Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why replacing Boris Johnson will not be enough – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    Compare and contrast

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    against
    HYUFD said:

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Does it really matter? Even if the SNP were on 100% for Holyrood if the Conservatives were still in power at Westminster they would still refuse
    indyref2.

    Only if the next general election leads to a hung parliament and the Conservatives winning most seats and Starmer needing SNP support to become PM will the UK government grant an official indyref2
    The first post: Tories are finished. We can stop supporting lies corruption and malfeasance but the damage has been done, we're likely going to lose as people will vote for anyone but us.

    The second post: We are still the Big I Am. Who cares how the non-Tories vote, we just tell them no.

    HY mate - its over. The lesson of last week is that anti-Tory tactical voting can kill you lot for a decade. You personally may support Boris and therefore his criminality, lies and corruption, but increasingly few voters do. The people have had enough and will get shut of you. So, with respect to "does it really matter" - if "it" is your opinion on Scotland, the answer is "no".

    We still have 2 years until the next UK general election in which the Tories will remain in power with a majority at Westminster and can refuse an indyref2 and refuse to recognise any unofficial indyref2. So yes in terms of Scotland there will be no change in the Union while the Tories are in power.

    Even if Labour wins the next general election Starmer would also likely refuse an indyref2, at most granting devomax. The only way that changes is if it is a hung parliament with the Tories winning most seats and he needs SNP support to become PM
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    Trouble with that is there is always a risk to the mother in childbirth, and after. That could be the next thing to go, if it isn't already in some states.
    Fair enough, but I saw a lot of nonsense about ectopic pregnancies yesterday/Friday, including on PB.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    Sounds like shit stirring by Labour and Starmer

    At least half a dozen Tory MPs are talking about defecting to Labour, according to insiders in Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Westminster was full of speculation that a defection could take place at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago. While it did not happen, the recent by-elections are thought to be a new trigger.

    While many of the MPs have been considering their options for some time, at least one new person has contacted a Labour official since the by-elections to open up a channel of communication. A source said: “They will need to move quickly, because the party is lining up candidates to run against them at the next general election.”

    Labour’s victory in Wakefield matches internal polling that shows most, if not all, of the 2019 Tory gains would be wiped out at the next general election. “If Boris Johnson is still Tory leader, these seats are going to go the same way as Wakefield. Most of them won’t even be close. It’s no surprise Tory MPs want to jump ship,” the source added.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    Listening to Brandon Lewis on Sky is excruciating as he defends the indefensible and is in denial about Johnson

    This is just so depressing and must make many decent conservatives despair
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,162
    edited June 2022

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Of course Boris needs to go, and yesterday wouldn't be soon enough.

    However, there are problems.

    First, there's nobody out there who seems to want the job. Not enough to fight Big Dog for it, anyway. To be fair, it looks like a hospital pass, but there's a depressing lack of courage and love of party and country out there.

    Next, this would be the third parliament in a row where an elected Conservative PM hasn't made it to the next GE. One is sometimes necessary, two begins to look like carelessness... What is three?

    Maybe this government has just run out of life, and we have 30 months of limbo to look forward to. In which case, heaven help us, one and all.

    A rerun of the late 50s - Churchill, Eden and Macmillan.
    So who in the Conservative Party wants to be Alec Douglas-Home?
    Frightening thought but - Lord Frost?

    Lord Frost gives third-rate a bad name.

    I cant see him garnering more than about a dozen swivel-eyed Tory MPs as backers....
    What involvement did he have in politics before Brexit? So far as I can recall, only as head of the Scottish whisky manufacturers' associattion where he campaigned against the Scottish Government's curbs on cheap white alcohol for jakies (which did not include whisky, IIRC).

    I had forgotten that he thoroughly approved of the EU's interference in UK matters ...

    'David Frost, chief executive of the SWA, said the association was pleased by the decision. "From the outset we said that we believed minimum unit pricing was contrary to European Union law and that it was likely in the end to go to the European court," he said.'


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/30/minimum-alcohol-price-european-court-scottish-judges
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Frosty the no man would need a safe seat. The aren’t any after last week.

    Home was Macmillans chosen successor. Boris doesn’t have one , almost by definition.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,314
    In an airport hotel in a conservative suburb of Istanbul which is not only Dry, and next to the world’s biggest mosque, it is so Puritan it won’t let me comment on here via the hotel Wi-Fi. Evil betting!

    When I get to Montenegro I am going to have three negronis while I wank to interracial lesbian porn stars playing naked poker
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,162

    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    Trouble with that is there is always a risk to the mother in childbirth, and after. That could be the next thing to go, if it isn't already in some states.
    Fair enough, but I saw a lot of nonsense about ectopic pregnancies yesterday/Friday, including on PB.
    It does also depend how risk is defined - to life or health more generally, including mental. We will have to see.
  • I wonder how many of the 25% would have said the same thing before the last election, but voted Conservative anyway (because of habit or Corbyn), and how many would have changed their views because of what's happened post-election?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Listening to Brandon Lewis on Sky is excruciating as he defends the indefensible and is in denial about Johnson

    This is just so depressing and must make many decent conservatives despair

    All three of them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Jonathan said:

    Frosty the no man would need a safe seat. The aren’t any after last week.

    Home was Macmillans chosen successor. Boris doesn’t have one , almost by definition.

    Hmmm. Hailsham was Macmillan's chosen successor. Home was the alternative when Hailsham flunked it.

    Butler with all his faults would have been a better choice than either.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    Trevor Phillips (Sky) is excellent at cross examining politicians and putting them on the spot
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,267

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    Yes, that's the usual, though abortion is illegal even in cases of rape and incest in most of them, which to me is a pretty ruthless policy too, especially where you can be sent to prison even for having it done outside the state. Thorough overview here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

    On the Amol quote, I suppose the difficulty is defining what we mean by "life". In reality our lives evolve from a clump of cells at conception with zero ability to sense anything, to the point where one can feel but not survive independent, to normal life, to the final stage where one is perhpas only kept alive by artificial means. As an MP I felt that the test should be when one starts to be able to feel pain (I was told around 20 weeks) rather than when one can survive outside the mother (around 24).

    I recently saw the other end of the scale - my uncle had advanced Parkinsons, with total muscle loss, so he could no longer speak audibly, turn in bed, or swallow. He was literally all day in the same position staring at the ceiling, except when a nurse turned him or poured fortified liquid down his throat. Always stoic, he didn't show distress, and as a keen Roman Catholic he'd told me that he looked forward to joining his family in Heaven. He died recently and I really feel glad for him - the easily-used phrase "that's no life at all" seemed appropriate.

    So perhaps we should think of life in terms of ability to enjoy and suffer, rather than simply a heartbeat?
  • Sounds like shit stirring by Labour and Starmer

    At least half a dozen Tory MPs are talking about defecting to Labour, according to insiders in Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Westminster was full of speculation that a defection could take place at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago. While it did not happen, the recent by-elections are thought to be a new trigger.

    While many of the MPs have been considering their options for some time, at least one new person has contacted a Labour official since the by-elections to open up a channel of communication. A source said: “They will need to move quickly, because the party is lining up candidates to run against them at the next general election.”

    Labour’s victory in Wakefield matches internal polling that shows most, if not all, of the 2019 Tory gains would be wiped out at the next general election. “If Boris Johnson is still Tory leader, these seats are going to go the same way as Wakefield. Most of them won’t even be close. It’s no surprise Tory MPs want to jump ship,” the source added.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r

    After hubris comes nemesis.

    I recall the truly absurd talk of three defections from Labour to the Tories at Conference season last year. Within a few weeks, Labour were polling leads.

    I doubt the same going to happen in reverse this time though.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Frosty the no man would need a safe seat. The aren’t any after last week.

    Home was Macmillans chosen successor. Boris doesn’t have one , almost by definition.

    Hmmm. Hailsham was Macmillan's chosen successor. Home was the alternative when Hailsham flunked it.

    Butler with all his faults would have been a better choice than either.
    Indeed, but the point being was that Macmillan was instrumental. There is no sign of Boris anointing an heir.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    Sounds like shit stirring by Labour and Starmer

    At least half a dozen Tory MPs are talking about defecting to Labour, according to insiders in Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Westminster was full of speculation that a defection could take place at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago. While it did not happen, the recent by-elections are thought to be a new trigger.

    While many of the MPs have been considering their options for some time, at least one new person has contacted a Labour official since the by-elections to open up a channel of communication. A source said: “They will need to move quickly, because the party is lining up candidates to run against them at the next general election.”

    Labour’s victory in Wakefield matches internal polling that shows most, if not all, of the 2019 Tory gains would be wiped out at the next general election. “If Boris Johnson is still Tory leader, these seats are going to go the same way as Wakefield. Most of them won’t even be close. It’s no surprise Tory MPs want to jump ship,” the source added.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r

    Yes, but nice that they’re in a position to do so convincingly. From my perspective anyway.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for

    greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    My secondary education gave both about the same attention. Slavery in history lessons and Holocaust in religious education.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
     

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    Yes, that's the usual, though abortion is illegal even in cases of rape and incest in most of them, which to me is a pretty ruthless policy too, especially where you can be sent to prison even for having it done outside the state. Thorough overview here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

    On the Amol quote, I suppose the difficulty is defining what we mean by "life". In reality our lives evolve from a clump of cells at conception with zero ability to sense anything, to the point where one can feel but not survive independent, to normal life, to the final stage where one is perhpas only kept alive by artificial means. As an MP I felt that the test should be when one starts to be able to feel pain (I was told around 20 weeks) rather than when one can survive outside the mother (around 24).

    I recently saw the other end of the scale - my uncle had advanced Parkinsons, with total muscle loss, so he could no longer speak audibly, turn in bed, or swallow. He was literally all day in the same position staring at the ceiling, except when a nurse turned him or poured fortified liquid down his throat. Always stoic, he didn't show distress, and as a keen Roman Catholic he'd told me that he looked forward to joining his family in Heaven. He died recently and I really feel glad for him - the easily-used phrase "that's no life at all" seemed appropriate.

    So perhaps we should think of life in terms of ability to enjoy and suffer, rather than simply a heartbeat?
    Slippery slope territory.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    edited June 2022

    Good morning everyone. Another fine bright one!
    Came back from a family party through the Dartford Tunnel last night; yes the yardage to the escape routes is bizarre, as per JRM…

    I assume you mean JRM is also bizarre, since the placement the signage had nothing to do with euro regs ?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
  • On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?
    You don't, it is democracy in action and is the benefit of First Past the Post.

    Despite getting the most votes across the two seats, the Tories deservedly got zero seats because neither seat chose them. The system works. Each seat has the representative their voters preferred. 👍
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    No, it is not.
    The evidence from jurisdictions where abortion is criminalised is quite clear. Physicians delay treatment for life threatening conditions until they are certain there is a threat to the woman’s life. With potentially fatal results.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/07/killed-by-abortion-laws-five-women-whose-stories-we-must-never-forget
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,469

    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    Trouble with that is there is always a risk to the mother in childbirth, and after. That could be the next thing to go, if it isn't already in some states.
    Fair enough, but I saw a lot of nonsense about ectopic pregnancies yesterday/Friday, including on PB.
    I didn't see the discussion, but there was some talk here sometime before about certain states (sorry can't remember which) who have drafted laws that would prevent abortion of an ectopic pregnancy. I got the impression it wasn't deliberate but the law worded in such a way to be the consequence (lack of science). Vaguely recall the idea being to get the abortion date as close to conception date as possible (even negative for those who disapprove of contraception.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    EXC: Now Cabinet Office and Number 10 tracking ministers' comings and goings in Parliament

    Comes after Jacob Rees-Mogg was FOId on his movements - gvt quietly conducting its own drive to track attendance

    https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/comment/195736/ministers-are-brought-to-heel-with-wfh-tracking?collection=10717
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    No, it is not.
    The evidence from jurisdictions where abortion is criminalised is quite clear. Physicians delay treatment for life threatening conditions until they are certain there is a threat to the woman’s life. With potentially fatal results.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/07/killed-by-abortion-laws-five-women-whose-stories-we-must-never-forget
    Ok, but isn’t that on the physician?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,162
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    No, it is not.
    The evidence from jurisdictions where abortion is criminalised is quite clear. Physicians delay treatment for life threatening conditions until they are certain there is a threat to the woman’s life. With potentially fatal results.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/07/killed-by-abortion-laws-five-women-whose-stories-we-must-never-forget
    Made much worse by the relative lack of access to physicians for the poor and racially discriminated against who are the targets of the Republicans in other ways (voting suppression).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    HYUFD said:

    Compare and contrast

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    against
    HYUFD said:

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Does it really matter? Even if the SNP were on 100% for Holyrood if the Conservatives were still in power at Westminster they would still refuse
    indyref2.

    Only if the next general election leads to a hung parliament and the Conservatives winning most seats and Starmer needing SNP support to become PM will the UK government grant an official indyref2
    The first post: Tories are finished. We can stop supporting lies corruption and malfeasance but the damage has been done, we're likely going to lose as people will vote for anyone but us.

    The second post: We are still the Big I Am. Who cares how the non-Tories vote, we just tell them no.

    HY mate - its over. The lesson of last week is that anti-Tory tactical voting can kill you lot for a decade. You personally may support Boris and therefore his criminality, lies and corruption, but increasingly few voters do. The people have had enough and will get shut of you. So, with respect to "does it really matter" - if "it" is your opinion on Scotland, the answer is "no".

    We still have 2 years until the next UK general election in which the Tories will remain in power with a majority at Westminster and can refuse an indyref2 and refuse to recognise any unofficial indyref2. So yes in terms of Scotland there will be no change in the Union while the Tories are in power.

    Even if Labour wins the next general election Starmer would also likely refuse an indyref2, at most granting devomax. The only way that changes is if it is a hung parliament with the Tories winning most seats and he needs SNP support to become PM
    Glad you had a fun trip to your cousin's wedding - family is more important than posting on PB!

    My point was that you appear to have accepted that your brand of "Conservatism" (English Nationalism in a proto-fascist personality cult) is on its way out. People are utterly sick of all you stand for. Corruption. Arrogance. Lies. So you will be gone even if the crook remains PM a bit longer.

    Or, you will be gone quicker. Because the party will rise up against your cult, remove Johnson and you and yours will be about as important as the remaining Corbynites are in Labour.

    Either way, your views on Scotland are irrelevant. Time limited. Restricted. Because you have only ever talked about this government and 2024. But the *Scottish* government - the one that has the mandate - runs until 2026. As we will almost certainly have a different UK government soon, the anti-democracy position you take means nothing. Because you cannot influence the government that will follow.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?

    I genuinely would not put anything past this government. It has absolutely no commitment to either democracy or the rule of law. It was very interesting yesterday to see the Bruges Group singing the praises of Viktor Orban. The Spectator is a huge admirer of his as well. That's the modern Conservative party right there.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,162

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    No, it is not.
    The evidence from jurisdictions where abortion is criminalised is quite clear. Physicians delay treatment for life threatening conditions until they are certain there is a threat to the woman’s life. With potentially fatal results.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/07/killed-by-abortion-laws-five-women-whose-stories-we-must-never-forget
    Ok, but isn’t that on the physician?
    Not so easy to get one for the poor quickly (which is a crucial issue here).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    edited June 2022

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    No, it is not.
    The evidence from jurisdictions where abortion is criminalised is quite clear. Physicians delay treatment for life threatening conditions until they are certain there is a threat to the woman’s life. With potentially fatal results.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/07/killed-by-abortion-laws-five-women-whose-stories-we-must-never-forget
    Ok, but isn’t that on the physician?
    Not so easy to get one for the poor quickly (which is a crucial issue here).
    Fair enough. Once again I am grateful that we have the nhs approach here.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,964
    Leon said:

    In an airport hotel in a conservative suburb of Istanbul which is not only Dry, and next to the world’s biggest mosque, it is so Puritan it won’t let me comment on here via the hotel Wi-Fi. Evil betting!

    When I get to Montenegro I am going to have three negronis while I wank to interracial lesbian porn stars playing naked poker

    Mind your Ps and Qs in Montenegro - much of it us Russian owned....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,314
    edited June 2022
    Excellently click-baity Janan Ganesh article where he asks who is more boring and insufferable, the earnest woke humourless @Kinabalu Left or the faux-philistine faux-populist @nooneonhere Right

    His conclusion, the Left is even more boring, just about

    “Given that I posed the question, I should stop evading the answer. By a whisker, I find the right easier to be around.”


    https://www.ft.com/content/c4f5c681-ed5a-44af-9f02-2076eca87dd7
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    Sounds like shit stirring by Labour and Starmer

    At least half a dozen Tory MPs are talking about defecting to Labour, according to insiders in Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Westminster was full of speculation that a defection could take place at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago. While it did not happen, the recent by-elections are thought to be a new trigger.

    While many of the MPs have been considering their options for some time, at least one new person has contacted a Labour official since the by-elections to open up a channel of communication. A source said: “They will need to move quickly, because the party is lining up candidates to run against them at the next general election.”

    Labour’s victory in Wakefield matches internal polling that shows most, if not all, of the 2019 Tory gains would be wiped out at the next general election. “If Boris Johnson is still Tory leader, these seats are going to go the same way as Wakefield. Most of them won’t even be close. It’s no surprise Tory MPs want to jump ship,” the source added.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r

    Its almost certainly shit-stirring. But if it isn't, lets think about which Tories could be in the frame. Would need to be quiet ones - the loudly pro-Boris ones it will not be. So no Gullis, Vickers, Young etc. I hadn't even heard of Wakeford until he crossed the floor, so more like him.

    Small majority, small profile, 2019 intake. Any names people can suggest...?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    89% of UK abortions are in the first 10 weeks, with a similar proportion being from medical rather than surgical procedures. Peak age for abortions is 22 years, and recent years shows a sharp drop in teenage abortions, down by 2/3. I think this reflects the sharp drop in teenage pregnancies.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

    Later abortions are more often complex reasons, the most clear cut being for severe congenital defects. The practical issue here is often that these cannot be detected until 16-18 weeks. Many of the rest have complex social or medical issues around them.

    So broadly, I am content with current UK practice.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    Yes, that's the usual, though abortion is illegal even in cases of rape and incest in most of them, which to me is a pretty ruthless policy too, especially where you can be sent to prison even for having it done outside the state. Thorough overview here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

    On the Amol quote, I suppose the difficulty is defining what we mean by "life". In reality our lives evolve from a clump of cells at conception with zero ability to sense anything, to the point where one can feel but not survive independent, to normal life, to the final stage where one is perhpas only kept alive by artificial means. As an MP I felt that the test should be when one starts to be able to feel pain (I was told around 20 weeks) rather than when one can survive outside the mother (around 24).

    I recently saw the other end of the scale - my uncle had advanced Parkinsons, with total muscle loss, so he could no longer speak audibly, turn in bed, or swallow. He was literally all day in the

    same position staring at the ceiling, except when a nurse turned him or poured fortified liquid down his throat. Always stoic, he didn't show distress, and as a keen Roman Catholic he'd told me that he looked forward to joining his family in Heaven. He died recently and I really feel glad for him - the easily-used phrase "that's no life at all" seemed appropriate.

    So perhaps we should think of life in terms of ability to enjoy and suffer, rather than simply a heartbeat?
    Fair points Nick, and I’m not opposed to assisted dying.

    Ultimately, it’s up to us as individuals to decide and a free vote in Parliament is the best way to get an answer. It doesn’t really bother me that the limit is 24 weeks. I’m sure the number of abortions after 12 weeks is very low.

    I think what I’d say on your view about pain at 20 weeks is that I’d then err on the side of caution and take off another four weeks at least.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,267
    IanB2 said:

    Good morning everyone. Another fine bright one!
    Came back from a family party through the Dartford Tunnel last night; yes the yardage to the escape routes is bizarre, as per JRM.

    Funny place to have a party?
    Enjoyed the flag at the Glastonbury coverage: "This is a work event".
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,162

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    No, it is not.
    The evidence from jurisdictions where abortion is criminalised is quite clear. Physicians delay treatment for life threatening conditions until they are certain there is a threat to the woman’s life. With potentially fatal results.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/07/killed-by-abortion-laws-five-women-whose-stories-we-must-never-forget
    Ok, but isn’t that on the physician?
    Not so easy to get one for the poor quickly (which is a crucial issue here).
    Fair enough. Once again I am grateful that we have the nhs approach here.
    I did also wonder yesterday about the ectopic pregnancy rate beign cited, but it does seem to be accurate: this does n ot eqiate to morbidity, but this is apposite.
    https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2000/0215/p1080.html

    "A ruptured ectopic pregnancy is a true medical emergency. It is the leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester and accounts for 10 to 15 percent of all maternal deaths.2–4"

    "Epidemiology
    The number of ectopic pregnancies has increased dramatically in the past few decades. Based on hospital discharge data, the incidence of ectopic pregnancy has risen from 4.5 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in 19705,6 to 19.7 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in 1992.2 The rise can be attributed partly to increases in certain risk factors but mostly to improved diagnostics. Some ectopic pregnancies detected today, for instance, would have spontaneously resolved without detection or intervention in the past. Ectopic pregnancy is more often detected in women over 35 years of age and in non-white ethnic groups.1
    The case-fatality rate has declined from 35.5 maternal deaths per 10,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1970 to only 3.8 maternal deaths per 10,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1989.6 Even though overall survival has increased, the risk of death associated with ectopic pregnancy remains higher among black and other non-white minority women."
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    Haha, that's gonna put anti-Woke monarchists in a quandary.

    @Leon, I'm looking at you.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    Leon said:

    Excellently click-baity Janan Ganesh article where he asks who is more boring and insufferable, the earnest woke humourless @Kinabalu Left or the faux-philistine faux-populist @nooneonhere Right

    His conclusion, the Left is even more boring, just about

    “Given that I posed the question, I should stop evading the answer. By a whisker, I find the right easier to be around.”


    https://www.ft.com/content/c4f5c681-ed5a-44af-9f02-2076eca87dd7

    Lol - @nooneonhere. If only.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    89% of UK abortions are in the first 10 weeks, with a similar proportion being from medical rather than surgical procedures. Peak age for abortions is 22 years, and recent years shows a sharp drop in teenage abortions, down by 2/3. I think this reflects the sharp drop in teenage pregnancies.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

    Later abortions are more often complex reasons, the most clear cut being for severe congenital defects. The practical issue here is often that these cannot be detected until 16-18 weeks. Many of the rest have complex social or medical issues around them.

    So broadly, I am content with current UK practice.
    Useful stats, and I broadly agree, though I’d like a clear “in exceptional circumstances” caveat to limit late abortions to things that don’t get picked up until late.

    But, that’s another moral maze. Sally Phillips wants to ban testing for Down’s as she fears we’re going to effectively end up with no children with Down’s.

    Now, I don’t actually know for sure, but I’d imagine that Phillips supports a woman’s right to choose. But it’s interesting that she wants to take that right away in some circumstances.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    .

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won’t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?
    It’s just losers whining about how folk voting against them is unfair.
    FPTP is unfair enough already; no one will accept any attempts to make it even more so.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Doesn’t Boris have a point? Everyone knew he was a shit, but Tory MPs nominated him anyway, Tory members confirmed him and he was elected with a big majority by his his blukip style coalition. A section of the Tory party getting buyers remorse three years on is a little weak.

    I prefer to call the party "ConKip"
    There is something of the GOP about this Tory party. I suspect given the support in the country, we’re never going back to the old conservative, Conservative party even if they ditch Boris. The likes of Dorries and co are the future.
    Indeed, Johnson is a big spending, pro choice, social liberal, who under Carrie's influence has taken some action on climate change. The only thing he is really with the party right on is Brexit.

    There are far more hardline Conservatives who could succeed him if the Tories head to opposition.

    After Cameron, May and Johnson the right will be looking to ensure they get a hardliner as leader
    You are advocating the Tories adopt their own Project Corbyn option. If you consider Corbyn as a dry run for Project Steve Baker, it might be wise to check out how well that worked.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?
    You don't, it is democracy in action and is the benefit of First Past the Post.

    Despite getting the most votes across the two seats, the Tories deservedly got zero seats because neither seat chose them. The system works. Each seat has the representative their voters preferred. 👍
    Its a baffling attack line. Back in 2019 BXP actually withdrew candidates in scores of seats to ensure their voters backed the Tories. THAT is an electoral pact even a one-sided one. But here we have both parties standing candidates in both seats.

    So what is the complaint? That Labour didn't campaign hard enough in T&H? How do they mount a legal challenge against that? And how do they use people choosing how to vote to motivate others? "Because some people chose the LibDems instead of Labour its proof of a conspiracy against the Tories so you must vote Tory"?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,314

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    Haha, that's gonna put anti-Woke monarchists in a quandary.


    @Leon, I'm looking at you.
    The answer is surely: we shouldn’t teach either. The history curriculum is already too diluted and sprawling

    History should be renamed British Victories and focus entirely on Agincourt, Waterloo, the Plains of Abraham and the Battle of Britain

    At break the kids should be encouraged to reenact the Anglo-Zanzibar war of august 27, 1896



  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

    Our history O level exam turned out to be a test of speed handwriting. Five essay-style answers required in 2.5 hours.

    I literally (hah!) could not write fast enough, and failed with D grade. Shame as I actually knew the subject quite well.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    edited June 2022
    ..

    Morning all.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Boris usually gives good interview. Upbeat, sunlit uplands in sight, never caught out or needing to pause to find an answer, etc

    Yesterday's on R4 he was none of these things. As though the kryptonite was wearing off in front of our eyes.

    He was (more) unsure, hesitant, unknowing than I have ever heard him.

    Is this it?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
    When they did finally come together, they formed the original Axis of Evil.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    Leon said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    Haha, that's gonna put anti-Woke monarchists in a quandary.


    @Leon, I'm looking at you.
    The answer is surely: we shouldn’t teach either. The history curriculum is already too diluted and sprawling

    History should be renamed British Victories and focus entirely on Agincourt, Waterloo, the Plains of Abraham and the Battle of Britain

    At break the kids should be encouraged to reenact the Anglo-Zanzibar war of august 27, 1896
    Perfect. Call Johnson and let him know his "NEXT BIG IDEA" ;-)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    ydoethur said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
    When they did finally come together, they formed the original Axis of Evil.
    And add in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria too.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    Sure, slavery has been around a long time, and in many cultures, but the point of studying history is to get insight into the present. The Atlantic triangular slave trade is therefore much more relevant to Britons of all ethnicities.

    It is a key to understanding current issues like racism, the history of colonisation in the Americas and Africa, and the development of Britain as a maritime power. Highly relevant to the Commonwealth as a result, and well worth the future King's comments.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited June 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Compare and contrast

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    against
    HYUFD said:

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Does it really matter? Even if the SNP were on 100% for Holyrood if the Conservatives were still in power at Westminster they would still refuse
    indyref2.

    Only if the next general election leads to a hung parliament and the Conservatives winning most seats and Starmer needing SNP support to become PM will the UK government grant an official indyref2
    The first post: Tories are finished. We can stop supporting lies corruption and malfeasance but the damage has been done, we're likely going to lose as people will vote for anyone but us.

    The second post: We are still the Big I Am. Who cares how the non-Tories vote, we just tell them no.

    HY mate - its over. The lesson of last week is that anti-Tory tactical voting can kill you lot for a decade. You personally may support Boris and therefore his criminality, lies and corruption, but increasingly few voters do. The people have had enough and will get shut of you. So, with respect to "does it really matter" - if "it" is your opinion on Scotland, the answer is "no".

    We still have 2 years until the next UK general election in which the Tories will remain in power with a majority at Westminster and can refuse an indyref2 and refuse to recognise any unofficial indyref2. So yes in terms of Scotland there will be no change in the Union while the Tories are in power.

    Even if Labour wins the next general election Starmer would also likely refuse an indyref2, at most granting devomax. The only way that changes is if it is a hung parliament with the Tories winning most seats and he needs SNP support to become PM
    Glad you had a fun trip to your cousin's wedding - family is more important than posting on PB!

    My point was that you appear to have accepted that your brand of "Conservatism" (English Nationalism in a proto-fascist personality cult) is on its way out. People are utterly sick of all you stand for. Corruption. Arrogance. Lies. So you will be gone even if the crook remains PM a bit longer.

    Or, you will be gone quicker. Because the party will rise up against your cult, remove Johnson and you and yours will be about as important as the remaining Corbynites are in Labour.

    Either way, your views on Scotland are irrelevant. Time limited. Restricted. Because you have only ever talked about this government and 2024. But the *Scottish* government - the one that has the mandate - runs until 2026. As we will almost certainly have a different UK government soon, the anti-democracy position you take means nothing. Because you cannot influence the government that will follow.
    Thanks. The idea the Tories are going to shift to reject Brexit and become Cameroon again when Boris goes though is ludicrous. Indeed Boris is economically left of Cameron and a social liberal. It took 10 years for Labour in opposition to get to Starmer after shifting ever further left via Ed Miliband and Corbyn. If Johnson goes the odds are the Tories will shift even further right, not only pro Brexit but more socially conservative and more low tax and low spend than under Johnson too.

    I also doubt even Starmer will want to risk an indyref2 which would end his premiership before it had even begun if lost. He would prefer simply to create a grand new commission on the Union headed by Gordon Brown
    with devomax etc and kick the issue into the long grass unless it is a hung parliament, the Tories win most seats and he needs the SNP to get to No 10

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    ydoethur said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
    When they did finally come together, they formed the original Axis of Evil.
    That didn't matter a jot, because it was after 1914.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?

    I genuinely would not put anything past this government. It has absolutely no commitment to either democracy or the rule of law. It was very interesting yesterday to see the Bruges Group singing the praises of Viktor Orban. The Spectator is a huge admirer of his as well. That's the modern Conservative party right there.

    As I said (to some derision) - proto-fascist. Was interesting to see the russian troll pop up singing songs about LGBT people like me needing to be put back in our deviant box. Dorries bangs on about the evil state-funded Channel 4 broadcasting woke into people's heads. So yeah, it's their direction of travel. Not because they see LGBT (as an example) to be morally wrong. Just politically advantageous as a wedge issue.

    But we will all be ok. Because they don't even have the majority in their own party any more. And that doesn't have the monopoly of public opinion. So "woke" has already won.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,557

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
    I think that's fair enough, or at least defensible. Germany and Italy are still with us, slavery was abolished a couple of centuries back. Of course, a few of its indirect consequences are still with us, but that's true of just about every notable thing that ever happened, and curricula will involve at least some selection.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    89% of UK abortions are in the first 10 weeks, with a similar proportion being from medical rather than surgical procedures. Peak age for abortions is 22 years, and recent years shows a sharp drop in teenage abortions, down by 2/3. I think this reflects the sharp drop in teenage pregnancies.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

    Later abortions are more often complex reasons, the most clear cut being for severe congenital defects. The practical issue here is often that these cannot be detected until 16-18 weeks. Many of the rest have complex social or medical issues around them.

    So broadly, I am content with current UK practice.
    It is moral degeneracy. Far better would be to copy the new laws in Gilead. Longer sentences for abortion doctors aborting a rape baby than for the rapist. That's God's will you know.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    TOPPING said:

    Boris usually gives good interview. Upbeat, sunlit uplands in sight, never caught out or needing to pause to find an answer, etc

    Yesterday's on R4 he was none of these things. As though the kryptonite was wearing off in front of our eyes.

    He was (more) unsure, hesitant, unknowing than I have ever heard him.

    Is this it?

    "...never caught out or needing to pause to find an answer..."

    Eh? If this the same Johnson who habitually hesitates, waffles, prevaricates, and deviates?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    More fundamentally from your point of view, when Johnson is finally forced out your party is going to be in a hell of a mess, divided, without any over-arching strategy, no real policy prospectus, and with an electoral coalition impossible to hold together - and that's before you consider all the internal organisational staffing issues and personal conflicts that Johnson's chaos will have left unresolved.

    Every week you hang onto the clown is another week before someone else gets to start on the long, long task of rebuilding from the ruins.
    And all that in the midst of a deep recession/depression.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,098
    edited June 2022
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    More fundamentally from your point of view, when Johnson is finally forced out your party is going to be in a hell of a mess, divided, without any over-arching strategy, no real policy prospectus, and with an electoral coalition impossible to hold together - and that's before you consider all the internal organisational staffing issues and personal conflicts that Johnson's chaos will have left unresolved.

    Every week you hang onto the clown is another week before someone else gets to start on the long, long task of rebuilding from the ruins.
    Yes but that someone would need to be someone with clear electoral appeal relative to Starmer and little evidence of any viable alternative making much difference at present
    Actually it doesn't, since the next election may probably be lost already and just getting rid of the dishonest buffoon will be progress. You'll be needing someone to do the Kinnock or Howard role - if (as you suggested above) the party instead picks a nutter then you will just waste a term going through the Hague/IDS cycle before eventually getting real.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    Fishing said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!
    I think that's fair enough, or at least defensible. Germany and Italy are still with us, slavery was abolished a couple of centuries back. Of course, a few of its indirect consequences are still with us, but that's true of just about every notable thing that ever happened, and curricula will involve at least some selection.
    "Of course, a few of its indirect consequences are still with us"

    Er... I hope you're being ironic.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

    My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Boris usually gives good interview. Upbeat, sunlit uplands in sight, never caught out or needing to pause to find an answer, etc

    Yesterday's on R4 he was none of these things. As though the kryptonite was wearing off in front of our eyes.

    He was (more) unsure, hesitant, unknowing than I have ever heard him.

    Is this it?

    "...never caught out or needing to pause to find an answer..."

    Eh? If this the same Johnson who habitually hesitates, waffles, prevaricates, and deviates?
    Yes. As part of his schtick. His act.

    This was genuinely stumbling.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,098
    Scott_xP said:

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    That was always true. And always obvious.

    What worries Tory MPs is that they thought the public loved him anyway.

    That is no longer true
    And all this goes back not to parties - but to Paterson and Peppa Pig - the first showing that the PM had no judgement and the second that he had no competence.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    Trouble with that is there is always a risk to the mother in childbirth, and after. That could be the next thing to go, if it isn't already in some states.
    Fair enough, but I saw a lot of nonsense about ectopic pregnancies yesterday/Friday, including on PB.
    I didn't see the discussion, but there was some talk here sometime before about certain states (sorry can't remember which) who have drafted laws that would prevent abortion of an ectopic pregnancy. I got the impression it wasn't deliberate but the law worded in such a way to be the consequence (lack of science). Vaguely recall the idea being to get the abortion date as close to conception date as possible (even negative for those who disapprove of contraception.
    The point is that in states like Texas, the bundle of cells is given the same importance as the life of the woman carrying it.
    That leads doctors to take risks with women’s lives, since they fear prosecution for carrying out any procedure which can be construed as an abortion.

    The law you’re talking about above is not actually enacted, but it’s a fair example of the legislative ignorance and disdain for women’s rights on this.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    This is some scary shit

    Miller: President Trump… I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568/video/1

    At a political rally in 2021, Miller praised Hitler & paraphrased a line that Hitler gave during a 1935 Nazi rally. Her mention of “white life” sounds about alt-right https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1540852015693037568
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Looking at the following (assuming it is complete), then month-long gaps are not uncommon. It seems there are often gluts of Scottish opinion polls, and long dearths:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
    Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.
    They know it is just more bluff to keep kicking it down the road . She is running out of road, all the stolen money , perjury case et c can only be held up for so long. Many of these crooks will get their day in court.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    More fundamentally from your point of view, when Johnson is finally forced out your party is going to be in a hell of a mess, divided, without any over-arching strategy, no real policy prospectus, and with an electoral coalition impossible to hold together - and that's before you consider all the internal organisational staffing issues and personal conflicts that Johnson's chaos will have left unresolved.

    Every week you hang onto the clown is another week before someone else gets to start on the long, long task of rebuilding from the ruins.
    And all that in the midst of a deep recession/depression.
    Still, once he's got through that Johnson will be able to enjoy his 3rd term in peace and quiet contemplation of what an exceptional human being he is.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?
    It's politics not law. Lab and Lib are going to try to get the best of both worlds by giving each other a clear run on the ground where appropriate, but not actually saying they're in an alliance. This allows the Libs in particular to maintain distance from the other party in seats where the other party isn't popular. If you're a Tory with an LD challenger you obviously don't want to let them get away with that last part. So you want to raise the salience of the pact-not-a-pact in the hope of communicating to those voters that there's a pact.

    It doesn't really matter what the method is to do that: If they can get people talking about it by putting out a press release saying they appealed to Lil Nas X to raise the issue with Ed Davey, they'll put out a press release saying they appealed to Lil Nas X to raise the issue with Ed Davey.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    The problem for him and the party now is that every interview eventually swings round to Boris as the problem.

    All the "we must leave these distractions and transgressions behind" tee up the observation that Boris is the distraction and transgressor.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,098

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?
    You don't, it is democracy in action and is the benefit of First Past the Post.

    Despite getting the most votes across the two seats, the Tories deservedly got zero seats because neither seat chose them. The system works. Each seat has the representative their voters preferred. 👍
    Its a baffling attack line. Back in 2019 BXP actually withdrew candidates in scores of seats to ensure their voters backed the Tories. THAT is an electoral pact even a one-sided one. But here we have both parties standing candidates in both seats.

    So what is the complaint? That Labour didn't campaign hard enough in T&H? How do they mount a legal challenge against that? And how do they use people choosing how to vote to motivate others? "Because some people chose the LibDems instead of Labour its proof of a conspiracy against the Tories so you must vote Tory"?
    Well, at the risk of projecting sense onto the Tories that isn't there, they are probably just trying to make the story newsworthy with some hyperbole, hoping to frighten right-leaning LibDems away from "letting Labour in".
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    malcolmg said:

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Looking at the following (assuming it is complete), then month-long gaps are not uncommon. It seems there are often gluts of Scottish opinion polls, and long dearths:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
    Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.
    They know it is just more bluff to keep kicking it down the road . She is running out of road, all the stolen money , perjury case et c can only be held up for so long. Many of these crooks will get their day in court.
    Sorry Malc, I am genuinely losing the plot. You are pro-independence but anti-Sturgeon, have I got that right?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,314

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?

    I genuinely would not put anything past this government. It has absolutely no commitment to either democracy or the rule of law. It was very interesting yesterday to see the Bruges Group singing the praises of Viktor Orban. The Spectator is a huge admirer of his as well. That's the modern Conservative party right there.

    As I said (to some derision) - proto-fascist. Was interesting to see the russian troll pop up singing songs about LGBT people like me needing to be put back in our deviant box. Dorries bangs on about the evil state-funded Channel 4 broadcasting woke into people's heads. So yeah, it's their direction of travel. Not because they see LGBT (as an example) to be morally wrong. Just
    politically advantageous as a wedge issue.

    But we will all be ok. Because they don't even have the majority in their own party any more. And that doesn't have the monopoly of public opinion. So "woke" has already won.
    If “Woke” has already won, why are you wetting your bi-curious undercrackers, quite ridiculously, about “proto Fascism” in the Tories?

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Foxy said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

    My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
    Slavery sounds a bit like the elephant in the room on that syllabus.

    Because after all, much of the original industrial growth was due to the products being made for barter for slaves in West Africa, and the profits of the slave trade being reinvested in new machinery to make more...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Men should have no say whatsoever on tHe decision, it should be personal to the woman within some set parameters. I agree 24 weeks is too much nowadays unless for medical reasons.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    More fundamentally from your point of view, when Johnson is finally forced out your party is going to be in a hell of a mess, divided, without any over-arching strategy, no real policy prospectus, and with an electoral coalition impossible to hold together - and that's before you consider all the internal organisational staffing issues and personal conflicts that Johnson's chaos will have left unresolved.

    Every week you hang onto the clown is another week before someone else gets to start on the long, long task of rebuilding from the ruins.
    And all that in the midst of a deep recession/depression.
    Still, once he's got through that Johnson will be able to enjoy his 3rd term in peace and quiet contemplation of what an exceptional human being he is.
    I love the delightfully dry irony there.

    But he is exceptional. Fortunately...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
    I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.
    No, it is not.
    The evidence from jurisdictions where abortion is criminalised is quite clear. Physicians delay treatment for life threatening conditions until they are certain there is a threat to the woman’s life. With potentially fatal results.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/07/killed-by-abortion-laws-five-women-whose-stories-we-must-never-forget
    Ok, but isn’t that on the physician?
    No, it is on the legislators who put doctors in legal jeopardy for carrying out what were routine procedures previously.
    The case of miscarriages is more common, and can be equally dangerous.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/23/us-woman-denied-abortion-in-malta-flies-to-spain-for-termination-andrea-prudente
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Compare and contrast

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    against
    HYUFD said:

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Does it really matter? Even if the SNP were on 100% for Holyrood if the Conservatives were still in power at Westminster they would still refuse
    indyref2.

    Only if the next general election leads to a hung parliament and the Conservatives winning most seats and Starmer needing SNP support to become PM will the UK government grant an official indyref2
    The first post: Tories are finished. We can stop supporting lies corruption and malfeasance but the damage has been done, we're likely going to lose as people will vote for anyone but us.

    The second post: We are still the Big I Am. Who cares how the non-Tories vote, we just tell them no.

    HY mate - its over. The lesson of last week is that anti-Tory tactical voting can kill you lot for a decade. You personally may support Boris and therefore his criminality, lies and corruption, but increasingly few voters do. The people have had enough and will get shut of you. So, with respect to "does it really matter" - if "it" is your opinion on Scotland, the answer is "no".

    We still have 2 years until the next UK general election in which the Tories will remain in power with a majority at Westminster and can refuse an indyref2 and refuse to recognise any unofficial indyref2. So yes in terms of Scotland there will be no change in the Union while the Tories are in power.

    Even if Labour wins the next general election Starmer would also likely refuse an indyref2, at most granting devomax. The only way that changes is if it is a hung parliament with the Tories winning most seats and he needs SNP support to become PM
    Glad you had a fun trip to your cousin's wedding - family is more important than posting on PB!

    My point was that you appear to have accepted that your brand of "Conservatism" (English Nationalism in a proto-fascist personality cult) is on its way out. People are utterly sick of all you stand for. Corruption. Arrogance. Lies. So you will be gone even if the crook remains PM a bit longer.

    Or, you will be gone quicker. Because the party will rise up against your cult, remove Johnson and you and yours will be about as important as the remaining Corbynites are in Labour.

    Either way, your views on Scotland are irrelevant. Time limited. Restricted. Because you have only ever talked about this government and 2024. But the *Scottish* government - the one that has the mandate - runs until 2026. As we will almost certainly have a different UK government soon, the anti-democracy position you take means nothing. Because you cannot influence the government that will follow.
    Thanks. The idea the Tories are going to shift to reject Brexit and become Cameroon again when Boris goes though is ludicrous. Indeed Boris is economically left of Cameron and a social liberal. It took 10 years for Labour in opposition to get to Starmer after shifting ever further left via Ed Miliband and Corbyn. If Johnson goes the odds are the Tories will shift even further right, not only pro Brexit but more socially conservative and more low tax and low spend than under Johnson too.

    I also doubt even Starmer will want to risk an indyref2 which would end his premiership before it had even begun if lost. He would prefer simply to create a grand new commission on the Union headed by Gordon Brown
    with devomax etc and kick the issue into the long grass unless it is a hung parliament, the Tories win most seats and he needs the SNP to get to No 10

    1. Who said anything about Brexit? The issues of your party is that it is corrupt. That it commits malfeasance. That it ignores basic principles like the rule of law and now democracy is under attack. That it embeds lies in the heart of government. None of those things are Brexit.
    2. I will accept your view on how your party will react post-Johnson. Can you understand how such a rightwards shift would be Very Bad if you care about winning elections?
    3. There are no routes for the Tories to remain in power short of winning either a majority or just short and the DUP get you over the line. Every other scenario has you out because no party will work with you. So you can't really speculate from a position of authority on post-election scenarios because unless you actually win the election you are gone.
    4. I want the Sindy issue dealt with. There are too many issues up here which are sidelined by "independence". I'm also a democrat. Unlike you. So I respect the direct mandate given to the Scottish government on this issue. Get it done. No will win. With a legal agreement that there can't be another one in a decade.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited June 2022
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    89% of UK abortions are in the first 10 weeks, with a similar proportion being from medical rather than surgical procedures. Peak age for abortions is 22 years, and recent years shows a sharp drop in teenage abortions, down by 2/3. I think this reflects the sharp drop in teenage pregnancies.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

    Later abortions are more often complex reasons, the most clear cut being for severe congenital defects. The practical issue here is often that these cannot be detected until 16-18 weeks. Many of the rest have complex social or medical issues around them.

    So broadly, I am content with current UK practice.
    Useful stats, and I broadly agree, though I’d like a clear “in exceptional circumstances” caveat to limit late abortions to things that don’t get picked up until late.

    But, that’s another moral maze. Sally Phillips wants to ban testing for Down’s as she fears we’re going to effectively end up with no children with Down’s.

    Now, I don’t actually know for sure, but I’d imagine that Phillips supports a woman’s right to choose. But it’s interesting that she wants to take that right away in some circumstances.

    As far as I understand, Sally Phillips doesn't regard Downs Syndrome as a disability severe enough to warrant abortion. Indeed (via her own son with Downs) she sees Downs as an important strand in the human tapestry.

    Her documentary "A world without Downs" is a very thoughtful and nuanced discussion of the issues around abortion for Downs, and fair to both sides, not the usual trench warfare that is seen on the subject. I highly recommend it. It asks the question "What sort of world do we want, and who should be allowed to live in it?"

    https://youtu.be/BhmIeSxXcxE

    What is considered a severe disability under Section E of the abortion Act is not defined, and is well worth discussion. Spina Bifida? Anencephally? Downs, cleft palate?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,039

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916
    Leon said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    Haha, that's gonna put anti-Woke monarchists in a quandary.


    @Leon, I'm looking at you.
    The answer is surely: we shouldn’t teach either. The history curriculum is already too diluted and sprawling

    History should be renamed British Victories and focus entirely on Agincourt, Waterloo, the Plains of Abraham and the Battle of Britain

    At break the kids should be encouraged to reenact the Anglo-Zanzibar war of august 27, 1896



    Surprised you left 2016 out of your list of glorious British victories.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    tlg86 said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for

    greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    My secondary education gave both about the same attention. Slavery in history lessons and Holocaust in religious education.
    Just self seeking windbaggery due to them getting players on it at present. The clown will be back to filling his pockets soon. What is it with Tories and royals and their usage of suitcases.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,175
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

    BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

    The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

    The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

    Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”


    This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

    I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

    89% of UK abortions are in the first 10 weeks, with a similar proportion being from medical rather than surgical procedures. Peak age for abortions is 22 years, and recent years shows a sharp drop in teenage abortions, down by 2/3. I think this reflects the sharp drop in teenage pregnancies.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

    Later abortions are more often complex reasons, the most clear cut being for severe congenital defects. The practical issue here is often that these cannot be detected until 16-18 weeks. Many of the rest have complex social or medical issues around them.

    So broadly, I am content with current UK practice.
    Useful stats, and I broadly agree, though I’d like a clear “in exceptional circumstances” caveat to limit late abortions to things that don’t get picked up until late.

    But, that’s another moral maze. Sally Phillips wants to ban testing for Down’s as she fears we’re going to effectively end up with no children with Down’s.

    Now, I don’t actually know for sure, but I’d imagine that Phillips supports a woman’s right to choose. But it’s interesting that she wants to take that right away in some circumstances.

    As far as I understand, Sally Phillips doesn't regard Downs Syndrome as a disability severe enough to warrant abortion. Indeed (via her own son with Downs) she sees Downs as an important strand in the human tapestry.

    Her documentary "A world without Downs" is a very thoughtful and nuanced discussion of the issues around abortion for Downs, and fair to both sides, not the usual trench warfare that is seen on the subject. I highly recommend it. It asks the question "What sort of world do we want, and who should be allowed to live in it?"

    https://youtu.be/BhmIeSxXcxE

    What is considered a severe disability under Section E of the abortion Act is not defined, and is well worth discussion. Spina Bifida? Anencephally? Downs, cleft palate?
    Not about abortion, but covering some similar issues, is https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0016503 about dwarfism and drug treatments.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

    My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
    Slavery sounds a bit like the elephant in the room on that syllabus.

    Because after all, much of the original industrial growth was due to the products being made for barter for slaves in West Africa, and the profits of the slave trade being reinvested in new machinery to make more...
    Indeed, it did come into it, but hardly emphasised.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,314
    TRAVEL ANECDATA

    Erdogan’s gleaming, enormous new Istanbul airport (roughly the size of greater Chicago) is absolutely RAMMED





    There’s a massive European war, the world is rocked by inflation, entire countries are going down the bog, a chunk of the globe is still closed by Covid, yet… millions of people are happily travelllng

    I find it genuinely hard to reconcile these things.

    Tho I guess the Roaring Twenties took place at a time of great worldwide instability
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    edited June 2022

    On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

    Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

    Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

    I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

    They have two basic problems:
    1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
    2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

    Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

    How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?

    I genuinely would not put anything past this government. It has absolutely no commitment to either democracy or the rule of law. It was very interesting yesterday to see the Bruges Group singing the praises of Viktor Orban. The Spectator is a huge admirer of his as well. That's the modern Conservative party right there.

    How do you make tactical voting much more difficult in practice?

    It seems to me that all that can be done is to point out the existence of behind the scenes agreements, and the double standards of those who use them whilst misleading the public about their existence.

    If a party puts up a joke candidate, I don't see how that would be prevented even if an objective.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    edited June 2022

    malcolmg said:

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Looking at the following (assuming it is complete), then month-long gaps are not uncommon. It seems there are often gluts of Scottish opinion polls, and long dearths:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
    Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.
    They know it is just more bluff to keep kicking it down the road . She is running out of road, all the stolen money , perjury case et c can only be held up for so long. Many of these crooks will get their day in court.
    Sorry Malc, I am genuinely losing the plot. You are pro-independence but anti-Sturgeon, have I got that right?
    Yes indeed, she is all talk and no action and crooked into the bargain. She is wrecking scotland, her and her bunch of self id creeps and gravy trainers. They have no principles.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,039
    Foxy said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

    My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
    I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.

    But, you've got to understand this isn't really about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and guilt about its past into future generations, and is thus highly political.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

    My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
    Slavery sounds a bit like the elephant in the room on that syllabus.

    Because after all, much of the original industrial growth was due to the products being made for barter for slaves in West Africa, and the profits of the slave trade being reinvested in new machinery to make more...
    Very much so. I did what was a very similar syllabus, a few years before @Foxy . The lack of analysis of how the system worked, to the point of seeming conscious obfuscation, is in retrospect quite striking.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for

    greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    My secondary education gave both about the same attention. Slavery in history lessons and Holocaust in religious education.
    Just self seeking windbaggery due to them getting players on it at present. The clown will be back to filling his pockets soon. What is it with Tories and royals and their usage of suitcases.
    Bloody auto text. Players = pelters
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,944
    Leon said:

    In an airport hotel in a conservative suburb of Istanbul which is not only Dry, and next to the world’s biggest mosque, it is so Puritan it won’t let me comment on here via the hotel Wi-Fi. Evil betting!

    When I get to Montenegro I am going to have three negronis while I wank to interracial lesbian porn stars playing naked poker

    It does not seem too long ago that you advised us all to holiday in Turkey because Islam-inspired restrictions had been forgotten. Your travelogues are great but you perhaps tend to extrapolate wildly from the very small sample of wherever the FK Gazette has arranged a freebie.

    And if you are not using a reputable vpn, be wary of browsing content over hotel wifi that might leave you open to blackmail.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,314

    Foxy said:

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
    Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.
    My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

    Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

    Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

    My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.
    I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


    But, you've got to understand this isn't really
    about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
    inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
    guilt about its past into future generations, and
    is thus highly political.
    Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

    Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. No party has won a general election in the last 100 years after more than 10 years in power apart from Major's Tories in 1992.

    However even then that was partly about keeping Kinnock out and Starmer is less feared by middle England than Kinnock was. So yes replacing Johnson would not be enough. It would be more about trying to limit the damage if Labour got a consistent poll lead of say 10% or more

    More fundamentally from your point of view, when Johnson is finally forced out your party is going to be in a hell of a mess, divided, without any over-arching strategy, no real policy prospectus, and with an electoral coalition impossible to hold together - and that's before you consider all the internal organisational staffing issues and personal conflicts that Johnson's chaos will have left unresolved.

    Every week you hang onto the clown is another week before someone else gets to start on the long, long task of rebuilding from the ruins.
    Yes but that someone would need to be someone with clear electoral appeal relative to Starmer and little evidence of any viable alternative making much difference at present
    Actually it doesn't, since the next election may probably be lost already and just getting rid of the dishonest buffoon will be progress. You'll be needing someone to do the Kinnock or Howard role - if (as you suggested above) the party instead picks a nutter then you will just waste a term going through the Hague/IDS cycle before eventually getting real.
    The choice is, I think, between losing, and losing big.
    Even (especially ?) those with sizeable majorities should be thinking of their own futures in parliament.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

    The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

    The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

    Looking at the following (assuming it is complete), then month-long gaps are not uncommon. It seems there are often gluts of Scottish opinion polls, and long dearths:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
    Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.
    They know it is just more bluff to keep kicking it down the road . She is running out of road, all the stolen money , perjury case et c can only be held up for so long. Many of these crooks will get their day in court.
    Sorry Malc, I am genuinely losing the plot. You are pro-independence but anti-Sturgeon, have I got that right?
    Yes indeed, she is all talk and no action and crooked into the bargain. She is wrecking scotland, her and her bunch of self id creeps and gravy trainers. They have no principles.
    Ok, interesting.

    Presumably, if and when Scotland became independent, the SNP would fragment anyway. I can't see a one-party state happening.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981

    I'm warming to Prince Charles.

    Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

    The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

    Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

    Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.
    And Prince William is even more woke than his father.

    I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    1. Who said anything about Brexit? The issues of your party is that it is corrupt. That it commits malfeasance. That it ignores basic principles like the rule of law and now democracy is under attack. That it embeds lies in the heart of government. None of those things are Brexit.

    Brexit is all of those things
This discussion has been closed.