else's healthcare?”
Collective: “Healthcare is something we fund together because anyone can become ill, regardless of how much they have contributed at that particular moment.”

Is this really what posters want?

I think that's simplistic to be honest. For example the increase in benefits claimants amongst the young is a disaster for that cohort. I think those who ignore that are actually guilty of the 'I am alright Jack' school of thought.
My children aren't in that cohort so perhaps I should ignore the problems that we are creating for young people and just keep supporting the increase in claims.

eazybee

^Is Badenoch trying to make Britain a “mini-USA”?^

No.

I agree, Conservatives have always been small State and I can’t see that Badenoch wants anything different from any other Conservative Leader.

Galaxy

I think that's simplistic to be honest. For example the increase in benefits claimants amongst the young is a disaster for that cohort. I think those who ignore that are actually guilty of the 'I am alright Jack' school of thought.
My children aren't in that cohort so perhaps I should ignore the problems that we are creating for young people and just keep supporting the increase in claims.

I'm trying to work out who or what you are replying to, Galaxy.

What is it that is 'too simplistic'

The idea that society is transactional or socially reciprocal, the issues are much more complex than those definitions. I think that's just another way of saying some political viewpoints are good and some are bad.

It's a further move away from "one nation Conservatism" and IMO some of the policies are designed to "buy" votes but instead of targeting people who wanted to buy their council homes (as Thatcher did) she is targeting middle class home owners who want to to pass on more of their wealth to their children (thus, fueling the divide between those who have home owning parents and those who don't). I don't think this is a good way of building a happy cohesive society and paying for these benefits by reducing social benefits to the poorest in our society is unacceptable but I'm not a Tory supporter!

I suspect that the rise of Reform has rattled KB.
And the defection of so many one time Tory 'Stars'.

Galaxy

No I dont think so she is either, the concept of free speech was until about five minutes ago a broadly supported notion in this country.

We do support freedom of speech and what’s more, within our current laws, we have that.

Do I subscribe to the Trump method of freedom of speech? No.

Do I think our currents laws, particularly those governing online “speech” are a good thing? Yes!

Would I like to take laws around freedom of speech further, not really, nor would I like to see protesting stopped.

But along with freedom of speech, comes great responsibility.

foxie48

It's a further move away from "one nation Conservatism" and IMO some of the policies are designed to "buy" votes but instead of targeting people who wanted to buy their council homes (as Thatcher did) she is targeting middle class home owners who want to to pass on more of their wealth to their children (thus, fueling the divide between those who have home owning parents and those who don't). I don't think this is a good way of building a happy cohesive society and paying for these benefits by reducing social benefits to the poorest in our society is unacceptable but I'm not a Tory supporter!

I don’t think divisions across our society, deliberately caused, as per Mr Farage, are good at all.

Only by us working together at all levels, across all parties, all communities, will we ever move forward.

How? Who knows!

Responsibility for what though? To not say things that offend people? Who gets to decide what is offensive. And if you are happy it being those in power, well that can turn around and bite you when the people in power change.

Galaxy

I think that's simplistic to be honest. For example the increase in benefits claimants amongst the young is a disaster for that cohort. I think those who ignore that are actually guilty of the 'I am alright Jack' school of thought.
My children aren't in that cohort so perhaps I should ignore the problems that we are creating for young people and just keep supporting the increase in claims.

I do have three of our children just outside that cohort.

24,26,29.

I think having a huge percentage of these young people currently on benefits is terrible and unsustainable BUT I believe there are very variable reasons.

IMO, both COVID and generational “claimants” have a huge effect on this.

Interestingly our DS2 spent his college years and his 18th birthday in lockdown and was very affected, DD2, joined the DWP as a temp due to so many new claims to benefits being made. Son had a no “choice” but to manage his issues as he lives with two parents who simply tried everything to get him past this.

If AB can resolve both youth unemployment and homelessness he’ll win many points in my own book!

Galaxy

Responsibility for what though? To not say things that offend people? Who gets to decide what is offensive. And if you are happy it being those in power, well that can turn around and bite you when the people in power change.

No I don’t mean being offensive, or offending people at all, I can live with that!

I’m talking about inciting hatred online, thinking before you speak about something which might in turn, for some reason, allow people to think it’s ok to burn down a hotel or terrify a person different to themselves.

To be honest, I am not offended personally by very much directed at me personally, but a very close family member was targeted for a few months online by a group who thought it was amusing to accuse him of some quite awful things, then write anonymously to their places of work.

Yes, both the police and solicitors were involved, but at the time it was horrendous and our home address was shared online and other very personal things. That’s the kind of thing I mean.

Galaxy

The idea that society is transactional or socially reciprocal, the issues are much more complex than those definitions. I think that's just another way of saying some political viewpoints are good and some are bad.

And that's simplistic? How do you suggest we describe "For example the increase in benefits claimants amongst the young is a disaster for that cohort."?

DaisyAnneReturns

It's interesting to see that the moves towards a transactional society are welcomed by some.

A transactional society - the sort the Conservatives favour - is one where relationships and social obligations are increasingly understood in terms of exchange: “What do I get in return for what I give?”

Instead of seeing society as a community in which people have some responsibilities toward one another simply because they are members of it, a transactional outlook tends to emphasise individual contribution, entitlement and reciprocity.

For example:

Transactional: “I pay taxes, so I should get exactly what I personally paid for.”
Socially reciprocal: “I contribute through taxes, and the system supports people when they need it; over a lifetime, most of us will be both contributors and recipients in different ways.”

Transactional: “Why should my money pay for someone else's healthcare?”
Collective: “Healthcare is something we fund together because anyone can become ill, regardless of how much they have contributed at that particular moment.”

Is this really what posters want?

It’s definitely not what I want.

But then again I never was a WIIFM person, neither were my parents, who were staunch Tories, very hard working, decent people, very middle class. Yet loving, kind and generous.

We lived in some lovely houses and went to some lovely places.

I was very blessed.

I dont even know where I stand with the inciting hatred concept, because again someone has to make judgements about that. I am very wary of controls on speech and whilst not an absolutist , I am probably quite close to that.
I am guessing badenoch partly has in mind what happened to women in the gender debate when the legal process was used to silence women.
The idea of 'terrifying people different to theselves' was used in that debate to stop women talking about reality as it made some people feel 'unsafe'.

Actually many people will be with Badenoch regarding Inheritance Tax.
£500,000 in London and the South East ( over that and you have to pay it) isn’t a fabulous home by any means.Inheritance Tax was meant to stop people passing on great wealth to their descendants.
£500,000 is a small house or bungalow.