Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
Given that it didn't happen here and has no legal bearing on anything taking place here, someone losing their cat up a tree in Bury St Edmonds is a bigger story in the UK.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Yes, Johnson by-election defeats feels more like olds than news to me now.
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
Yes Roe v Wade could mark a 60 year turning point in the sexual revolution, it has been one way traffic until now ,no longer
Poland is in the EU and already has laws which make abortion mostly illegal. In Ireland abortion was also illegal until a few years ago. Most US States will also probably keep abortion legal despite today's judgement
America is a federal system and you can argue the balance between the federal administration and the states as much as you like. The Supreme Court has given the legal power back to the individual states and they can now decide with all that flows from it.
We aren't a federal country - I presume you wouldn't argue Surrey should have a different abortion policy to Essex or Newham to Bromley. The law applies to the whole of England equally on this issue and I presume you would support that concept.
Cyclefree asked: "I have looked. I get that. How, though, does public opinion help when a law comes to the Supreme Court?"
What the Supreme Court decided was that the issue should not come to the court, but instead should be determined by legislators elected by the people. Or, even directly by the voters, as it was in Washington state, in Referendum 120. So now -- as it was not before this decision -- public opinion is crucial, just as it is in most Euroepan nations.
(In contrast, public opinion should not matter when in comes to freedom of speech in the United States, thanks to the 1st Amendment.)
Why, in contrast, should public opinion matter when it comes to women’s individual autonomy ?
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ Labour's swing of 12.7 is lower than I expected. After Partygate, after sh*tshow in No 10, after much negative coverage of Johnson in press, & sharpest cost of living crisis since 1970s, a Labour Party that has been in opposition for 12 years + now has new leader got 12.7 swing? 12:09 PM · Jun 24, 2022·Twitter Web App"
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
Given that it didn't happen here and has no legal bearing on anything taking place here, someone losing their cat up a tree in Bury St Edmonds is a bigger story in the UK.
'Aberdeen man drowns at sea'
Aberdeen man lost. And quite right too. And this is nothing like The Titanic.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Yes, Johnson by-election defeats feels more like olds than news to me now.
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
Yes Roe v Wade could mark a 60 year turning point in the sexual revolution, it has been one way traffic until now ,no longer
iirc the Trump appointees are all young - so they will be poisoning the SC decisions for the next two decades or more.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
I pretty much agree. Concentrate on British news.
I wouldnt say the principal of highlighting significant US news is always going to be wrong, but it has always been disproportionate. It gives an impression issues must mirrored over hear and that's not always the case.
Kieron Clarke @kieronishere 💥On Boris Johnson’s future as leader following today’s by-election results, one senior Tory MP described him to me as “an ocean going, gaff-rigged c*nt” …
😬 They added, “we can’t wait to kick his arse out of Downing Street before he brings the whole Conservative Party down”.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Yes, Johnson by-election defeats feels more like olds than news to me now.
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
Yes Roe v Wade could mark a 60 year turning point in the sexual revolution, it has been one way traffic until now ,no longer
iirc the Trump appointees are all young - so they will be poisoning the SC decisions for the next two decades or more.
Of course they aren’t going to introduce “miscegenation laws”. And any American lawmaker that tried to introduce such a clearly repulsive law would be howled down and driven out of town, ASAFP
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
The Loving case which is the one which stated that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional is based on the same reasoning which the Court has today ruled is unconstitutional in relation to Roe v Wade.
You hope that someone would not seek to introduce such a law. But if they did, based on today's ruling you could not be confident that the Supreme Court would overrule it.
This is not a debate about abortion, fundamentally. Todays ruling effectively allows states to rule what people can and cannot do in their most private and intimate moments: who they can have sex with, what type of sex they can have and whether they can use contraception. It gives the state power over a person's body. And when the state does have that sort of power, when a person loses full autonomy over their own body and their most intimate activities, they lose full personhood. It chiefly affects women. But it goes beyond them as well.
I would also say this: @rcs1000 always says that people will make a democratic choice to have abortion. That may well be so. But if such laws are challenged and go to the Supreme Court can one be confident that they won't rule that abortion itself is unconstitutional and that states have no rights to make such laws? There is it seems to me a real risk that abortion could end up being unlawful throughout the US.
And if that happens other rights - gay rights for instance - are also at risk.
No
Abortion is uniquely difficult because two fundamental rights clash
The right of the unborn child to life, and the right of the mother to control her body
Personally I think we do this terrible balancing act OK in the UK. But I respect those who have firm moral beliefs that life begins at conception, and that the law - in America - should reflect that. It’s a deep philosophical dilemma
There is no deep philosophical dilemma about “banning interracial marriages”. Such a law would be barbaric and repulsive and it would be rejected out of hand by American voters and lawmakers. It is daft to suggest that this is within the realms of the possible
This is total wank, Leon, for the most part.
The difficult debate is how to balance the rights of a woman over her own body and the rights of the unborn child inside her in the event of her being unhappily pregnant and not wishing to continue with it. So, term limits, medical exceptions, doctor protocols, counselling etc. All of that.
To opt out of this, to instead say to hell with the woman, it's all about the foetus, be it 6 weeks or 6 days, conceived on purpose or by accident or force, regardless of whether the woman wants a baby or can afford it, regardless of whether she can be a good and loving and capable mother, to force her under threat of prison to carry it to term and give birth, this is - you said it - barbaric and repulsive.
What it certainly isn't is a morally or intellectually respectable conclusion to some "deep philosophical dilemma". I think you should brush up on your deep philosophical dilemma game if you think it is.
While I appreciate the joke, the problem with arguments like this (that white men can't comment on abortion because they won't need to have abortions) is that it does nothing to address the main argument of anti-choice activists (that aborting a foetus is murdering a child). If you genuinely believe aborting a foetus is murder, it doesn't matter whether you'll personally benefit from the murder or not - it's still murder. The best route for pro-choice activists is to tackle the "murder" aspect of abortion by making the case that foetuses aren't children, rather than assuming their opponents are a bunch of pale, stale, male WASPs who will inevitably die out.
One trouble with the US debate on abortion is how absolutely both sides hold their 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' labels.
An overwhelming majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks (which is in practice more like 8 weeks as it's measured from the last period), a period during which a significant proportion of pregnancies end in miscarriage in any case. The foetus has no ability to live independently and is functionally still just a growing collection of cells as with any other animal foetus. No woman should be forced to continue to carry them to term.
On the other hand, aborting after 20-24 weeks (we can debate the exact line), other than for exceptional reasons such as health risks to the mother, feels very hard to justify. The foetus has a very good chance of living independently of the mother and so it is no longer reasonable for abortion to be a free choice.
I'm sure you can make arguments around drawing the line somewhere else as well. But everyone there is fighting at the extremes. I'm glad the UK has landed on a broadly sensible position that doesn't carry such political weight.
Biden really needs to take one for the team and step aside
That puts Harris in the driving seat.
She also needs to take one for the team
Harris will be primaried I suspect and will not win.
God knows who will come through the mix. Maybe Buttigieg but zero support in crucial black vote. Sherrod Brown might take another tilt? Klobucher?
I'm glad I have a couple of crazy quid on Michelle O because cometh the hour, cometh the Oprah favourite, especially now she is so angry about Wade decision.
While I appreciate the joke, the problem with arguments like this (that white men can't comment on abortion because they won't need to have abortions) is that it does nothing to address the main argument of anti-choice activists (that aborting a foetus is murdering a child). If you genuinely believe aborting a foetus is murder, it doesn't matter whether you'll personally benefit from the murder or not - it's still murder. The best route for pro-choice activists is to tackle the "murder" aspect of abortion by making the case that foetuses aren't children, rather than assuming their opponents are a bunch of pale, stale, male WASPs who will inevitably die out.
The thing is, trying to make the argument that a foetus isn't a child is a losing argument, so it's the wrong terrain on which to make the argument. Although we have a legal fiction for necessary reasons that life begins at birth, this clearly and obviously jars wit how people feel about foetuses, and the messy biological reality.
The argument that seems clearest to me is that a person has complete autonomy over their own body. No-one else has any right to the use of another person's body, whether that be a husband who wants to have sex with their wife, or a slave-owner who wants to direct another's labour - or, indeed, a foetus does not have the right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of its mother, if the mother no longer consents to her body being used in that way.
We have to trust that women will make the right choices for themselves and their bodies, even if we might think that sometimes those choices are wrong. The price of liberty is allowing people to make mistakes. I believe this sort of question comes up in Bible study when people wonder why an omnipotent God allows bad things to happen.
Where it is right to intervene to provide protection - to the foetus and the mother - is to ensure that a woman is never coerced into having an abortion. Personally, I would also find it repugnant if people felt that they were forced by their economic situation into having an abortion. And better access to contraception would make it less likely that people who didn't want to create a foetus would do so unintentionally.
I think that, personally, were I a woman I would find it very hard to have an abortion. I also know that I would feel better about deciding to keep an unexpected pregnancy if it was my choice to do so, rather than one forced upon me by law. The feeling of being trapped in that situation must be excruciating.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
Are they? They haven't even fully captured the Donbass, let alone Kyiv
They've made some ground at high cost and advanced geo political objectives they oppose. I know some serm to hate the concept but pyrrhic does spring to mind.
Cyclefree - May I recommend, as I did earlier, that you look at US public opinion on abortion, at, for example, the Gallup site. For example: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Please.
I have looked. I get that. How, though, does public opinion help when a law comes to the Supreme Court?
Despite what recent decisions may seem to suggest - perhaps invalidating NY State gun restrictions even more than overturning RvW - public opinion most definitely has a strong impact on SCOTUS.
Always did & always will, history is replete with examples.
For example, both Plessy v Ferguson AND Brown v Board of Education.
Note that at time of former decision upholding "Jim Crow" laws enacted by Southern states, most White Americans were luke warm at best re: civil rights for Blacks, while majority of White Southerners was strongly opposed.
Fast-forwarding to latter decision overturning PvF and it's "Separate but Equal" doctrine/fantasy, there had been some softening (but not overmuch) among Southern Whites. Big change, however, was the attitudes of Whites in the rest of USA. Who were increasingly unwilling to ignore let alone tolerate the state of affairs down in Dixie. For number of reasons, including fact that Great Migration of early 20th century greatly increased number of Black people - and voters - in the North.
You may well be right. Are you based in the US? But if abortion is generally popular with voters how does this fit with today's decision?
Yes on US based, Seattle.
As for abortion, it is hardly popular with most voters, majority of pro-choicers esp. women being ambivalent, which is one reason for being so gung-ho about contraception and sex education.
And while a majority is broadly in favor of woman's right to choose, the number who feel strongly this way is considerably less. And is politically more-or-less balanced by voters are strongly anti-abortion.
PLUS factor in the fact that most voters whatever their views on the subject do NOT base their vote solely re: abortion, and for many it isn't much of a consideration at all. Instead, they vote for candidates of one party & persuasion or the other for OTHER reasons.
In recent years, abortion has actually been LESS of what we call a "wedge" issue, at same time that other issues & etc. have been eroding Democratic support in large parts of America, in a way NOT fully compensated by gains elsewhere.
This in turn has led to narrow (indeed minority) GOP presidential victories as well as Republican gains in key state races including Congress including US Senate. Gains that in the course of events (and chance) have led to a conservative majority on SCOTUS.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Yes, Johnson by-election defeats feels more like olds than news to me now.
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
Yes Roe v Wade could mark a 60 year turning point in the sexual revolution, it has been one way traffic until now ,no longer
iirc the Trump appointees are all young - so they will be poisoning the SC decisions for the next two decades or more.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? In Wakefield no more than 1200 votes could have gone Lib Dem to Labour, in reality much less. You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
Haha. I was waiting for the first idiot to complain about people ganging up on the Tories. Should have had her on the list, one of the more shameless ones.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Yes, Johnson by-election defeats feels more like olds than news to me now.
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
Yes Roe v Wade could mark a 60 year turning point in the sexual revolution, it has been one way traffic until now ,no longer
iirc the Trump appointees are all young - so they will be poisoning the SC decisions for the next two decades or more.
Yes it's Trumps ultimate revenge
And ironically, he doesn't believe a bloody word of it all. He cares not a jot if young woman seek abortions. He's about as religious as next door's cat.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
Absolutely disagree with the law change re Roe v Wade but could someone please give me an understanding of why it’s been the leading news story on BBC radio this evening?
It’s really not cool but the UK is not the US and I seriously don’t believe that if there was a change to abortion rules in any other country it would even be mentioned on Radio 2 news bulletins.
I get that the US has massive cultural reach/is past it and irrelevant so whilst bemused by the level of coverage over last few months on the Today programme I don’t see why it’s leading in a country that isn’t affected remotely by it.
Thanks in advance.
Why do you think we aren't affected by it? We have plenty of American posters and many of us in the UK have connections with the USA.
When you say “many” do you think that there are more people in the UK with close family connections with the US than with the EU and therefore if more UK/EU family connections then why do we not have the same level of coverage of changes and opinions over, say abortion, in EU countries on the BBC?
journalists are more comfortable covering stories in english
That’s pretty damning for the BBC surely with the resources it has through the world service and being largely based in London - a multicultural hub of polyglots whom they can employ journalists with degrees from around the world to monitor and report on matters in our neighbours (apparently proximity is most important when it comes to the EU, but language is more important with US, or something).
The BBC even do a pidjin service so language can’t be the issue? Laziness, priorities maybe but RvW does not justify, again however much I disagree with it, the prominence it’s had on the BBC.
Which story do you think is of more importance today than Roe vs Wade being overturned by the way?
For the UK, Johnson losing two by-elections in one night.
I guess you can argue that that news had been out there all morning and the SC decision broke in our afternoon, so the latter is more 'news', but I still don't think the Beeb can justify the first 14 mins of news at 10 on this decision with a quick canter afterwards on the rest of the day's events.
Another shite editorial decision which helps Johnson.
Yes, Johnson by-election defeats feels more like olds than news to me now.
But Roe vs Wade going is genuinely a remember where you were moment, while Johnson has been losing by-elections every few months.
Yes Roe v Wade could mark a 60 year turning point in the sexual revolution, it has been one way traffic until now ,no longer
iirc the Trump appointees are all young - so they will be poisoning the SC decisions for the next two decades or more.
Yes it's Trumps ultimate revenge
And ironically, he doesn't believe a bloody word of it all. He cares not a jot if young woman seek abortions. He's about as religious as next door's cat.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
The farming community who voted for the Tories since time in memorial are now starting to understand how much Brexit has completely screwed their future.,
If you thing this was bad for the Tories wait and see what it looks like in a years time..
Poland is in the EU and already has laws which make abortion mostly illegal. In Ireland abortion was also illegal until a few years ago. Most US States will also probably keep abortion legal despite today's judgement
America is a federal system and you can argue the balance between the federal administration and the states as much as you like. The Supreme Court has given the legal power back to the individual states and they can now decide with all that flows from it.
We aren't a federal country - I presume you wouldn't argue Surrey should have a different abortion policy to Essex or Newham to Bromley. The law applies to the whole of England equally on this issue and I presume you would support that concept.
We are a United Kingdom not a United States and I would remind you until recently the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom of GB and NI had a more restrictive abortion policy than GB did
Biden really needs to take one for the team and step aside
That puts Harris in the driving seat.
She also needs to take one for the team
Harris will be primaried I suspect and will not win.
God knows who will come through the mix. Maybe Buttigieg but zero support in crucial black vote. Sherrod Brown might take another tilt? Klobucher?
I'm glad I have a couple of crazy quid on Michelle O because cometh the hour, cometh the Oprah favourite, especially now she is so angry about Wade decision.
I almost wonder if Oprah might go for it on a needs must basis…
They may well need to gamble. Doing nothing on the assumption nothing has changed is also a gamble.
Chucking someone untested with next to no experience into the one of the most difficult economic and geopolitical situations is a tad risky.
Depends how bad the person at the top is. Every GE we might elect a party led by someone with next to no experience and there might be very difficult situations going on.
Haha. I was waiting for the first idiot to complain about people ganging up on the Tories. Should have had her on the list, one of the more shameless ones.
We're being bullied moans Cabinet member of an 76 seat majority government.
Biden really needs to take one for the team and step aside
That puts Harris in the driving seat.
She also needs to take one for the team
Harris will be primaried I suspect and will not win.
God knows who will come through the mix. Maybe Buttigieg but zero support in crucial black vote. Sherrod Brown might take another tilt? Klobucher?
I'm glad I have a couple of crazy quid on Michelle O because cometh the hour, cometh the Oprah favourite, especially now she is so angry about Wade decision.
Take a gander or two at Gretchen Whitmer.
Who is running for reelection as Governor of the Great Wolverine State of Michigan. And has been aided in her quest by fact that not just one but two of the most-credible GOP hopefuls were both kicked off the August primary ballot for submitting fraudulent voter signatures on required election petitions, thus failing to make the required threshold of valid sig.
Assuming she's victorious this Fall, as a re-elected chief exec of a large Midwestern state, Gov. Whitmer will be a VERY attractive potential POTUS candidate for many Democrats.
For one thing, the well-publicized Putinist plot to kidnap her - or worse - has given her a reputation for toughness and steadfastness that could prove a major plus, and not just with the Dems.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
By the time the war is over you might be able to get to see a GP foxy
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? In Wakefield no more than 1200 votes could have gone Lib Dem to Labour, in reality much less. You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
Moon needs to be on several more years. You are adored.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
By the time the war is over you might be able to get to see a GP foxy
He can do that much sooner dude . . . provided he's got a mirror . . .
Biden really needs to take one for the team and step aside
That puts Harris in the driving seat.
She also needs to take one for the team
Harris will be primaried I suspect and will not win.
God knows who will come through the mix. Maybe Buttigieg but zero support in crucial black vote. Sherrod Brown might take another tilt? Klobucher?
I'm glad I have a couple of crazy quid on Michelle O because cometh the hour, cometh the Oprah favourite, especially now she is so angry about Wade decision.
I almost wonder if Oprah might go for it on a needs must basis…
Methinks Oprah Winfrey is well-past her sell-by date, would certainly need to re-invigorate her media profile.
However, sending a media marvel to do battle with another (arguably lesser) example DOES have some appeal.
They may well need to gamble. Doing nothing on the assumption nothing has changed is also a gamble.
Chucking someone untested with next to no experience into the one of the most difficult economic and geopolitical situations is a tad risky.
Depends how bad the person at the top is. Every GE we might elect a party led by someone with next to no experience and there might be very difficult situations going on.
Cometh the hour and all that.
The leader becoming pm at a general election has usually led a party for about five years. No one has become pm without experience in a great office of state or LotO for over a 100. Whilst the Tories might change that, it is undoubtedly a gamble.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
The farming community who voted for the Tories since time in memorial are now starting to understand how much Brexit has completely screwed their future.,
If you thing this was bad for the Tories wait and see what it looks like in a years time..
Probably a lot of things to make the Tory’s in this seat both vote Lib Dem in big numbers and not vote in big numbers, imo the top reason is Boris, 2nd on list I think is anger at red wall getting the Whitehall money when their school buildings etc are just as dilapidated - an inherent vice of levelling up is Tory heartlands now feel taken for granted by the Tories angry at being second class when funding is given out, third I reckon is anger at cost of living protest vote in a not doing enough or quick enough kind of lashing out.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
By the time the war is over you might be able to get to see a GP foxy
The longer it goes on the weaker the Russian army gets. NATO is getting great value for money out of its surplus weapons. The Russian Army has been useful for field testing, and its own weapons found to be grossly inferior. One of Russias main export earnings has been arms, but no one will want them anymore. They will want the good stuff. Another area of Russian inferiority has been exposed to the world.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
The Ukrainians have also pretty much destroyed the Russian arms export industry. As a middle-ranking dictator, you are not going to be buying their rubbish kit, even on great credit terms.
Apropos of nothing at all, my personal highlights of Glasto Day 1 are Crowded House, Supergrass, Sleaford Mods, Idles and Sam Fender.
Watching Billie Eilish now - ok, not really my cup of tea.
St Vincent, st etienne and now Primal Scream for me
Glad you’re enjoying it! Primal Scream are one of those bands that on paper I should love, but for some reason they don’t really float my boat.
Idles were immense.
Griff, Wet Leg, Crowded House, First Aid Kit, Wolf Alice, Sigrid, Saint Etienne, Billie Eilish, Foals - this is by far the most Glasto I have ever watched. Looking forward to Haim, Macca, and Kacey Musgraves.
I presume one of the consequences of the Supreme Court decision will be, as states line up with their various lines of abortion, we'll see a greater polarisation between the more socially conservative and more liberal states (and within states between more conservative rural areas and more liberal cities).
My very limited experience of this is it is much more nuanced - on the occasions Mrs Stodge and I have been in Las Vegas, for example, we have often encountered people from more socially conservative states who visit "Sin City" for the weekend. It was those people who took the more "relaxed" view of life in Nevada to its greatest extent - almost as though they were "free" for 48 hours before returning to conservative normality on Monday morning.
From our own experience, we had plenty of anecdotal evidence of young women from both the Republic and Ulster coming to England to take advantage of the abortion options here before the laws changed - it's a series of individual and family tragedies but all swept under the carpet in the name of what some considered religiously or morally unacceptable.
One thing is some States criminalise travelling for the purpose of having an abortion, so there is no escape. Not only are they forced to continue the pregnancy to birth, they have to pay for it too. No NHS maternity or neonatal care there.
Shocking. I personally have no time for any "on the one hand, on the other hand" chinstroke on this. Controls around abortion, yes, but going back to banning it is to subjugate women in law as lesser status beings. Hard to believe, it really is.
But anyway ... nearly midnight and need to reduce BP or I won't sleep.
They may well need to gamble. Doing nothing on the assumption nothing has changed is also a gamble.
Chucking someone untested with next to no experience into the one of the most difficult economic and geopolitical situations is a tad risky.
Depends how bad the person at the top is. Every GE we might elect a party led by someone with next to no experience and there might be very difficult situations going on.
Cometh the hour and all that.
The leader becoming pm at a general election has usually led a party for about five years. No one has become pm without experience in a great office of state or LotO for over a 100. Whilst the Tories might change that, it is undoubtedly a gamble.
LOTO is really analogous to running a great office of state? I dont buy it. Leading a party is political preparation, but need not speak to any governance skill - enough poor PMs have shown that. We just include that precisely so that we can make an argument about experienced figures which isnt really applicable.
Apropos of nothing at all, my personal highlights of Glasto Day 1 are Crowded House, Supergrass, Sleaford Mods, Idles and Sam Fender.
Watching Billie Eilish now - ok, not really my cup of tea.
St Vincent, st etienne and now Primal Scream for me
Glad you’re enjoying it! Primal Scream are one of those bands that on paper I should love, but for some reason they don’t really float my boat.
Idles were immense.
Griff, Wet Leg, Crowded House, First Aid Kit, Wolf Alice, Saint Etienne, Billie Eilish, Foals - this is by far the most Glasto I have ever watched. Looking forward to Haim, Macca, and Kasey Musgraves.
What's the G-bury weather like? (Believe this was PB topic of choice just before tipping?)
AND are any good skiffle bands (or tribute acts) on the bill?
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
By the time the war is over you might be able to get to see a GP foxy
The longer it goes on the weaker the Russian army gets. NATO is getting great value for money out of its surplus weapons. The Russian Army has been useful for field testing, and its own weapons found to be grossly inferior. One of Russias main export earnings has been arms, but no one will want them anymore. They will want the good stuff. Another area of Russian inferiority has been exposed to the world.
Great we can ship the captured Russian soldiers over here and turn them into GPs Who knows they might do a better job
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
The farming community who voted for the Tories since time in memorial are now starting to understand how much Brexit has completely screwed their future.,
If you thing this was bad for the Tories wait and see what it looks like in a years time..
Probably a lot of things to make the Tory’s in this seat both vote Lib Dem in big numbers and not vote in big numbers, imo the top reason is Boris, 2nd on list I think is anger at red wall getting the Whitehall money when their school buildings etc are just as dilapidated - an inherent vice of levelling up is Tory heartlands now feel taken for granted by the Tories angry at being second class when funding is given out, third I reckon is anger at cost of living protest vote in a not doing enough or quick enough kind of lashing out.
The irony ‘of that is I’m sat in the Red Wall and I have to ask where is the money we were promised…
They may well need to gamble. Doing nothing on the assumption nothing has changed is also a gamble.
Chucking someone untested with next to no experience into the one of the most difficult economic and geopolitical situations is a tad risky.
Depends how bad the person at the top is. Every GE we might elect a party led by someone with next to no experience and there might be very difficult situations going on.
Cometh the hour and all that.
The leader becoming pm at a general election has usually led a party for about five years. No one has become pm without experience in a great office of state or LotO for over a 100. Whilst the Tories might change that, it is undoubtedly a gamble.
LOTO is really analogous to running a great office of state? I dont buy it. Leading a party is political preparation, but need not speak to any governance skill - enough poor PMs have shown that. We just include that precisely so that we can make an argument about experienced figures which isnt really applicable.
LOTO is the hardest job in politics. Totally exposed, next to no support. Not sure why you can’t accept elevating someone with little experience is a gamble. Gambles can pay off, but there is undoubtedly risk.
Could Moudaunt command the respect and loyalty of ambitious people like Patel and Truss through difficult times? No one knows. It’s a gamble.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? In Wakefield no more than 1200 votes could have gone Lib Dem to Labour, in reality much less. You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
Moon needs to be on several more years. You are adored.
The response of Boris cabinet, HY, and the Boris press are using this “it was tactical votes” fantasy so they don’t have to admit the truth. Unfortunately this utter gibberish is so transparently wrong a 2 year old cocker spaniel called giblets can recognise it for it is. She may need to use all four paws and it might take a while, but totting up the lab, Lib and green from last time minus Lab green this time, she will eventually realise it doesn’t get close to the new Lib Dem score - even if on reduced turnout every singe one of them still voted! The dear doggie would realise quite a few from the previous Tory vote must have voted Lib Dem this time.
They may well need to gamble. Doing nothing on the assumption nothing has changed is also a gamble.
Chucking someone untested with next to no experience into the one of the most difficult economic and geopolitical situations is a tad risky.
Depends how bad the person at the top is. Every GE we might elect a party led by someone with next to no experience and there might be very difficult situations going on.
Cometh the hour and all that.
The leader becoming pm at a general election has usually led a party for about five years. No one has become pm without experience in a great office of state or LotO for over a 100. Whilst the Tories might change that, it is undoubtedly a gamble.
LOTO is really analogous to running a great office of state? I dont buy it. Leading a party is political preparation, but need not speak to any governance skill - enough poor PMs have shown that. We just include that precisely so that we can make an argument about experienced figures which isnt really applicable.
LOTO is the hardest job in politics. Totally exposed, next to no support. Not sure why you can’t accept elevating someone with little experience is a gamble. Gambles can pay off, but there is undoubtedly risk.
Could Moudaunt command the respect and loyalty of ambitious people like Patel and Truss through difficult times? No one knows. It’s a gamble.
Haha. I was waiting for the first idiot to complain about people ganging up on the Tories. Should have had her on the list, one of the more shameless ones.
We're being bullied moans Cabinet member of an 76 seat majority government.
Plus member of BoJo "administration" is the LAST person entitled to complain of "dishonesty" in "anybody" else.
Including Bernie Madoff and the Great Train Robbers.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
By the time the war is over you might be able to get to see a GP foxy
The longer it goes on the weaker the Russian army gets. NATO is getting great value for money out of its surplus weapons. The Russian Army has been useful for field testing, and its own weapons found to be grossly inferior. One of Russias main export earnings has been arms, but no one will want them anymore. They will want the good stuff. Another area of Russian inferiority has been exposed to the world.
Great we can ship the captured Russian soldiers over here and turn them into GPs Who knows they might do a better job
Sure, any medically qualified ones would be welcome. I have a couple of excellent Russian colleagues who skipped out of Putin's kleptocracy as part of the great Russian brain drain of the young and educated. Both have the Ukranian flag on their social media, which must be quite a difficult decision, but sometimes supporting what is right trumps supporting your birthplace.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
The farming community who voted for the Tories since time in memorial are now starting to understand how much Brexit has completely screwed their future.,
If you thing this was bad for the Tories wait and see what it looks like in a years time..
Probably a lot of things to make the Tory’s in this seat both vote Lib Dem in big numbers and not vote in big numbers, imo the top reason is Boris, 2nd on list I think is anger at red wall getting the Whitehall money when their school buildings etc are just as dilapidated - an inherent vice of levelling up is Tory heartlands now feel taken for granted by the Tories angry at being second class when funding is given out, third I reckon is anger at cost of living protest vote in a not doing enough or quick enough kind of lashing out.
The irony ‘of that is I’m sat in the Red Wall and I have to ask where is the money we were promised…
The irony of ironies is the angry voters of Tiverton are sure you are getting it and not them!
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? In Wakefield no more than 1200 votes could have gone Lib Dem to Labour, in reality much less. You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
Moon needs to be on several more years. You are adored.
The response of Boris cabinet, HY, and the Boris press are using this “it was tactical votes” fantasy so they don’t have to admit the truth. Unfortunately this utter gibberish is so transparently wrong a 2 year old cocker spaniel called giblets can recognise it for it is. She may need to use all four paws and it might take a while, but totting up the lab, Lib and green from last time minus Lab green this time, she will eventually realise it doesn’t get close to the new Lib Dem score - even if on reduced turnout every singe one of them still voted! The dear doggie would realise quite a few from the previous Tory vote must have voted Lib Dem this time.
It’s barking anyone could claim otherwise!
Conservative and Unionist Party is NOT renowned for numeracy at best of times.
As for these times, doubt if CUP's Fearless Leader can do much if any math, even with the aid of match-sticks.
Apropos of nothing at all, my personal highlights of Glasto Day 1 are Crowded House, Supergrass, Sleaford Mods, Idles and Sam Fender.
Watching Billie Eilish now - ok, not really my cup of tea.
St Vincent, st etienne and now Primal Scream for me
Glad you’re enjoying it! Primal Scream are one of those bands that on paper I should love, but for some reason they don’t really float my boat.
Idles were immense.
Griff, Wet Leg, Crowded House, First Aid Kit, Wolf Alice, Saint Etienne, Billie Eilish, Foals - this is by far the most Glasto I have ever watched. Looking forward to Haim, Macca, and Kasey Musgraves.
What's the G-bury weather like? (Believe this was PB topic of choice just before tipping?)
AND are any good skiffle bands (or tribute acts) on the bill?
Looks like another sharp but scattered downpour forecast again tomorrow. Could miss it, could catch a beaut.
Been satisfying today, got loads of clothes dry under scuttling clouds, not one raindrop here, but just across the river on the upslope, all the storms seeded and the north of the town copped perhaps a good half inch of rain judging by the radars and distant rumbles.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
The farming community who voted for the Tories since time in memorial are now starting to understand how much Brexit has completely screwed their future.,
If you thing this was bad for the Tories wait and see what it looks like in a years time..
Probably a lot of things to make the Tory’s in this seat both vote Lib Dem in big numbers and not vote in big numbers, imo the top reason is Boris, 2nd on list I think is anger at red wall getting the Whitehall money when their school buildings etc are just as dilapidated - an inherent vice of levelling up is Tory heartlands now feel taken for granted by the Tories angry at being second class when funding is given out, third I reckon is anger at cost of living protest vote in a not doing enough or quick enough kind of lashing out.
The irony ‘of that is I’m sat in the Red Wall and I have to ask where is the money we were promised…
Trousered. By usual suspects. In this case (paraphrasing a former PM) by a lot of hard-faced cronies who look as if they have done well out of the Pandemic.
America is generally top toeing towards civil war. As we have often discussed. This SCOTUS ruling is more of an obvious large step on that road
America is one of the two most important countries on earth, it is also the ultimate guarantor of Western freedom. If it is tearing itself apart that IS headline news elsewhere in the western world
I do fear this. One reason I'm so keen to see Russia defeated in Ukraine ASAP.
Given the Russians are winning currently you could be waiting a long time
How is their plan to tale Kyiv going?
The Donbas will be a mess for generations, but the Ukranians are pretty effectively denazifying and neutering the Russian military. By the time this is over the Russian army will be as weak as a kitten, and finished as an offensive force for decades too. Very costly for Ukraine in blood and treasure but a service to the rest of the world.
By the time the war is over you might be able to get to see a GP foxy
The longer it goes on the weaker the Russian army gets. NATO is getting great value for money out of its surplus weapons. The Russian Army has been useful for field testing, and its own weapons found to be grossly inferior. One of Russias main export earnings has been arms, but no one will want them anymore. They will want the good stuff. Another area of Russian inferiority has been exposed to the world.
That's not how the arms industry works. Whether the equipment is any good or not is a second order issue (Ajax). What matters much more is strategic alliances secured thereby, industrial offsets and straightforward bribery.
The Tory voteshares of 30% and 38% were not far off national polling, it was tactical voting which did for them
I have been on PB half a year, and post is the biggest load of clueless spin I have yet seen posted.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
The farming community who voted for the Tories since time in memorial are now starting to understand how much Brexit has completely screwed their future.,
If you thing this was bad for the Tories wait and see what it looks like in a years time..
I agree, although being very pedantic, it's "time immemorial" rather than "time in memorial".
Also "time immemorial" refers to a time which is not reliably recorded. Political history is pretty well recorded, so it's a bit of a stretch to say farmers have voted Tory since time immemorial. It's pretty well recorded that they weren't huge fans of Conservative PM, Sir Robert Peel, albeit that's an odd one as he split his party on the Corn Laws. But also the Conservative Party and predecessor Tory Party haven't existed since time immemorial.
Legally, "time immemorial" is very specifically defined as since at least 1189 under the Statute of Westminster in 1275. But that's only for very specific purposes. In general use, you'd say "oh, my family have been farmers in Devon since time immemorial", you are saying it's been so long that nobody really knows when and the circumstances in which it all started.
That's not how the arms industry works. Whether the equipment is any good or not is a second order issue (Ajax). What matters much more is strategic alliances secured thereby, industrial offsets and straightforward bribery.
Lol
In a time of peace, perhaps.
If there is ever major war, priorities would quickly get reevaluated.
The thing is, if 61% of the electorate consistently voted Democrat in the Generals and in the mid-terms, then the Dems would have the numbers. But they don't, unfortunately.
Personally, with the economic and geopolitical shit storms brewing the Tories need someone like Hague.
He's not even on BF's list.
Otherwise I would stick a couple of quid on.
If you feel you have too much money and want to just toss away a couple of quid, then may I suggest you stick it in the RNLI collection box or something?
He's not an MP and shows no interest in becoming one even if, by some magic, the opportunity arose.
Somebody's throwing Big Dog a bone today when he can truly needs something nice to chew on.
You think he has such goodwill abroad that leaders from Kyiv to Delhi want to prop him up?
Indian FTA will involve more free movement of Indians with visas to UK I suspect.
Farage on standby.
The older I get, the more I suspect that I'm not into the EU per se, but I think I just like political unions. I think the EU is great, but I'd take CANZUK as a consolation. I'd also be keen for free movement with India. The idea of having the opportunity to live in India sounds pretty cool.
The way I see it, the world is forming into big blocs. The USA, China and even Russia are lucky enough to be nation states and big blocs at the same time. The rest must either form part of a bloc or be left behind. In my opinion the future is continent-sized polities. As a good patriot, I thin we need to be part of one, or accept irrelevance.
Somebody's throwing Big Dog a bone today when he can truly needs something nice to chew on.
You think he has such goodwill abroad that leaders from Kyiv to Delhi want to prop him up?
Indian FTA will involve more free movement of Indians with visas to UK I suspect.
Farage on standby.
The older I get, the more I suspect that I'm not into the EU per se, but I think I just like political unions. I think the EU is great, but I'd take CANZUK as a consolation. I'd also be keen for free movement with India. The idea of having the opportunity to live in India sounds pretty cool.
The way I see it, the world is forming into big blocs. The USA, China and even Russia are lucky enough to be nation states and big blocs at the same time. The rest must either form part of a bloc or be left behind. In my opinion the future is continent-sized polities. As a good patriot, I thin we need to be part of one, or accept irrelevance.
Self governing irrelevance is fine for me thanks; the idea that power should be focused so far from the people simply so we can be 'lucky' enough to be a 'big bloc' is pretty lacking in value to say the least.
Somebody's throwing Big Dog a bone today when he can truly needs something nice to chew on.
You think he has such goodwill abroad that leaders from Kyiv to Delhi want to prop him up?
Indian FTA will involve more free movement of Indians with visas to UK I suspect.
Farage on standby.
The older I get, the more I suspect that I'm not into the EU per se, but I think I just like political unions. I think the EU is great, but I'd take CANZUK as a consolation. I'd also be keen for free movement with India. The idea of having the opportunity to live in India sounds pretty cool.
The way I see it, the world is forming into big blocs. The USA, China and even Russia are lucky enough to be nation states and big blocs at the same time. The rest must either form part of a bloc or be left behind. In my opinion the future is continent-sized polities. As a good patriot, I thin we need to be part of one, or accept irrelevance.
Self governing irrelevance is fine for me thanks; the idea that power should be focused so far from the people simply so we can be 'lucky' enough to be a 'big bloc' is pretty lacking in value to say the least.
The big blocs of my imagination would have democratic accountability. There have been a number of attempts to reform the EU in this direction, all been scuppered. I presuppose that the successful blocs have democratic accountability. Indeed, I believe that is what has made the US so successful.
"The informal Labour-Lib Dem alliance could doom the Tories If the unspoken pact between the parties holds at a general election, the Conservatives face dramatic losses.
Comments
We aren't a federal country - I presume you wouldn't argue Surrey should have a different abortion policy to Essex or Newham to Bromley. The law applies to the whole of England equally on this issue and I presume you would support that concept.
And NOT just with respect to abortion. For example, Hungary re: Ukraine.
"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
Labour's swing of 12.7 is lower than I expected. After Partygate, after sh*tshow in No 10, after much negative coverage of Johnson in press, & sharpest cost of living crisis since 1970s, a Labour Party that has been in opposition for 12 years + now has new leader got 12.7 swing?
12:09 PM · Jun 24, 2022·Twitter Web App"
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1540291089545969665
The difficult debate is how to balance the rights of a woman over her own body and the rights of the unborn child inside her in the event of her being unhappily pregnant and not wishing to continue with it. So, term limits, medical exceptions, doctor protocols, counselling etc. All of that.
To opt out of this, to instead say to hell with the woman, it's all about the foetus, be it 6 weeks or 6 days, conceived on purpose or by accident or force, regardless of whether the woman wants a baby or can afford it, regardless of whether she can be a good and loving and capable mother, to force her under threat of prison to carry it to term and give birth, this is - you said it - barbaric and repulsive.
What it certainly isn't is a morally or intellectually respectable conclusion to some "deep philosophical dilemma". I think you should brush up on your deep philosophical dilemma game if you think it is.
We are.western European. And someone thought it was a wonderful idea to open it all up to the rest.
Then to bugger off.
It's just that inertia can be risky too but is sometimes portrayed as a known option, automatically better than a new option.
Watching Billie Eilish now - ok, not really my cup of tea.
An overwhelming majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks (which is in practice more like 8 weeks as it's measured from the last period), a period during which a significant proportion of pregnancies end in miscarriage in any case. The foetus has no ability to live independently and is functionally still just a growing collection of cells as with any other animal foetus. No woman should be forced to continue to carry them to term.
On the other hand, aborting after 20-24 weeks (we can debate the exact line), other than for exceptional reasons such as health risks to the mother, feels very hard to justify. The foetus has a very good chance of living independently of the mother and so it is no longer reasonable for abortion to be a free choice.
I'm sure you can make arguments around drawing the line somewhere else as well. But everyone there is fighting at the extremes. I'm glad the UK has landed on a broadly sensible position that doesn't carry such political weight.
God knows who will come through the mix. Maybe Buttigieg but zero support in crucial black vote. Sherrod Brown might take another tilt? Klobucher?
I'm glad I have a couple of crazy quid on Michelle O because cometh the hour, cometh the Oprah favourite, especially now she is so angry about Wade decision.
The argument that seems clearest to me is that a person has complete autonomy over their own body. No-one else has any right to the use of another person's body, whether that be a husband who wants to have sex with their wife, or a slave-owner who wants to direct another's labour - or, indeed, a foetus does not have the right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of its mother, if the mother no longer consents to her body being used in that way.
We have to trust that women will make the right choices for themselves and their bodies, even if we might think that sometimes those choices are wrong. The price of liberty is allowing people to make mistakes. I believe this sort of question comes up in Bible study when people wonder why an omnipotent God allows bad things to happen.
Where it is right to intervene to provide protection - to the foetus and the mother - is to ensure that a woman is never coerced into having an abortion. Personally, I would also find it repugnant if people felt that they were forced by their economic situation into having an abortion. And better access to contraception would make it less likely that people who didn't want to create a foetus would do so unintentionally.
I think that, personally, were I a woman I would find it very hard to have an abortion. I also know that I would feel better about deciding to keep an unexpected pregnancy if it was my choice to do so, rather than one forced upon me by law. The feeling of being trapped in that situation must be excruciating.
As for abortion, it is hardly popular with most voters, majority of pro-choicers esp. women being ambivalent, which is one reason for being so gung-ho about contraception and sex education.
And while a majority is broadly in favor of woman's right to choose, the number who feel strongly this way is considerably less. And is politically more-or-less balanced by voters are strongly anti-abortion.
PLUS factor in the fact that most voters whatever their views on the subject do NOT base their vote solely re: abortion, and for many it isn't much of a consideration at all. Instead, they vote for candidates of one party & persuasion or the other for OTHER reasons.
In recent years, abortion has actually been LESS of what we call a "wedge" issue, at same time that other issues & etc. have been eroding Democratic support in large parts of America, in a way NOT fully compensated by gains elsewhere.
This in turn has led to narrow (indeed minority) GOP presidential victories as well as Republican gains in key state races including Congress including US Senate. Gains that in the course of events (and chance) have led to a conservative majority on SCOTUS.
Idles were immense.
Lib Dems lost their deposit when Tories won seat 47 to 40%. Yet you claim it was tactical voting what cost you the seat yesterday? In Wakefield no more than 1200 votes could have gone Lib Dem to Labour, in reality much less.
You won’t reply because you can’t explain the unexplainable.
In Devon, what squeezing of the labour vote there was you claim made the difference in costing you the seat - it was the absolute tsunami of Tory to Lib Dem switchers what sunk you without trace in that seat.
Lost on T&H though. Bet on the Cons at 5. Never even got a layback.
If you thing this was bad for the Tories wait and see what it looks like in a years time..
Cometh the hour and all that.
Who is running for reelection as Governor of the Great Wolverine State of Michigan. And has been aided in her quest by fact that not just one but two of the most-credible GOP hopefuls were both kicked off the August primary ballot for submitting fraudulent voter signatures on required election petitions, thus failing to make the required threshold of valid sig.
Assuming she's victorious this Fall, as a re-elected chief exec of a large Midwestern state, Gov. Whitmer will be a VERY attractive potential POTUS candidate for many Democrats.
For one thing, the well-publicized Putinist plot to kidnap her - or worse - has given her a reputation for toughness and steadfastness that could prove a major plus, and not just with the Dems.
You are adored.
However, sending a media marvel to do battle with another (arguably lesser) example DOES have some appeal.
But anyway ... nearly midnight and need to reduce BP or I won't sleep.
AND are any good skiffle bands (or tribute acts) on the bill?
Could Moudaunt command the respect and loyalty of ambitious people like Patel and Truss through difficult times? No one knows. It’s a gamble.
It’s barking anyone could claim otherwise!
Including Bernie Madoff and the Great Train Robbers.
https://twitter.com/CNBCTV18News/status/1540327940713349121
As for these times, doubt if CUP's Fearless Leader can do much if any math, even with the aid of match-sticks.
Been satisfying today, got loads of clothes dry under scuttling clouds, not one raindrop here, but just across the river on the upslope, all the storms seeded and the north of the town copped perhaps a good half inch of rain judging by the radars and distant rumbles.
Considering that Roe v. Wade repeal is distracting attention AWAY from yesterday's debacle.
More shit-for-brains strategic "thinking" by Big Dog and his pathetic pups.
Also "time immemorial" refers to a time which is not reliably recorded. Political history is pretty well recorded, so it's a bit of a stretch to say farmers have voted Tory since time immemorial. It's pretty well recorded that they weren't huge fans of Conservative PM, Sir Robert Peel, albeit that's an odd one as he split his party on the Corn Laws. But also the Conservative Party and predecessor Tory Party haven't existed since time immemorial.
Legally, "time immemorial" is very specifically defined as since at least 1189 under the Statute of Westminster in 1275. But that's only for very specific purposes. In general use, you'd say "oh, my family have been farmers in Devon since time immemorial", you are saying it's been so long that nobody really knows when and the circumstances in which it all started.
Farage on standby.
Otherwise I would stick a couple of quid on.
Robert Reich
@RBReich
·
1h
61% of Americans support codifying Roe v. Wade into law.
But thanks to the filibuster, 41 Senate Republicans representing just 21% of the country can block it.
This is not how democracy is supposed to work.
https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1540452703595139072
In a time of peace, perhaps.
If there is ever major war, priorities would quickly get reevaluated.
Isn't it ironic...
He's not an MP and shows no interest in becoming one even if, by some magic, the opportunity arose.
The way I see it, the world is forming into big blocs. The USA, China and even Russia are lucky enough to be nation states and big blocs at the same time. The rest must either form part of a bloc or be left behind. In my opinion the future is continent-sized polities. As a good patriot, I thin we need to be part of one, or accept irrelevance.
Zelensky's motives are obvious: national preservation.
And Modi can easily overlook UK aiding UKR, no skin off his nose, indeed helps give him leverage with both BoJo and Mad Vlad.
Timing of today's announcement from New Delhi a small but no doubt appreciated good-will gesture for a belegered fellow Putinist.
They DO like helping each other out whenever possible. Which is not always, of course. But plenty enough.
If the unspoken pact between the parties holds at a general election, the Conservatives face dramatic losses.
By Philip Collins" (£)
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/06/the-informal-labour-lib-dem-alliance-could-doom-the-tories
While trade unionists were manning the picket lines, party’s deputy leader sipped bubbles and settled down to watch the Marriage of Figaro
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/24/exclusive-labours-angela-rayner-brings-splash-champagne-socialism/ (£££)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10950855/On-eve-Wimbledon-Cambridge-University-holding-door-open-superstar-Emma-Raducanu.html