One labour policy I find puzzling is banning free schools and academies. Some of their key voter groups in cities put a high store on academic achievement for their children.
Telling them their school is closing down and becoming a comp - have they thought this through?
It's similar to their obsession with banning the use of outsourcing in the NHS. So all those people who are delighted that they can now get good care in places like the Horder Centre in Sussex are in for a shock if the policy is ever implemented.
However, Labour are throwing so many half-baked, eye-wateringly expensive, ideologically-motivated and often plain bonkers policies at voters that things like these won't get noticed, unless the Tories are really, really good at targetted messaging.
Nothing to do with 42% of their members being Public Sector vs 17% of the general pop.....
The Labour abortion policy is really on the law because currently abortion is illegal but has exceptions . Any policy change would then have to be debated and voted on in the Commons where limits would be put.
The Labour proposal is just making abortion legal. I think Labour need to clarify what exactly the term limits they would think acceptable .
I would assume they are proposing no changes to term limits. It is just a question of decriminalising the procedure. In Northern Ireland the term limit is 28 weeks but the process has been decriminalised and that is what Labour is proposing for the rest of the UK, not to change the term limits. I wonder what kind of hysterical and inaccurate stories about Labour we can expect tomorrow, spread with gay abandon by PM Tory shills?
You are projecting what you want to hear. The process in Northern Ireland has not been decriminalised. Any abortion beyond 28 weeks is a criminal offence, just as any abortion beyond 24 weeks is a criminal offence in the rest of the UK.
Labour's manifesto clearly says they will decriminalise abortions. Since abortion is only a criminal offence beyond 24 weeks, I struggle to see any way of interpreting it other than Labour removing enforcement of the current limit.
The news on Labour’s abortion policy must be wrong or misinterpreted, surely?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on the content, but would expect some clarification.
It may be ambiguous, badly worded, mischievously misrepresented or misunderstood. I do not believe they are so unconnected to life, morality and reality to propose a full term - 1 day abortion limit.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
BXP will absorb Labour voters who will never vote Tory.
Farage, you absolute boy!
I love it when a plan (hopefully) comes together. Agents Farage and Corbyn have given loyal service for many years and should be allowed to retire gracefully in the New Year.
One labour policy I find puzzling is banning free schools and academies. Some of their key voter groups in cities put a high store on academic achievement for their children.
Telling them their school is closing down and becoming a comp - have they thought this through?
Most (secondary) academies *are* comps. The difference is in the management - cutting out the local authority.
Meanwhile, in terms of performance:
"Evidence on the performance of academies compared to local authority schools is mixed, but on the whole suggests there is no substantial difference in performance."
From a personal point of view: I jacked in being a chair of primary school governors when the government started dismantling local authority education departments and trying to force schools down this route. I'd previously felt well-supported by an effective (Tory-run) LA, and was left with the distinct impression I'd be "it" afterwards. The excellent head delivered two Good Ofsteds in my time, and also quit (early retirement) a year or so later.
Sure. That support can be replicated and possibly even improved by Academy chains, but I'd like to see some realistic assessment of how efficiently that's delivered across regional/national chains with extremely well-paid execs. And the link with local communities/parents is much-weakened.
Basically.. I think academisation was a baby/bathwater solution. By all means bin off old duffers on governing bodies who can't balance a budget or hire people. By all means intervene in failing LAs. But diminishing the role of good ones looks from where I am like an act of vandalism.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
It's very odd that they are proposing anything on abortion. It almost looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is rehashing 1960s controversies.
Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017
People without capital are quite happy to vote to break up capitalism. Government needs to restore balance between the different age groups in society, not just cater for those who vote for them.
The problem is that if one side unilaterally tries to redress that balance starting with their own supporters, those supporters stop voting for them. Hence the dementia tax going down in infamy.
Agree that is the problem. For me the solution is leadership and honest communication. Which is why Rory Stewart could have been a fantastic PM.
A small part of me thinks its certainly not ruled out. He'll do better in London than where he is now. He's still young by politician standards. He's not had a high profile failure yet.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
It's very odd that they are proposing anything on abortion. It almost looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is rehashing 1960s controversies.
The whole manifesto is a nostalgic paean of praise for the policies of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
One labour policy I find puzzling is banning free schools and academies. Some of their key voter groups in cities put a high store on academic achievement for their children.
Telling them their school is closing down and becoming a comp - have they thought this through?
Most (secondary) academies *are* comps. The difference is in the management - cutting out the local authority.
Meanwhile, in terms of performance:
"Evidence on the performance of academies compared to local authority schools is mixed, but on the whole suggests there is no substantial difference in performance."
From a personal point of view: I jacked in being a chair of primary school governors when the government started dismantling local authority education departments and trying to force schools down this route. I'd previously felt well-supported by an effective (Tory-run) LA, and was left with the distinct impression I'd be "it" afterwards. The excellent head delivered two Good Ofsteds in my time, and also quit (early retirement) a year or so later.
Sure. That support can be replicated and possibly even improved by Academy chains, but I'd like to see some realistic assessment of how efficiently that's delivered across regional/national chains with extremely well-paid execs. And the link with local communities/parents is much-weakened.
Basically.. I think academisation was a baby/bathwater solution. By all means bin off old duffers on governing bodies who can't balance a budget or hire people. By all means intervene in failing LAs. But diminishing the role of good ones looks from where I am like an act of vandalism.
Some excellent points, but the same applies to grammars (although there are many fewer of course).
Try beating those brilliant chinese and Indian kids to a place at Tiffin for example
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
It's very odd that they are proposing anything on abortion. It almost looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is rehashing 1960s controversies.
The whole manifesto is a nostalgic paean of praise for the policies of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
So have any mainstream journalists bothered to ask Labour about this or is a man on newsnight more important?
Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017
People without capital are quite happy to vote to break up capitalism. Government needs to restore balance between the different age groups in society, not just cater for those who vote for them.
The problem is that if one side unilaterally tries to redress that balance starting with their own supporters, those supporters stop voting for them. Hence the dementia tax going down in infamy.
Agree that is the problem. For me the solution is leadership and honest communication. Which is why Rory Stewart could have been a fantastic PM.
A small part of me thinks its certainly not ruled out. He'll do better in London than where he is now. He's still young by politician standards. He's not had a high profile failure yet.
We could plausibly end up with three PMs in a row who were previously Mayor of London.
Labour is possessed of a strong analysis: the British state is too weak. But its remedies take no account of its own argument. If it is too weak, it is hardly likely to get up off its sick bed and put things right immediately. That will take time – perhaps a long time. Strangely for a party led by 1970s radicals, it is not Marxist enough. It has no analysis of the state, only conspiracies about the wealthy and blame for the powerful.
The Leninists in the Opposition Leader’s office have not absorbed the lessons of state capitalism deeply enough: structural transformation requires the state to be rewired first. Nor have they really learned from the hard constraints that can force Left governments to change tack: Greece’s Syriza government was forced to turn back in 2015, just as Mitterrand was as President of France in 1983. Labour is overpromising with every breath in its body. A good deal of what it is advocating will likely never happen. The populists and demagogues that then appear may be even more unpleasant than those we face now.
More prosaic answer surely is that these are cross-tabs from a poll of 1.6k people and so it's hard to say anything definitive for a more granular regional breakdown?
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
It's very odd that they are proposing anything on abortion. It almost looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is rehashing 1960s controversies.
The whole manifesto is a nostalgic paean of praise for the policies of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Nostalgia is the driving force of our time, it powers Brexit and Corbyn.
Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017
People without capital are quite happy to vote to break up capitalism. Government needs to restore balance between the different age groups in society, not just cater for those who vote for them.
The problem is that if one side unilaterally tries to redress that balance starting with their own supporters, those supporters stop voting for them. Hence the dementia tax going down in infamy.
Agree that is the problem. For me the solution is leadership and honest communication. Which is why Rory Stewart could have been a fantastic PM.
A small part of me thinks its certainly not ruled out. He'll do better in London than where he is now. He's still young by politician standards. He's not had a high profile failure yet.
We could plausibly end up with three PMs in a row who were previously Mayor of London.
Suck it, rest of country.
Let's be honest, if he does shift Khan, he's got to be odds on to get back into Government and in a high profile role within the following decade.
The press continuing their principled policy of belittling members of the public who don't follow the preferred line
He's being called out for being absolutely, demonstrably, factually wrong (which, while I understand QT may not be able to do live on air, they should certainly have done so to give context to their tweeted video). He is indeed in the top earning five per cent of taxpayers.
I don't favour anyone being "belittled" (and I can't see in that article where he is). But when absolute nonsense is touted as fact, and you're up against the intellectual might of Richard Burgon on TV, it's a really good thing that the facts are put right.
Too many people confuse "talking patent bollocks" with "being allowed an opinion" or "freedom of speech". The latter two are sacrosanct. The first needs to be challenged and fact checked.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
It's very odd that they are proposing anything on abortion. It almost looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is rehashing 1960s controversies.
The whole manifesto is a nostalgic paean of praise for the policies of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Nostalgia is the driving force of our time, it powers Brexit and Corbyn.
The news on Labour’s abortion policy must be wrong or misinterpreted, surely?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on the content, but would expect some clarification.
It may be ambiguous, badly worded, mischievously misrepresented or misunderstood. I do not believe they are so unconnected to life, morality and reality to propose a full term - 1 day abortion limit.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
Quite incredible to me that the abortion of healthy unborn babies that were the result of consensual sex is allowed at all
Midlands and Wales 6,693,557 (EM, WM, Wales) North 7,461,024 (NW, NE, Y&H) Rest of south 10,705,817 (SW, SE, Anglia) London 3,821,038 (London) Scotland 2,649,371 (Scotland)
Full decriminalisation was raised during the manifesto meeting last Saturday, and shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said he was willing to back the idea.
Shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti pointed out the legal implications and there were warnings that move could spark a backlash from some anti-abortion campaigners. Following consultation between Chakrabarti and Burgon, a compromise form of words was agreed, sources said.
The news on Labour’s abortion policy must be wrong or misinterpreted, surely?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on the content, but would expect some clarification.
It may be ambiguous, badly worded, mischievously misrepresented or misunderstood. I do not believe they are so unconnected to life, morality and reality to propose a full term - 1 day abortion limit.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
Quite incredible to me that the abortion of healthy unborn babies that were the result of consensual sex is allowed at all
The USA can be found to the west of us. I think your views are slightly more mainstream there.
Looks like strong defences being mounted in Guildford, Hastings and Rye, Crawley and Milton Keynes North and South. They have many more events than anywhere else.
Strong offence in Reading East.
Make of that what you will.
Crawley is the key one.
It is very white working class, and if tories are going there, they haven't put a majority away yet.
PB is now literally arguing about whether Labour wants to kill babies. I think you all need to take a deep breath.
It could be a very big problem for labour
Labour have made the mistake of trying to change vast swathes of uk politics in one piece of stupid self gratification that lays them open to attack from all kinds of vested groups. Indeed I believe they want to interfere in the management of premier league football clubs.
Maybe Corbyn just wanted his moment in producing the hard left manifesto that he has dreamed of for decades but must expect large parts of it will never come about
The press continuing their principled policy of belittling members of the public who don't follow the preferred line
He's being called out for being absolutely, demonstrably, factually wrong (which, while I understand QT may not be able to do live on air, they should certainly have done so to give context to their tweeted video). He is indeed in the top earning five per cent of taxpayers.
I don't favour anyone being "belittled" (and I can't see in that article where he is). But when absolute nonsense is touted as fact, and you're up against the intellectual might of Richard Burgon on TV, it's a really good thing that the facts are put right.
Too many people confuse "talking patent bollocks" with "being allowed an opinion" or "freedom of speech". The latter two are sacrosanct. The first needs to be challenged and fact checked.
It does not require an article in a national newspaper. He could have been corrected by the panelist(s). No more is required, he is not a public figure nor seeking office. If Burgon and co are too thick to correct him live that's their lookout
Almost identical position last time to Sunderland Central. In play if the Tories win by over 12% nationally (fag packet calc based on my expectation)
Sunderland Central is like a more optimistic version of Gedling. Seats we think the Tories will do better in than ever happens. I remember the hype before the 2010 election and they weren't close. I reckon the Tory ceiling is 18000 which won't be enough.
Full decriminalisation was raised during the manifesto meeting last Saturday, and shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said he was willing to back the idea.
Shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti pointed out the legal implications and there were warnings that move could spark a backlash from some anti-abortion campaigners. Following consultation between Chakrabarti and Burgon, a compromise form of words was agreed, sources said.
"a compromise form of words was agreed"
Some quality lawyers they've got in that Shadow Cabinet then!
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
It's very odd that they are proposing anything on abortion. It almost looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is rehashing 1960s controversies.
The whole manifesto is a nostalgic paean of praise for the policies of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Nostalgia is the driving force of our time, it powers Brexit and Corbyn.
And Disney Remakes
We are stuck culturally. One day we will break out of it and move forward. But for now the battle is between conservatives that want to hold the status quo and the nostsligists on the left and right that want to turn the clock back. The conservatives are losing. The old future looking left are nowhere.
On one level I'm impressed they have people out canvassing on a Friday afternoon - on the other level it's a waste of time as I think only 4 people in my street are in during a work day.
"Quite incredible to me that the abortion of healthy unborn babies that were the result of consensual sex is allowed at all"
I`m surprised to hear you say that. Our species is causing such devastation to the planet - the last this we need is unwanted humans adding to the tally. Are you opposed to the morning-after pill then?
On one level I'm impressed they have people out canvassing on a Friday afternoon - on the other level it's a waste of time as I think only 4 people in my street are in during a work day.
Did you see them try other doors? They might have come just for you.
On one level I'm impressed they have people out canvassing on a Friday afternoon - on the other level it's a waste of time as I think only 4 people in my street are in during a work day.
Did you see them try other doors? They might have come just for you.
The press continuing their principled policy of belittling members of the public who don't follow the preferred line
He's being called out for being absolutely, demonstrably, factually wrong (which, while I understand QT may not be able to do live on air, they should certainly have done so to give context to their tweeted video). He is indeed in the top earning five per cent of taxpayers.
I don't favour anyone being "belittled" (and I can't see in that article where he is). But when absolute nonsense is touted as fact, and you're up against the intellectual might of Richard Burgon on TV, it's a really good thing that the facts are put right.
Too many people confuse "talking patent bollocks" with "being allowed an opinion" or "freedom of speech". The latter two are sacrosanct. The first needs to be challenged and fact checked.
It does not require an article in a national newspaper. He could have been corrected by the panelist(s). No more is required, he is not a public figure nor seeking office. If Burgon and co are too thick to correct him live that's their lookout
He called someone a liar on national TV.
If he didn't want to be fact checked and proven to be an idiot he should have kept his trap shut.
I'm really starting to wonder how Labour are going to manage the competing demands from all the special interest groups they're cultivating. We've already seen a split open up on the Muslim/LGBT front with regards to education, and the feminist/trans rights situation seems to get more complicated by the day. It's surely only a matter of time before we get animal welfare right vs Muslims (and Jews, not that that's likely to matter) on ritual slaughter, and potentially a parallel issue on circumcision. I guess they'll all stay together at least as long as they can agree they hate the Tories more than anyone else.
I live in Daventry constituency and I can honestly say that in the twenty five years I`ve lived here I`ve never once had a polical candidate knock at my door or, for that matter, been asked to participate in a political survey.
On one level I'm impressed they have people out canvassing on a Friday afternoon - on the other level it's a waste of time as I think only 4 people in my street are in during a work day.
Did you see them try other doors? They might have come just for you.
We know where you live.
Yep there is an entire team of them doing the usual leap on to the next house approach. And I'm not that important although if you compare this vote to 2017 (when they didn't win) I'm a vote they would be counting on and have lost.
And the fact it's an entire team is better than 2010 when the candidate was by himself and so bored he stopped for a cup of tea.
"Quite incredible to me that the abortion of healthy unborn babies that were the result of consensual sex is allowed at all"
I`m surprised to hear you say that. Our species is causing such devastation to the planet - the last this we need is unwanted humans adding to the tally. Are you opposed to the morning-after pill then?
As with almost every other problem in the world today, all that is needed is a degree of self control, responsibilty and thoughtfulness rather than behave recklessly and hope science can clean up the mess. The morning after pill is quite gruesome too, but not at the same level as abortion, as more often than not there wouldnt have been a baby born anyway.
"Quite incredible to me that the abortion of healthy unborn babies that were the result of consensual sex is allowed at all"
I`m surprised to hear you say that. Our species is causing such devastation to the planet - the last this we need is unwanted humans adding to the tally. Are you opposed to the morning-after pill then?
As with almost every other problem in the world today, all that is needed is a degree of self control, responsibilty and thoughtfulness rather than behave recklessly and hope science can clean up the mess. The morning after pill is quite gruesome too, but not at the same level as abortion, as more often than not there wouldnt have been a baby born anyway.
On one level I'm impressed they have people out canvassing on a Friday afternoon - on the other level it's a waste of time as I think only 4 people in my street are in during a work day.
Did you see them try other doors? They might have come just for you.
We know where you live.
Yep there is an entire team of them doing the usual leap on to the next house approach. And I'm not that important although if you compare this vote to 2017 (when they didn't win) I'm a vote they would be counting on and have lost.
And the fact it's an entire team is better than 2010 when the candidate was by himself and so bored he stopped for a cup of tea.
Are you in a marginal or a safe seat?
I'm assuming that even if people are at work the people volunteering won't be wasting their efforts entirely as they'll be leafleting as they go along too?
This debate has passed me by somewhat, I assumed it was more just that the labour policy is sloppily drafted and it appears if carried out literally would have unforeseen effects, but that thats clearly not their intent. Is that right?
Abortion is currently "illegal unless" various exceptions. The proposal is to switch it to "legal unless" various exceptions. This is the fundamental change. Obviously one of the exceptions if the change were implemented would be late term termination without sufficiently mitigating circumstances. So, no, it will not allow women to kill off their almost born children willy nilly. It is more symbolic than anything. It enshrines a default principle - but subject to certain exceptions - that a woman's body belongs to her and her alone. It's yet another excellent proposal from Labour.
I live in Daventry constituency and I can honestly say that in the twenty five years I`ve lived here I`ve never once had a polical candidate knock at my door or, for that matter, been asked to participate in a political survey.
Starting to feel offended.
I'm in Littlehampton and Bognor and the only canvasser I've ever seen was Lab in 2015. On a side note I actually think this is a safer Tory seat now than "posh" Chichester which is an illustration of how voting patterns have changed.
The press continuing their principled policy of belittling members of the public who don't follow the preferred line
He's being called out for being absolutely, demonstrably, factually wrong (which, while I understand QT may not be able to do live on air, they should certainly have done so to give context to their tweeted video). He is indeed in the top earning five per cent of taxpayers.
I don't favour anyone being "belittled" (and I can't see in that article where he is). But when absolute nonsense is touted as fact, and you're up against the intellectual might of Richard Burgon on TV, it's a really good thing that the facts are put right.
Too many people confuse "talking patent bollocks" with "being allowed an opinion" or "freedom of speech". The latter two are sacrosanct. The first needs to be challenged and fact checked.
It does not require an article in a national newspaper. He could have been corrected by the panelist(s). No more is required, he is not a public figure nor seeking office. If Burgon and co are too thick to correct him live that's their lookout
He called someone a liar on national TV.
If he didn't want to be fact checked and proven to be an idiot he should have kept his trap shut.
Yeah, fucking electorate and their inconvenient views. Stick em in the tabloids and shut them up.
I live in Daventry constituency and I can honestly say that in the twenty five years I`ve lived here I`ve never once had a polical candidate knock at my door or, for that matter, been asked to participate in a political survey.
The news on Labour’s abortion policy must be wrong or misinterpreted, surely?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on the content, but would expect some clarification.
It may be ambiguous, badly worded, mischievously misrepresented or misunderstood. I do not believe they are so unconnected to life, morality and reality to propose a full term - 1 day abortion limit.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
No, it is an absurd reading. On page 59, for instance, Labour says: We will rapidly introduce a Real Living Wage of at least £10 per hour. Few would argue the absence of a cap on that figure and the words "at least" means Labour is promising we shall all be millionaires.
The trouble is some idiot with a political tin ear has revived (or allowed opponents to revive) a controversy most will have hoped was behind us, whatever their views on abortion itself.
The news on Labour’s abortion policy must be wrong or misinterpreted, surely?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on the content, but would expect some clarification.
It may be ambiguous, badly worded, mischievously misrepresented or misunderstood. I do not believe they are so unconnected to life, morality and reality to propose a full term - 1 day abortion limit.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
No, it is an absurd reading. On page 59, for instance, Labour says: We will rapidly introduce a Real Living Wage of at least £10 per hour. Few would argue the absence of a cap on that figure and the words "at least" means Labour is promising we shall all be millionaires.
The trouble is some idiot with a political tin ear has revived (or allowed opponents to revive) a controversy most will have hoped was behind us, whatever their views on abortion itself.
On the contrary, the wording at least £10 implies it will be at most £10, otherwise they’d have used the higher figure.
BXP will absorb Labour voters who will never vote Tory.
Farage, you absolute boy!
I love it when a plan (hopefully) comes together. Agents Farage and Corbyn have given loyal service for many years and should be allowed to retire gracefully in the New Year.
I thought I was joking a few days back when I suggested Labour's public school millionaires were all Tory moles.
Annoyingly I've just remembered the question I wanted to ask which was:-
How can you claim 20,000 new police officers when 20,700 posts have been made redundant since 2010 and natural erosion means you need to recruit 3,000 a year anyway.
The news on Labour’s abortion policy must be wrong or misinterpreted, surely?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on the content, but would expect some clarification.
It may be ambiguous, badly worded, mischievously misrepresented or misunderstood. I do not believe they are so unconnected to life, morality and reality to propose a full term - 1 day abortion limit.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
No, it is an absurd reading. On page 59, for instance, Labour says: We will rapidly introduce a Real Living Wage of at least £10 per hour. Few would argue the absence of a cap on that figure and the words "at least" means Labour is promising we shall all be millionaires.
The trouble is some idiot with a political tin ear has revived (or allowed opponents to revive) a controversy most will have hoped was behind us, whatever their views on abortion itself.
Annoyingly I've just remembered the question I wanted to ask which was:-
How can you claim 20,000 new police officers when 20,700 posts have been made redundant since 2010 and natural erosion means you need to recruit 3,000 a year anyway.
Grr and I don't think they are coming back.
Unless they are recruiting the ones they fired, they will be new.
This debate has passed me by somewhat, I assumed it was more just that the labour policy is sloppily drafted and it appears if carried out literally would have unforeseen effects, but that thats clearly not their intent. Is that right?
Abortion is currently "illegal unless" various exceptions. The proposal is to switch it to "legal unless" various exceptions. This is the fundamental change. Obviously one of the exceptions if the change were implemented would be late term termination without sufficiently mitigating circumstances. So, no, it will not allow women to kill off their almost born children willy nilly. It is more symbolic than anything. It enshrines a default principle - but subject to certain exceptions - that a woman's body belongs to her and her alone. It's yet another excellent proposal from Labour.
How do you get all that from this sentence - “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.” - which is what the manifesto says?
Anyway, I’ve sent them an email asking them what this wording means and, specifically, whether term limits will be removed. I’ll pass on any reply I get.
I suppose now I’ll be inundated with rubbish from them ......
Edited: btw currently late term abortions are permitted in certain circumstances (very severe disability, for instance).
"Quite incredible to me that the abortion of healthy unborn babies that were the result of consensual sex is allowed at all"
I`m surprised to hear you say that. Our species is causing such devastation to the planet - the last this we need is unwanted humans adding to the tally. Are you opposed to the morning-after pill then?
If you genuinely think human beings are ex officio a problem, then the next flight to Dignitas leaves Heathrow tomorrow, and don't forget to leave me something in your will.
Annoyingly I've just remembered the question I wanted to ask which was:-
How can you claim 20,000 new police officers when 20,700 posts have been made redundant since 2010 and natural erosion means you need to recruit 3,000 a year anyway.
Grr and I don't think they are coming back.
The French, most irritatingly, have the perfect expression; L'esprit de l'escalier
How long is it going to take someone in the media to pick up that it can't and isn't just the top 5% as is being claimed - abolishing the Marriage Tax allowance solely affects people who aren't higher rate taxpayers as a household with a higher earner can't claim it today.
It's only people with a low earning spouse (less than the personal allowance) and the other spouse being a basic rate taxpayer who can benefit.
So only households with no higher rate taxpayer are the ones who will lose out.
The press continuing their principled policy of belittling members of the public who don't follow the preferred line
He's being called out for being absolutely, demonstrably, factually wrong (which, while I understand QT may not be able to do live on air, they should certainly have done so to give context to their tweeted video). He is indeed in the top earning five per cent of taxpayers.
I don't favour anyone being "belittled" (and I can't see in that article where he is). But when absolute nonsense is touted as fact, and you're up against the intellectual might of Richard Burgon on TV, it's a really good thing that the facts are put right.
Too many people confuse "talking patent bollocks" with "being allowed an opinion" or "freedom of speech". The latter two are sacrosanct. The first needs to be challenged and fact checked.
It does not require an article in a national newspaper. He could have been corrected by the panelist(s). No more is required, he is not a public figure nor seeking office. If Burgon and co are too thick to correct him live that's their lookout
He called someone a liar on national TV.
If he didn't want to be fact checked and proven to be an idiot he should have kept his trap shut.
Yeah, fucking electorate and their inconvenient views. Stick em in the tabloids and shut them up.
Being factually incorrect is not 'a view'
'A view' would be "despite being in the top 5% of earners I feel Labour's tax policies would hit me to the extent it would make it a struggle to get by"
That's a view.
"You're lying about your tax proposals, I'm not even in the top 50% of earners" is the rantings of a self confident imbecile.
How long is it going to take someone in the media to pick up that it can't and isn't just the top 5% as is being claimed - abolishing the Marriage Tax allowance solely affects people who aren't higher rate taxpayers as a household with a higher earner can't claim it today.
It's only people with a low earning spouse (less than the personal allowance) and the other spouse being a basic rate taxpayer who can benefit.
So only households with no higher rate taxpayer are the ones who will lose out.
The news on Labour’s abortion policy must be wrong or misinterpreted, surely?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on the content, but would expect some clarification.
It may be ambiguous, badly worded, mischievously misrepresented or misunderstood. I do not believe they are so unconnected to life, morality and reality to propose a full term - 1 day abortion limit.
You can read the precise wording they have chosen in their manifesto. It says on page 48: “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions..
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
No, it is an absurd reading. On page 59, for instance, Labour says: We will rapidly introduce a Real Living Wage of at least £10 per hour. Few would argue the absence of a cap on that figure and the words "at least" means Labour is promising we shall all be millionaires.
The trouble is some idiot with a political tin ear has revived (or allowed opponents to revive) a controversy most will have hoped was behind us, whatever their views on abortion itself.
Let’s see what Labour says. Hasn’t a spokesman already said that this means permitting abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason? That is a change to the current position - and quite a significant one. It should be easy enough to clarify if there has been a misunderstanding.
How do you get all that from this sentence - “We will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions.” - which is what the manifesto says?
Anyway, I’ve sent them an email asking them what this wording means and, specifically, whether term limits will be removed. I’ll pass on any reply I get.
I suppose now I’ll be inundated with rubbish from them ......
It's my intuitive interpretation of the reason for the change and its practical impact once drafted as proposed law. But if you get a reply which contradicts me, obviously I would defer to that.
Comments
Labour's manifesto clearly says they will decriminalise abortions. Since abortion is only a criminal offence beyond 24 weeks, I struggle to see any way of interpreting it other than Labour removing enforcement of the current limit.
It would have been easy to add the words “within the existing time limits”. But this has not been done. So either it is an oversight. Or deliberate - which seems to fit with the explanation given by the Labour spokesman today. Or maybe they do not understand the existing law. Who can say?
But it is not a wildly unreasonable reading of the manifesto’s own words to think that Labour intend making it lawful to have abortions right up to birth.
Meanwhile, in terms of performance:
"Evidence on the performance of academies compared to local authority schools is mixed, but on the whole suggests there is no substantial difference in performance."
(From: https://fullfact.org/education/academies-and-maintained-schools-what-do-we-know/)
From a personal point of view: I jacked in being a chair of primary school governors when the government started dismantling local authority education departments and trying to force schools down this route. I'd previously felt well-supported by an effective (Tory-run) LA, and was left with the distinct impression I'd be "it" afterwards. The excellent head delivered two Good Ofsteds in my time, and also quit (early retirement) a year or so later.
Sure. That support can be replicated and possibly even improved by Academy chains, but I'd like to see some realistic assessment of how efficiently that's delivered across regional/national chains with extremely well-paid execs. And the link with local communities/parents is much-weakened.
Basically.. I think academisation was a baby/bathwater solution. By all means bin off old duffers on governing bodies who can't balance a budget or hire people. By all means intervene in failing LAs. But diminishing the role of good ones looks from where I am like an act of vandalism.
Try beating those brilliant chinese and Indian kids to a place at Tiffin for example
Suck it, rest of country.
The Leninists in the Opposition Leader’s office have not absorbed the lessons of state capitalism deeply enough: structural transformation requires the state to be rewired first. Nor have they really learned from the hard constraints that can force Left governments to change tack: Greece’s Syriza government was forced to turn back in 2015, just as Mitterrand was as President of France in 1983. Labour is overpromising with every breath in its body. A good deal of what it is advocating will likely never happen. The populists and demagogues that then appear may be even more unpleasant than those we face now.
https://capx.co/is-the-british-state-capable-of-labours-real-change/
I don't favour anyone being "belittled" (and I can't see in that article where he is). But when absolute nonsense is touted as fact, and you're up against the intellectual might of Richard Burgon on TV, it's a really good thing that the facts are put right.
Too many people confuse "talking patent bollocks" with "being allowed an opinion" or "freedom of speech". The latter two are sacrosanct. The first needs to be challenged and fact checked.
Midlands and Wales 6,693,557 (EM, WM, Wales)
North 7,461,024 (NW, NE, Y&H)
Rest of south 10,705,817 (SW, SE, Anglia)
London 3,821,038 (London)
Scotland 2,649,371 (Scotland)
FWIW I think this article gives some helpful background to their thinking, but the confusion seems to be that the manifesto wording is a fudge:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-manifesto-abortion-law-decriminalisation_uk_5dd428ebe4b08a4325e3a6f1
Note this bit:
Full decriminalisation was raised during the manifesto meeting last Saturday, and shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said he was willing to back the idea.
Shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti pointed out the legal implications and there were warnings that move could spark a backlash from some anti-abortion campaigners. Following consultation between Chakrabarti and Burgon, a compromise form of words was agreed, sources said.
It's simply CCHQ being cautious.
Labour have made the mistake of trying to change vast swathes of uk politics in one piece of stupid self gratification that lays them open to attack from all kinds of vested groups. Indeed I believe they want to interfere in the management of premier league football clubs.
Maybe Corbyn just wanted his moment in producing the hard left manifesto that he has dreamed of for decades but must expect large parts of it will never come about
Midlands and Wales 46 43.3
North 37.5 53.1
Rest of south 53.8 30
London 33.2 54.6
Scotland 28.6 27.1
If Burgon and co are too thick to correct him live that's their lookout
I remember the hype before the 2010 election and they weren't close.
I reckon the Tory ceiling is 18000 which won't be enough.
Some quality lawyers they've got in that Shadow Cabinet then!
43/29/15
On one level I'm impressed they have people out canvassing on a Friday afternoon - on the other level it's a waste of time as I think only 4 people in my street are in during a work day.
"Quite incredible to me that the abortion of healthy unborn babies that were the result of consensual sex is allowed at all"
I`m surprised to hear you say that. Our species is causing such devastation to the planet - the last this we need is unwanted humans adding to the tally. Are you opposed to the morning-after pill then?
Just knock 14% off everywhere from Labour and give 7% to the Brexit party and 7% to the Lib Dems.
If it's a Tory seat, don't worry as Labour aren't winning any of those anyway.
Do you get the same sample size if you add up all the polls in that range?
https://election.unherd.com
I'd go Peri Peri.
If he didn't want to be fact checked and proven to be an idiot he should have kept his trap shut.
I live in Daventry constituency and I can honestly say that in the twenty five years I`ve lived here I`ve never once had a polical candidate knock at my door or, for that matter, been asked to participate in a political survey.
Starting to feel offended.
And the fact it's an entire team is better than 2010 when the candidate was by himself and so bored he stopped for a cup of tea.
I can't imagine why its gone wrong....
I'm assuming that even if people are at work the people volunteering won't be wasting their efforts entirely as they'll be leafleting as they go along too?
Finally challenging the Mail/Express bullcrap that people on such salaries are "middle earners".
Anyone paying 40% tax is well paid.
On a side note I actually think this is a safer Tory seat now than "posh" Chichester
which is an illustration of how voting patterns have changed.
The trouble is some idiot with a political tin ear has revived (or allowed opponents to revive) a controversy most will have hoped was behind us, whatever their views on abortion itself.
How can you claim 20,000 new police officers when 20,700 posts have been made redundant since 2010 and natural erosion means you need to recruit 3,000 a year anyway.
Grr and I don't think they are coming back.
Anyway, I’ve sent them an email asking them what this wording means and, specifically, whether term limits will be removed. I’ll pass on any reply I get.
I suppose now I’ll be inundated with rubbish from them ......
Edited: btw currently late term abortions are permitted in certain circumstances (very severe disability, for instance).
https://twitter.com/GideonSkinner/status/1197874336155217921?s=20
I think yougov’s fancy model is for the past two weeks of the campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'esprit_de_l'escalier
It's only people with a low earning spouse (less than the personal allowance) and the other spouse being a basic rate taxpayer who can benefit.
So only households with no higher rate taxpayer are the ones who will lose out.
'A view' would be "despite being in the top 5% of earners I feel Labour's tax policies would hit me to the extent it would make it a struggle to get by"
That's a view.
"You're lying about your tax proposals, I'm not even in the top 50% of earners" is the rantings of a self confident imbecile.