"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Just wanted to get your opinion on it. What do you make if the $3bn from Facebook to "cure all disease". I have the figure required to do that about 100 times higher.
Apparently, if it gets 1,000,000 likes, all disease will be automatically cured!
Somewhere on Facebook, someone believes that is true.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
It does exist; just not yet independently. But then the decrepit aged do not live independently either, nor the severely disabled.
it has struck me that it's strange how May and other remainer Tories are in a weird situation - committed to brexit to respect the popular vote, and keen to demonstrate we can make a success of it, which I believe is possible or I'd never have voted leave, but they sometimes need to act like arch brexiteers, when by definition as remainers they thought any potential leave scenario was less good then remaining.
It's one of those political switches that makes sense and we all accept, but every now and again you do a doubletaje as the Necessity of political language talking points contradicts their earlier stance.
They need to ensure that we are pragmatic and don't paint ourselves into a binary corner in negotiations.
We may all think immigration is the No.1 concern of voters and May will make it a red line (I think she might).
Articles such as Nick Herbert's are simply saying don't let Brexit go to your (the govt's) head. If there is a route that accepts some kind of free movement, for example, to preserve single market privileges, then don't be too closed-minded not take that route.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Just wanted to get your opinion on it. What do you make if the $3bn from Facebook to "cure all disease". I have the figure required to do that about 100 times higher.
I can't copy the link on my phone but go to YouTube and search for paracetamoxyfrusebendoneomycin and "amateur transplants"
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
Trumped by the rights of the mother. As are the rights of any third parties who want to judge and control her actions.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
It does exist; just not yet independently. But then the decrepit aged do not live independently either, nor the severely disabled.
But they have been born. Rights primarily exist between birth and death.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
Trumped by the rights of the mother. As are the rights of any third parties who want to judge and control her actions.
So it's alright to kill humans that are capable of independent life?
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
That is not the law. You may want it to be, but it isn't.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
Frankly, who knows. 'Normal' politicians tend to resign these days the day after a defeat. In the past this wasn't the case and often stayed on to fight another election. Personally I suspect his age will tell by 2020 and he will stand down, but not before the nominations thing is sorted (because he will be 'talked out' of standing down by McD and Len).
Gladstone, Grover Cleveland, for example.
Good examples, but I think that today's intense politics is a little more demanding than the good old days. I seem to recall reading that one of the PMs from earlier this century spent the afternoons reading Trollope (can't remember which one).
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
Frankly, who knows. 'Normal' politicians tend to resign these days the day after a defeat. In the past this wasn't the case and often stayed on to fight another election. Personally I suspect his age will tell by 2020 and he will stand down, but not before the nominations thing is sorted (because he will be 'talked out' of standing down by McD and Len).
Gladstone, Grover Cleveland, for example.
Good examples, but I think that today's intense politics is a little more demanding than the good old days. I seem to recall reading that one of the PMs from earlier this century spent the afternoons reading Trollope (can't remember which one).
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
Its not magic, those who are born have rights, those who haven't been born don't. What rights does someone have before they are born?
That isn't true or late term abortion would not be unlawful.
Late term abortions aren't covered by a blanket ban. There are exceptions.
Yes, which means that except in those exceptional cases they are banned. The law accepts viability at 24 weeks and unless there are exceptional circumstances prohibits abortion from that time onward. Which means the rights of the mother do not have carte blanche over the rights of the embryo as was originally posited.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.
Actually I would not have a child of mine aborted, and I have not participated in abortions in my career.
However, I respect other people's views and do not want to impose my beliefs on them. The politicisation of abortion in the USA is something that I would not want to see here.
The problem with that approach (and I am not trying to personalise it) is that it is the job of doctors - and others - to stand up for the most vulnerable. A viable foetus has rights too: they don't just magically appear at tge moment of birth
Its not magic, those who are born have rights, those who haven't been born don't. What rights does someone have before they are born?
It's trite law that an unborn child has certain rights. It's a crime to kill an unborn child, subject to the statutory exception of the 1967 Act; an unborn child will also have inheritance rights under the law relating to intestacy.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.
So it's all right to "kill" people before they're conceived, then? If you want to go back to the ethics -and scientific capacity - of your parents' childhood, fine. Just have the decency to say so.
There are no quick and easy fixes in this area.
What on earth do you mean, kill before conception?
Isn’t that what contraception is, effectively? Some methods anyway. In terms of evolution, it’s apparently only humans, and possibly dolphins and bonobos which get pleasure out of sexual intercourse. For other mammals it’s simply a question of procreation.
I don't believe that. Dogs certainly seem to enjoy it.
Take the point, but geniune question. Dogs but less so bitches?
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
Frankly, who knows. 'Normal' politicians tend to resign these days the day after a defeat. In the past this wasn't the case and often stayed on to fight another election. Personally I suspect his age will tell by 2020 and he will stand down, but not before the nominations thing is sorted (because he will be 'talked out' of standing down by McD and Len).
Gladstone, Grover Cleveland, for example.
Good examples, but I think that today's intense politics is a little more demanding than the good old days. I seem to recall reading that one of the PMs from earlier this century spent the afternoons reading Trollope (can't remember which one).
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.
LOL! From what my mum said when I was young its legal until the 76th
Take the point, but geniune question. Dogs but less so bitches?
All animal species I think get pleasure from it; it's a biological compulsion. I think the "humans, dolphins, and bonobos' fact refers to species that have sex recreationally with no procreational intention.
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
I don't see why he steps down if he loses given he feels his mandate derives from his members.
If he wants to carry on he will get the nominations, even if no-confidenced by his own MPs, and take it to a further membership vote. The question is whether they will have woken up and smelt the coffee - and it needs a good 10% swing to knock him out.
Labour MPs best hope is that he just feels too old and fed up, and quits.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
That depends on success. Labour's next leader is probably at very long odds at the moment.
What do we know?
- That Labour's membership is dominated by the hard left - That they do not necessarily do the hard graft and may easily flake but have proven to turn out in elections. - That the PLP have, for now, a blocking majority for a hard left nomination if they keep their nerve. - That the NEC is in the balance and no rule changes designed solely for factional advantage are likely to pass. - That the preliminary boundary review proposals will hit Labour and will cause some internal conflict over seats (including in Islington, amusingly). - That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.
What can we take from that?
1. That barring accidents or a mass exodus of new members, Corbyn is likely to serve through to 2020. The PLP may despair but they have no means of getting rid. They have tried everything in their arsenal and it has failed. Until the lie of the land changes (which may be something they have influence over), they'll simply have to wait it out.
2. That mass deselections are unlikely given that the timetable makes it difficult. The rule changes necessary to enable them would in all probability occur after the new boundaries are confirmed and so after the process for selections has begun.
3. Labour is very likely to lose the next election and Corbyn is, as such, likely to stand down then. (He has given hints to the contrary but he'd be into his 70s by that point and to serve another term would mean fighting the 2025 election at 76; the left ought to be able with the new membership to get the proportion of Corbynites in parliament over 15% even without mass deselections: retirements alone ought to provide sufficient scope).
4. The next leader is almost certainly already in parliament, holds a seat that is winnable now and under any likely changes, even against, say, a 15% Tory national lead, and is a Corbyn-supporter.
There cannot be too many such candidates and most will be available at good odds.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
Frankly, who knows. 'Normal' politicians tend to resign these days the day after a defeat. In the past this wasn't the case and often stayed on to fight another election. Personally I suspect his age will tell by 2020 and he will stand down, but not before the nominations thing is sorted (because he will be 'talked out' of standing down by McD and Len).
Gladstone, Grover Cleveland, for example.
Good examples, but I think that today's intense politics is a little more demanding than the good old days. I seem to recall reading that one of the PMs from earlier this century spent the afternoons reading Trollope (can't remember which one).
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
That is not the law. You may want it to be, but it isn't.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
I find it creepy and cringy. I also find it none of my business.
I know it's not the law - but it was the focus of the recent debate on whether to reduce the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks to reflect advanced in medical science.
As for being "none of your business" it is the obligation of society to set riles about the balancing of rights between different actors. We may disagree on where the line is drawn but it's absolutely your business.
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
On abortion, I can see a case to lower the abortion limit to 20 weeks, but no further.
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
It does exist; just not yet independently. But then the decrepit aged do not live independently either, nor the severely disabled.
But they have been born. Rights primarily exist between birth and death.
Primarily but not exclusively. There's already substantial law around the rights of the unborn child. Birth is, to a large extent, an arbitrary dividing line.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
I don't see why he steps down if he loses given he feels his mandate derives from his members.
If he wants to carry on he will get the nominations, even if no-confidenced by his own MPs, and take it to a further membership vote. The question is whether they will have woken up and smelt the coffee - and it needs a good 10% swing to knock him out.
Labour MPs best hope is that he just feels too old and fed up, and quits.
I agree - and he won't go until the rules are in place to let him get his favoured successors on the ballot
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.
Do your kids agree?
It's important to have leverage when the kids are refusing to do homework.
Michael Taylor Turns out a staff member, who phoned in 'sick' this morning, has just been seen on TV demonstrating at the #CPC16! Did someone say fired
On abortion, I can see a case to lower the abortion limit to 20 weeks, but no further.
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.
That's kind of a cowardly way out, as its Mr Thompson, he says it's not his business, which is code for not wanting to think about it. Leaving it to the medics and the mother is all well and good, but project yourself forward 50 years when science may be allowing people to hold basic communication in utero with your 14 week fetus ("hurts","like"). The problem with late term decisions being made without reference to the law is you are on the slippery slope to the approach in China where its legal at any point before the "child" takes it's first breath.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
The need for certain PBers to very occasionally break off from their endless excoriation (and rt-ing of others' excoriation) of Clinton to proclaim how awful both candidates are is certainly slightly weird. If they think it's a defence against partisanship, they're deluded.
On abortion, I can see a case to lower the abortion limit to 20 weeks, but no further.
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.
I'd reduce it to 20 weeks as well, with a reassessment every 10 years so that it roughly tracks advances in medical science.
Certainly there are complex cases for later term abortions where it is medically appropriate to intervene, but - as you say - that is a question for doctors not politicians
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.
Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....
...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"
DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.
Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.
and the rights of the viable foetus?
What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?
If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.
Do your kids agree?
It's important to have leverage when the kids are refusing to do homework.
If you bought a bigger house you'd have more leverage...
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
The need for certain PBers to very occasionally break off from their endless excoriation (and rt-ing of others' excoriation) of Clinton to proclaim how awful both candidates are is certainly slightly weird. If they think it's a defence against partisanship, they're deluded.
But endless excoriation and rt-ing of other excoriation of Trump is perfectly acceptable, what was that about partisan ?
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
The threshold is a percentage, not an absolute number. So a big electoral defeat may solve the problem for him without needing to get any rule change through.
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
45%+ of Americans seem quite happy with it. Let your democratic credentials shine through and just let the people decide ffs, banging on about it endless here is pointless, only about 2-3 posters vote in the American elections.
On the discussions on this thread this is gross discrimination which one Parliamentarian is seeking to address with a Bill. 2nd reading later this month http://allequal.org.uk/
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
The need for certain PBers to very occasionally break off from their endless excoriation (and rt-ing of others' excoriation) of Clinton to proclaim how awful both candidates are is certainly slightly weird. If they think it's a defence against partisanship, they're deluded.
But endless excoriation and rt-ing of other excoriation of Trump is perfectly acceptable, what was that about partisan ?
Since I think Trump is a ghastly, coarse disaster of a human being, why would I be claiming non-partisanship?
On abortion, I can see a case to lower the abortion limit to 20 weeks, but no further.
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.
That's kind of a cowardly way out, as its Mr Thompson, he says it's not his business, which is code for not wanting to think about it. Leaving it to the medics and the mother is all well and good, but project yourself forward 50 years when science may be allowing people to hold basic communication in utero with your 14 week fetus ("hurts","like"). The problem with late term decisions being made without reference to the law is you are on the slippery slope to the approach in China where its legal at any point before the "child" takes it's first breath.
There is no slippery slope. In fact, there is no slope: we decide through parliament exactly how long we think the limit should be and, periodically, it is reviewed.
I don't think independent viability of the foetus should be the only test. A woman may find out very late she is pregnant and in no position to carry it to term, or her life could be at risk, or it may carry serious defects. And one must bear in mind that if that choice is legally denied then some women may resort to unsafe illegal methods.
It is very much a grey area and rather than enforcing a black or white choice, I am content for a mother in consultation with medical staff, and their partner/family, to make their own decision.
And I have never known a woman who took such a decision lightly.
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
45%+ of Americans seem quite happy with it. Let your democratic credentials shine through and just let the people decide ffs, banging on about it endless here is pointless, only about 2-3 posters vote in the American elections.
Perhaps OGH or a minion could put up a small FAQ about using the quote system.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
Pointing out something is factually incorrect is not desperate.
Especially when people may be using it to inform their political betting.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
Snob Hillary doesn't only have contempt and pity for those inhabiting their parents' basements, she also weirdly despises " baristas ". Not everyone is as lucky as ultra privileged Chelsea Clinton who landed a $ 900,000 pa job straight out of college..
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
I understand that fully as I run a manufacturing company. The drop shold be good news for me long term but rapid changes are not good as they cause chaos. I am tied into some NHS contracts I may have to default on as the profits have disappeared at existing prices. Inflation may be low but many of my suppliers invoice me in euros or dollars.
There is no slippery slope. In fact, there is no slope: we decide through parliament exactly how long we think the limit should be and, periodically, it is reviewed.
I don't think independent viability of the foetus should be the only test. A woman may find out very late she is pregnant and in no position to carry it to term, or her life could be at risk, or it may carry serious defects. And one must bear in mind that if that choice is legally denied then some women may resort to unsafe illegal methods.
It is very much a grey area and rather than enforcing a black or white choice, I am content for a mother in consultation with medical staff, and their partner/family, to make their own decision.
And I have never known a woman who took such a decision lightly.
I was part way through writing something similar, but then noticed that you'd phrased it infinitely more clearly.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
The need for certain PBers to very occasionally break off from their endless excoriation (and rt-ing of others' excoriation) of Clinton to proclaim how awful both candidates are is certainly slightly weird. If they think it's a defence against partisanship, they're deluded.
But endless excoriation and rt-ing of other excoriation of Trump is perfectly acceptable, what was that about partisan ?
Since I think Trump is a ghastly, coarse disaster of a human being, why would I be claiming non-partisanship?
You don't have to be partisan to point out that this is the poorest field since the world crop growing championships were held in the Antarctic.
If you bought a bigger house you'd have more leverage...
My wife keeps sending me links to properties on the Knight Frank website. Do you think she's trying to tell me something?
That she wants to leave the PRC?
(But why Knight Frank - they only sell very grand, big properties. I'd suggest Lane Fox or Strutt & Parker).
I think we'll be remaining the PRC, not least because my wife's primary goal is to find somewhere that is walking distance from our childrens' schools. Which pretty much means between Hampstead and Belsize Park.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
That depends on success. Labour's next leader is probably at very long odds at the moment.
What do we know?
- That Labour's membership is dominated by the hard left - That they do not necessarily do the hard graft and may easily flake but have proven to turn out in elections. - That the PLP have, for now, a blocking majority for a hard left nomination if they keep their nerve. - That the NEC is in the balance and no rule changes designed solely for factional advantage are likely to pass. - That the preliminary boundary review proposals will hit Labour and will cause some internal conflict over seats (including in Islington, amusingly). - That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.
What can we take from that?
1. That barring accidents or a mass exodus of new members, Corbyn is likely to serve through to 2020. The PLP may despair but they have no means of getting rid. They have tried everything in their arsenal and it has failed. Until the lie of the land changes (which may be something they have influence over), they'll simply have to wait it out.
2. That mass deselections are unlikely given that the timetable makes it difficult. The rule changes necessary to enable them would in all probability occur after the new boundaries are confirmed and so after the process for selections has begun.
3. Labour is very likely to lose the next election and Corbyn is, as such, likely to stand down then. (He has given hints to the contrary but he'd be into his 70s by that point and to serve another term would mean fighting the 2025 election at 76; the left ought to be able with the new membership to get the proportion of Corbynites in parliament over 15% even without mass deselections: retirements alone ought to provide sufficient scope).
4. The next leader is almost certainly already in parliament, holds a seat that is winnable now and under any likely changes, even against, say, a 15% Tory national lead, and is a Corbyn-supporter.
There cannot be too many such candidates and most will be available at good odds.
The fourth is worded too tightly; they just need to hold or be selected for a safe-ish seat after the final changes are proposed. Some currently with very marginal seats may well inherit a safe seat after the changes (there is one such down my way).
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
The need for certain PBers to very occasionally break off from their endless excoriation (and rt-ing of others' excoriation) of Clinton to proclaim how awful both candidates are is certainly slightly weird. If they think it's a defence against partisanship, they're deluded.
But endless excoriation and rt-ing of other excoriation of Trump is perfectly acceptable, what was that about partisan ?
Since I think Trump is a ghastly, coarse disaster of a human being, why would I be claiming non-partisanship?
You don't have to be partisan to point out that this is the poorest field since the world crop growing championships were held in the Antarctic.
As in most areas of life, there's poor and there's fcuking awful.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
Another solid manufacturing PMI figure, 55.4 vs expectations of 52.2, export orders up and employment up. Input prices up by ~10%, the only way to hold onto the gains will be to drag down margins and real wages. I expect it will be a mix of both.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
Snob Hillary doesn't only have contempt and pity for those inhabiting their parents' basements, she also weirdly despises " baristas ". Not everyone is as lucky as ultra privileged Chelsea Clinton who landed a $ 900,000 pa job straight out of college..
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .
He said "he has never known". Obviously, there are places like Soviet Russia where it was used such. But the two women I know who've had abortions found the decision incredibly hard. Probably the most difficult decisions they've ever made, and in one case something that haunted her for years. (Not least because the father of the child subsequently died.)
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
200 seats wouldn't be a bad loss at all. In fact, if the new boundaries come in then it's roughly where Labour will be starting the election (admittedly, in a parliament of 600 MPs, rather than 650).
On abortion, I can see a case to lower the abortion limit to 20 weeks, but no further.
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.
That's kind of a cowardly way out, as its Mr Thompson, he says it's not his business, which is code for not wanting to think about it. Leaving it to the medics and the mother is all well and good, but project yourself forward 50 years when science may be allowing people to hold basic communication in utero with your 14 week fetus ("hurts","like"). The problem with late term decisions being made without reference to the law is you are on the slippery slope to the approach in China where its legal at any point before the "child" takes it's first breath.
There is no slippery slope. In fact, there is no slope: we decide through parliament exactly how long we think the limit should be and, periodically, it is reviewed.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
He said "he has never known". Obviously, there are places like Soviet Russia where it was used such. But the two women I know who've had abortions found the decision incredibly hard. Probably the most difficult decisions they've ever made, and in one case something that haunted her for years. (Not least because the father of the child subsequently died.)
Where ? The word "never" doesn't appear in that article.
Another solid manufacturing PMI figure, 55.4 vs expectations of 52.2, export orders up and employment up. Input prices up by ~10%, the only way to hold onto the gains will be to drag down margins and real wages. I expect it will be a mix of both.
Solid! They're excellent.
Although it is worth remembering that manufacturing is only a small part of the UK economy, and therefore we need to see the services numbers before getting too excited.
It is also worth remembering that an improving Eurozone economy is definitely good for the UK, not least because a declining savings rate there will reduce the bloc's current account surplus, and help rebalance the UK economy.
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .
A currency is not a virility symbol. It's a value.
He said "he has never known". Obviously, there are places like Soviet Russia where it was used such. But the two women I know who've had abortions found the decision incredibly hard. Probably the most difficult decisions they've ever made, and in one case something that haunted her for years. (Not least because the father of the child subsequently died.)
Where ? The word "never" doesn't appear in that article.
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .
A currency is not a virility symbol. It's a value.
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .
I really don’t trhink tghe currency situation is that bad. Althjough on my next trip to Thailand I will be getting something like 15% less baht for my £ than I did 12 months ago. And the Thai government isn’t in a good place, either!
Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .
A currency is not a virility symbol. It's a value.
Errr, surely it's a medium for exchange.
Indeed. And, notwithstanding any short run benefit, having a currency that values everything we produce more cheaply and everything that the rest of the world produces more dearly is not, in the longer term, a good thing
Edit/ particularly as any short run gain is significantly offset by the cost of importing components that go into very many of our exports.
Another solid manufacturing PMI figure, 55.4 vs expectations of 52.2, export orders up and employment up. Input prices up by ~10%, the only way to hold onto the gains will be to drag down margins and real wages. I expect it will be a mix of both.
Solid! They're excellent.
Although it is worth remembering that manufacturing is only a small part of the UK economy, and therefore we need to see the services numbers before getting too excited.
It is also worth remembering that an improving Eurozone economy is definitely good for the UK, not least because a declining savings rate there will reduce the bloc's current account surplus, and help rebalance the UK economy.
Reminds me of the economic revival after Golden Wednesday.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
45%+ of Americans seem quite happy with it. Let your democratic credentials shine through and just let the people decide ffs, banging on about it endless here is pointless, only about 2-3 posters vote in the American elections.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.
I must say, I didn't realize that Juncker would be leading the negotiations for the 27:
Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
45%+ of Americans seem quite happy with it. Let your democratic credentials shine through and just let the people decide ffs, banging on about it endless here is pointless, only about 2-3 posters vote in the American elections.
hitler was elected.
If you are an American citizen, feel free to go to the USA and bang on about the idiocy of electing Trump until your heart's content. I fail to see the point in people banging on about him here (and similarly Clinton, although its rather less full throated) when (almost) no one here can vote for either candidate.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
I'm interested in the facts. Not much interested in ascribing motives to others.
Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.
I must say, I didn't realize that Juncker would be leading the negotiations for the 27:
Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.
I must say, I didn't realize that Juncker would be leading the negotiations for the 27:
Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.
Hasn't he delegated it to the Dutch guy Guy?
He might have done. What I'm getting at is that when it comes to it, the countries themselves will want to be close to the negotiations.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If we are sensible, the possibility of extension is something we should at least to try and cover off before triggering A50. Because even a quick read of that linked article confirms that two years is unlikely to be enough, and that our negotiating position as the end of that two years approaches will be pants.
To answer your question, if the looming alternative looks bad for everyone, it may well be agreed. The U.K. will be moving into a pre-election period at the time, also.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.
I must say, I didn't realize that Juncker would be leading the negotiations for the 27:
Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.
Hasn't he delegated it to the Dutch guy Guy?
He might have done. What I'm getting at is that when it comes to it, the countries themselves will want to be close to the negotiations.
Or, in other words, that the French and Germans will both need to be happy with the outcome, and there mustn't be another country with a particularly strong objection to any of its terms. Which is the way the EU works already (adding the UK to F and G).
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
So the EU - which exports hundreds of billions of Euros to us - has no interest in a deal?
Comments
We may all think immigration is the No.1 concern of voters and May will make it a red line (I think she might).
Articles such as Nick Herbert's are simply saying don't let Brexit go to your (the govt's) head. If there is a route that accepts some kind of free movement, for example, to preserve single market privileges, then don't be too closed-minded not take that route.
@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
At this rate we get to parity when A59 is actually triggered
The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.
If he wants to carry on he will get the nominations, even if no-confidenced by his own MPs, and take it to a further membership vote. The question is whether they will have woken up and smelt the coffee - and it needs a good 10% swing to knock him out.
Labour MPs best hope is that he just feels too old and fed up, and quits.
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
What do we know?
- That Labour's membership is dominated by the hard left
- That they do not necessarily do the hard graft and may easily flake but have proven to turn out in elections.
- That the PLP have, for now, a blocking majority for a hard left nomination if they keep their nerve.
- That the NEC is in the balance and no rule changes designed solely for factional advantage are likely to pass.
- That the preliminary boundary review proposals will hit Labour and will cause some internal conflict over seats (including in Islington, amusingly).
- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.
What can we take from that?
1. That barring accidents or a mass exodus of new members, Corbyn is likely to serve through to 2020. The PLP may despair but they have no means of getting rid. They have tried everything in their arsenal and it has failed. Until the lie of the land changes (which may be something they have influence over), they'll simply have to wait it out.
2. That mass deselections are unlikely given that the timetable makes it difficult. The rule changes necessary to enable them would in all probability occur after the new boundaries are confirmed and so after the process for selections has begun.
3. Labour is very likely to lose the next election and Corbyn is, as such, likely to stand down then. (He has given hints to the contrary but he'd be into his 70s by that point and to serve another term would mean fighting the 2025 election at 76; the left ought to be able with the new membership to get the proportion of Corbynites in parliament over 15% even without mass deselections: retirements alone ought to provide sufficient scope).
4. The next leader is almost certainly already in parliament, holds a seat that is winnable now and under any likely changes, even against, say, a 15% Tory national lead, and is a Corbyn-supporter.
There cannot be too many such candidates and most will be available at good odds.
If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.
Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mysterious-secret-underground-fire-station-8967435#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Turns out a staff member, who phoned in 'sick' this morning, has just been seen on TV demonstrating at the #CPC16!
Did someone say fired
Certainly there are complex cases for later term abortions where it is medically appropriate to intervene, but - as you say - that is a question for doctors not politicians
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
I don't think independent viability of the foetus should be the only test. A woman may find out very late she is pregnant and in no position to carry it to term, or her life could be at risk, or it may carry serious defects. And one must bear in mind that if that choice is legally denied then some women may resort to unsafe illegal methods.
It is very much a grey area and rather than enforcing a black or white choice, I am content for a mother in consultation with medical staff, and their partner/family, to make their own decision.
And I have never known a woman who took such a decision lightly.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/malaysia-post-race-analysis-2016.html
(But why Knight Frank - they only sell very grand, big properties. I'd suggest Lane Fox or Strutt & Parker).
Especially when people may be using it to inform their political betting.
When an aeronautics engineer is bored https://t.co/GhOKkXwTPi
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/daniel-hannan-the-man-who-brought-you-brexit
Although it is worth remembering that manufacturing is only a small part of the UK economy, and therefore we need to see the services numbers before getting too excited.
It is also worth remembering that an improving Eurozone economy is definitely good for the UK, not least because a declining savings rate there will reduce the bloc's current account surplus, and help rebalance the UK economy.
Edit/ particularly as any short run gain is significantly offset by the cost of importing components that go into very many of our exports.
http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/why-27-are-taking-hard-line-brexit
Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.
Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.
To answer your question, if the looming alternative looks bad for everyone, it may well be agreed. The U.K. will be moving into a pre-election period at the time, also.
Well, I guess it's a view.