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.
Corbyn’s love (tax) bomb?
I doubt the total amount is huge but the allowance is worth circa £250pa for each household who will lose this - AND THEY ARENT BIG EARNERS by definition.
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
I love French idioms. One of my favourites is 'avoir le cul bordé de nouilles' (to have the arse surrounded by noodles), which means to be very lucky. Every French person I've asked knows the expression, but none of them have any idea why it signifies luck!
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.
So basically you made it up.
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
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.
Stick him in the tabloids, point and laugh. It's a vote winner. Definitely dont correct him live and have a productive discussion
Edit - if hed had a go at Pocohontas then chasing him with a pitchfork might be appropriate too
I've just been poking around in the remote regions of the LibDem manifesto to see what's there (someone has to...). I was expecting my hackles to be raised, which to be fair they were in the obvious cases such as votes for children, mandatory gender-neutral school uniforms, and similar nonsense, but overall it looks pretty sensible. What I liked about it most is that it doesn't promise instant magical solutions to difficult problems, but instead in some of the difficult areas it proposes measures which seem to have some hope of actually improving things - for example on reducing reoffending, and measures to reduce violent crime.
"Good team of Leaders" Con: 37%, Lab 22% is bad too - and while Lab's 15 point lead on "Concerned about people in real need" is no surprise, their 3% (tie/lead) on "Looks after people like me" is.
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.
So basically you made it up.
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
To be fair, it is a natural understanding of what is being proposed. Unfortunately Labour are so crazy I can see why some are more cynical.
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
It's a difficult one, isn't it. Personally, I would allow abortions up to the twelfth trimester, but no later.
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
I love French idioms. One of my favourites is 'avoir le cul bordé de nouilles' (to have the arse surrounded by noodles), which means to be very lucky. Every French person I've asked knows the expression, but none of them have any idea why it signifies luck!
Korean tales begin with 'back when Tigers used to smoke'
I've just been poking around in the remote regions of the LibDem manifesto to see what's there (someone has to...). I was expecting my hackles to be raised, which to be fair they were in the obvious cases such as votes for children, mandatory gender-neutral school uniforms, and similar nonsense, but overall it looks pretty sensible. What I liked about it most is that it doesn't promise instant magical solutions to difficult problems, but instead in some of the difficult areas it proposes measures which seem to have some hope of actually improving things - for example on reducing reoffending, and measures to reduce violent crime.
I'm glad you enjoyed your time in the LD undergrowth, my friend.
I'm surprisingly impressed by it as a document as well. If only we could skim off some of the sillier froth we'd have a serious document which should appeal to moderate conservatives and many on the centre-left.
It's light years in front of the Labour manifesto and I suspect will look a lot better than the Conservative offering.
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
It's a difficult one, isn't it. Personally, I would allow abortions up to the twelfth trimester, but no later.
Can anyone suggest any fun but obscure drinking game rules for election night?
I’ve got the usual seat losses of leaders. Newcastle beats Sunderland in the race to declare first. Etc.
Any ideas?
A shot for any swing in xs of 10% between winner and second place A shot on hearing selected banker phrases 'a challenging night' 'obviously we are disappointed' etc (maybe shot the first time uttered) Down your drink when any multiple of 100 seats reached
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.
Labour would be well-advised not to let questions like "so a strapping six-footer with a beard and workboots can walk into a ladies changing room and take his clothes off because he self-identifies as a woman?" ...become an election issue outside the bounds of Mumsnet and Twitter.
Because my suspicion is Corbyn would soon wish the reanimated corpses of Yasser Arafat and Martin McGuinness were in his shadow cabinet and appearing on Question Time for him.
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
I claim a little more than that! I fused what I know is the symbolic principle being elevated - a women's body belongs to her - with a 'thinking cap' assumption that in practice late stage terminations will not be purely down to the pregnant woman.
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
It's a difficult one, isn't it. Personally, I would allow abortions up to the twelfth trimester, but no later.
Twelfth trimester is 36 months!
To be fair, Robert has scaled back the limit. He used to say the 21st trimester.
I've just been poking around in the remote regions of the LibDem manifesto to see what's there (someone has to...). I was expecting my hackles to be raised, which to be fair they were in the obvious cases such as votes for children, mandatory gender-neutral school uniforms, and similar nonsense, but overall it looks pretty sensible. What I liked about it most is that it doesn't promise instant magical solutions to difficult problems, but instead in some of the difficult areas it proposes measures which seem to have some hope of actually improving things - for example on reducing reoffending, and measures to reduce violent crime.
Can anyone suggest any fun but obscure drinking game rules for election night?
I’ve got the usual seat losses of leaders. Newcastle beats Sunderland in the race to declare first. Etc.
Any ideas?
A shot for any swing in xs of 10% between winner and second place A shot on hearing selected banker phrases 'a challenging night' 'obviously we are disappointed' etc (maybe shot the first time uttered) Down your drink when any multiple of 100 seats reached
Yard of ale for the big majority 326
A shot for each recount. A shot if Cabinet Member/Shadow Cabinet Member loses seat. A double if independent takes seat. A shot for each corrected result - Con take Bootle.
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.
Stick him in the tabloids, point and laugh. It's a vote winner. Definitely dont correct him live and have a productive discussion
Edit - if hed had a go at Pocohontas then chasing him with a pitchfork might be appropriate too
He was corrected live. He continued to call Burgon a liar.
Can anyone suggest any fun but obscure drinking game rules for election night?
I’ve got the usual seat losses of leaders. Newcastle beats Sunderland in the race to declare first. Etc.
Any ideas?
A shot for any swing in xs of 10% between winner and second place A shot on hearing selected banker phrases 'a challenging night' 'obviously we are disappointed' etc (maybe shot the first time uttered) Down your drink when any multiple of 100 seats reached
Yard of ale for the big majority 326
A shot for each recount. A shot if Cabinet Member/Shadow Cabinet Member loses seat. A double if independent takes seat. A shot for each corrected result - Con take Bootle.
A shot of something beginning with the same letter as their surname when you hear 'I'm hearing xxxxxx might be in trouble in......'
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
It's a difficult one, isn't it. Personally, I would allow abortions up to the twelfth trimester, but no later.
Con - 43 Labour -29 Lib Dem - 15 Brexit - 4 Green - 3
Unless something's going to "drop" imminently I think that must be some sort of YouGov "poll of polls" as this is the last poll they are showing on their Twitter
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
It's a difficult one, isn't it. Personally, I would allow abortions up to the twelfth trimester, but no later.
Can anyone suggest any fun but obscure drinking game rules for election night?
I’ve got the usual seat losses of leaders. Newcastle beats Sunderland in the race to declare first. Etc.
Any ideas?
A shot for any swing in xs of 10% between winner and second place A shot on hearing selected banker phrases 'a challenging night' 'obviously we are disappointed' etc (maybe shot the first time uttered) Down your drink when any multiple of 100 seats reached
Yard of ale for the big majority 326
A shot for each recount. A shot if Cabinet Member/Shadow Cabinet Member loses seat. A double if independent takes seat. A shot for each corrected result - Con take Bootle.
A shot of something beginning with the same letter as their surname when you hear 'I'm hearing xxxxxx might be in trouble in......'
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.
Stick him in the tabloids, point and laugh. It's a vote winner. Definitely dont correct him live and have a productive discussion
Edit - if hed had a go at Pocohontas then chasing him with a pitchfork might be appropriate too
He was corrected live. He continued to call Burgon a liar.
Though his dad "Phil" doesn't sound like a "wealthy Duke"....
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.
Stick him in the tabloids, point and laugh. It's a vote winner. Definitely dont correct him live and have a productive discussion
Edit - if hed had a go at Pocohontas then chasing him with a pitchfork might be appropriate too
He was corrected live. He continued to call Burgon a liar.
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
I claim a little more than that! I fused what I know is the symbolic principle being elevated - a women's body belongs to her - with a 'thinking cap' assumption that in practice late stage terminations will not be purely down to the pregnant woman.
I suspect that the intention - at least on the part of some - may be to remove the requirement to have the approval of 2 doctors.
But that still leaves the question of whether abortion will be available on demand (a) for any reason at all e.g. I don't want to have a girl; and (b) at all stages of the pregnancy eg at 8 months 3 weeks.
Let’s see what clarification is forthcoming, if any.
Con - 43 Labour -29 Lib Dem - 15 Brexit - 4 Green - 3
Unless something's going to "drop" imminently I think that must be some sort of YouGov "poll of polls" as this is the last poll they are showing on their Twitter
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.
Stick him in the tabloids, point and laugh. It's a vote winner. Definitely dont correct him live and have a productive discussion
Edit - if hed had a go at Pocohontas then chasing him with a pitchfork might be appropriate too
He was corrected live. He continued to call Burgon a liar.
Then its lynch mob or naked walk of shame. How very dare he.
If he was corrected the tabloid mocking was superfluous and unnecessary
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 think we've had one in 22 years (a Tory trying to get the seat back after a couple of terms of New Labour). Mind you, given we're virtually the last house in a mahoosive constituency, and a mile away from the nearest village, I'll cut them some slack.
I can't decide whether, if (big if) Labour's manifesto completely unravels over the abortion issue, that'll be hilarious or sad. There are so many more ridiculous things to go after, but I can totally see them being incapable of clarifying this obviously unintentional screwup and it spiralling out of control.
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.
Stick him in the tabloids, point and laugh. It's a vote winner. Definitely dont correct him live and have a productive discussion
Edit - if hed had a go at Pocohontas then chasing him with a pitchfork might be appropriate too
He was corrected live. He continued to call Burgon a liar.
Though his dad "Phil" doesn't sound like a "wealthy Duke"....
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.
Labour would be well-advised not to let questions like "so a strapping six-footer with a beard and workboots can walk into a ladies changing room and take his clothes off because he self-identifies as a woman?" ...become an election issue outside the bounds of Mumsnet and Twitter.
Because my suspicion is Corbyn would soon wish the reanimated corpses of Yasser Arafat and Martin McGuinness were in his shadow cabinet and appearing on Question Time for him.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
I claim a little more than that! I fused what I know is the symbolic principle being elevated - a women's body belongs to her - with a 'thinking cap' assumption that in practice late stage terminations will not be purely down to the pregnant woman.
But that still leaves the question of whether abortion will be available on demand (a) for any reason at all e.g. I don't want to have a girl; and (b) at all stages of the pregnancy eg at 8 months 3 weeks.
The first of those sounds like the hard part they haven't thought through....the second surely not.
I can't decide whether, if (big if) Labour's manifesto completely unravels over the abortion issue, that'll be hilarious or sad. There are so many more ridiculous things to go after, but I can totally see them being incapable of clarifying this obviously unintentional screwup and it spiralling out of control.
Why assume that it is an “obviously unintentional” screw up? It may well be the intention: abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. It has the virtue of consistency and is entirely in line with a view which holds that a woman should have complete control over her own body.
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
I love French idioms. One of my favourites is 'avoir le cul bordé de nouilles' (to have the arse surrounded by noodles), which means to be very lucky. Every French person I've asked knows the expression, but none of them have any idea why it signifies luck!
sounds more like a serving suggestion on I'm a celebrity....
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
The best result ( post event) of the election would be that either someone sane like Kinnock jr, Benn jr, Cooper etc takes over or 150 of the leave and set up shop/join the Lib Dem’s.
We can then disagree to our hearts content about whatever but still sleep at night.
wonder how many other Labour MPs will do something like this.
''look I know that Corbyn guy is a bit of a radical, and his mate McDonnell is a bit tasty, but elect me and I'll have a word...''
That is really very good. Slight problem is that she has the very unattractive ghost of Comrade Jeremy to haunt what would otherwise have been a very good pitch.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
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
I love French idioms. One of my favourites is 'avoir le cul bordé de nouilles' (to have the arse surrounded by noodles), which means to be very lucky. Every French person I've asked knows the expression, but none of them have any idea why it signifies luck!
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
I claim a little more than that! I fused what I know is the symbolic principle being elevated - a women's body belongs to her - with a 'thinking cap' assumption that in practice late stage terminations will not be purely down to the pregnant woman.
But that still leaves the question of whether abortion will be available on demand (a) for any reason at all e.g. I don't want to have a girl; and (b) at all stages of the pregnancy eg at 8 months 3 weeks.
The first of those sounds like the hard part they haven't thought through....the second surely not.
I have to confess that I find something very troubling about getting rid of a baby simply because it is a girl. It reinforces misogynistic views about women, particularly in some communities, a belief that women are not the equal of men, are not worth anything or not as much. How can a feminist - or, frankly, any self-respecting woman - not be troubled by this?
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
Except the front-runners to replace him are shite....
That is the problem. That said, they now have had three shit ones in a row, so maybe they just might think that the way someone comes across is important if you want to win.
I've just been poking around in the remote regions of the LibDem manifesto to see what's there (someone has to...). I was expecting my hackles to be raised, which to be fair they were in the obvious cases such as votes for children, mandatory gender-neutral school uniforms, and similar nonsense, but overall it looks pretty sensible. What I liked about it most is that it doesn't promise instant magical solutions to difficult problems, but instead in some of the difficult areas it proposes measures which seem to have some hope of actually improving things - for example on reducing reoffending, and measures to reduce violent crime.
I have no real issues with the Lib Dems manifesto
Lots of top Conservatives seem to like the Lib Dems in this election. Of course, they were top Conservatives in the days when Conservatives were competent, honest and - to a greater or lesser extent - caring. It`s a great shame that the Conservative Party been taken over by a gang of buffoons, chancers and [MODERATED]
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
The best result ( post event) of the election would be that either someone sane like Kinnock jr, Benn jr, Cooper etc takes over or 150 of the leave and set up shop/join the Lib Dem’s.
We can then disagree to our hearts content about whatever but still sleep at night.
Sadly, I think it is unlikely any of those will take the Labour leadership, and Bozo Johnson will be relieved.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
I suspect if Labour don't "wise up" this time and put someone sensible in as leader they really will be at risk of being replaced by the Lib-Dems as the official Opposition in 2023/2024.
Think the public will leave them absolutely crystal clear that they're in the last chance saloon in three weeks time...
Then its lynch mob or naked walk of shame. How very dare he.
If he was corrected the tabloid mocking was superfluous and unnecessary
Such a compassionate little soul, you are. If only we had more like you.
I'm actually defending him and suggesting the media shouldn't be publishing hit pieces on people just for being wrong. As in 'the tabloid mocking was superfluous and unecessary' The lynch mob was sarcasm, which would be obvious if you'd read the exchange rather than just the username and decided to troll on that basis
What's strange (except the obvious) about that Labour campaigning/anti-semitism tweet is the advice is so stupid. If someone is just using AS to trash Labour and aren't genuinely concerned about it, the answer is surely to politely and gently extricate yourself and move on as there are clearly no votes there. Not get into a heated debate about it.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
Except the front-runners to replace him are shite....
That is the problem. That said, they now have had three shit ones in a row, so maybe they just might think that the way someone comes across is important if you want to win.
Part of the problem is that quite a few of their members now seem to be in the fruit loop category.
He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
The best result ( post event) of the election would be that either someone sane like Kinnock jr, Benn jr, Cooper etc takes over or 150 of the leave and set up shop/join the Lib Dem’s.
We can then disagree to our hearts content about whatever but still sleep at night.
Sadly, I think it is unlikely any of those will take the Labour leadership, and Bozo Johnson will be relieved.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
I suspect if Labour don't "wise up" this time and put someone sensible in as leader they really will be at risk of being replaced by the Lib-Dems as the official Opposition in 2023/2024.
Think the public will leave them absolutely crystal clear that they're in the last chance saloon in three weeks time...
It will happen when those who wish it vote for it to happen, rather than bemoaning the choice on offer but leaving the actual voting to others.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
The best result ( post event) of the election would be that either someone sane like Kinnock jr, Benn jr, Cooper etc takes over or 150 of the leave and set up shop/join the Lib Dem’s.
We can then disagree to our hearts content about whatever but still sleep at night.
Another extremist will take Corbyn's place. The membership will guarantee that.
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
I claim a little more than that! I fused what I know is the symbolic principle being elevated - a women's body belongs to her - with a 'thinking cap' assumption that in practice late stage terminations will not be purely down to the pregnant woman.
But that still leaves the question of whether abortion will be available on demand (a) for any reason at all e.g. I don't want to have a girl; and (b) at all stages of the pregnancy eg at 8 months 3 weeks.
The first of those sounds like the hard part they haven't thought through....the second surely not.
I have to confess that I find something very troubling about getting rid of a baby simply because it is a girl. It reinforces misogynistic views about women, particularly in some communities, a belief that women are not the equal of men, are not worth anything or not as much. How can a feminist - or, frankly, any self-respecting woman - not be troubled by this?
It should be illegal.
Its shocking that it currently isn't.
United Kingdom The law on sex-selective abortion is unresolved in the United Kingdom. In order for an abortion to be legal, doctors need to show that continuing the pregnancy could threaten the physical or mental health of the mother. In a recent case, two doctors were caught on camera offering a sex-selective abortion but the Director of Public Prosecution deemed it not in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.[171] Following this incidence, MPs voted 181 to 1 for a Bill put forward by Tessa Munt and 11 other MPs aiming to end confusion about the legality of this practice.[172][173] Organisations such as BPAS and Abortion Rights have been lobbying for the decriminalisation of sex-selective abortions.[174][175]
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
The best result ( post event) of the election would be that either someone sane like Kinnock jr, Benn jr, Cooper etc takes over or 150 of the leave and set up shop/join the Lib Dem’s.
We can then disagree to our hearts content about whatever but still sleep at night.
Another extremist will take Corbyn's place. The membership will guarantee that.
How many Labour MPs were deselected in the end ? I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the PLP won't be significantly more left wing after the election
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.
Labour would be well-advised not to let questions like "so a strapping six-footer with a beard and workboots can walk into a ladies changing room and take his clothes off because he self-identifies as a woman?" ...become an election issue outside the bounds of Mumsnet and Twitter.
Because my suspicion is Corbyn would soon wish the reanimated corpses of Yasser Arafat and Martin McGuinness were in his shadow cabinet and appearing on Question Time for him.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
I suspect if Labour don't "wise up" this time and put someone sensible in as leader they really will be at risk of being replaced by the Lib-Dems as the official Opposition in 2023/2024.
Think the public will leave them absolutely crystal clear that they're in the last chance saloon in three weeks time...
Looks like they're being turfed out again in Scotland (See 2015), only this time round they'll be so far behind in many of their former "heartland" constituencies that they won't be able to mount the sort of mini-comeback like they did in 2017.
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
It's a difficult one, isn't it. Personally, I would allow abortions up to the twelfth trimester, but no later.
Twelfth trimester is 36 months!
Yes, I'd draw the line at the point they can start speaking in proper sentences.
The one upside to a Johnson majority is that then hopefully the Labour Party will have the sense to put Jeremy Corbyn out of our misery (and hopefully not replace him with someone equally useless)
The best result ( post event) of the election would be that either someone sane like Kinnock jr, Benn jr, Cooper etc takes over or 150 of the leave and set up shop/join the Lib Dem’s.
We can then disagree to our hearts content about whatever but still sleep at night.
Another extremist will take Corbyn's place. The membership will guarantee that.
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.
Corbyn’s love (tax) bomb?
I doubt the total amount is huge but the allowance is worth circa £250pa for each household who will lose this - AND THEY ARENT BIG EARNERS by definition.
Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them. https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/ These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
So ther eis Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
But dont even think about hurting those foxes!
Killing foxes - evil beyond recognition.
Killing human babies in the womb - yeah, that’s okay, right up to 40 weeks.
So their policy is probably much the same as Canada's has been for decades
So, because another country decides to allow baby-killing, the U.K. should too?
Labour have just opened a massive box belonging to Pandora, if they think that religious groups will just accept this and vote Labour because they always do. There’s a line that they’ve crossed, whereby people of otherwise lapsed religion start identifying themselves as such to oppose policies like abortion on demand.
Comments
Well... obviously.
And I heartily approve of Dignitas by the way.
I will see whether I get any reply and if the lovely Tulip drops by I can always ask her, of course......
Definitely dont correct him live and have a productive discussion
Edit - if hed had a go at Pocohontas then chasing him with a pitchfork might be appropriate too
I’ve got the usual seat losses of leaders. Newcastle beats Sunderland in the race to declare first. Etc.
Any ideas?
wonder how many other Labour MPs will do something like this.
I'm surprisingly impressed by it as a document as well. If only we could skim off some of the sillier froth we'd have a serious document which should appeal to moderate conservatives and many on the centre-left.
It's light years in front of the Labour manifesto and I suspect will look a lot better than the Conservative offering.
A shot on hearing selected banker phrases 'a challenging night' 'obviously we are disappointed' etc (maybe shot the first time uttered)
Down your drink when any multiple of 100 seats reached
Yard of ale for the big majority 326
Don't think we can look too much on to these
Because my suspicion is Corbyn would soon wish the reanimated corpses of Yasser Arafat and Martin McGuinness were in his shadow cabinet and appearing on Question Time for him.
Con - 43
Labour -29
Lib Dem - 15
Brexit - 4
Green - 3
I’ll get my coat.
A shot if Cabinet Member/Shadow Cabinet Member loses seat.
A double if independent takes seat.
A shot for each corrected result - Con take Bootle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUeQjDR1hOw
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1196854420241289217
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-abortion-rights-reproductive-corbyn-women-a9212481.html
2. https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/labour-would-totally-decriminalise-abortion-party-spokeswoman-confirms/
I suspect that the intention - at least on the part of some - may be to remove the requirement to have the approval of 2 doctors.
But that still leaves the question of whether abortion will be available on demand (a) for any reason at all e.g. I don't want to have a girl; and (b) at all stages of the pregnancy eg at 8 months 3 weeks.
Let’s see what clarification is forthcoming, if any.
If he was corrected the tabloid mocking was superfluous and unnecessary
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1197898892504907779?s=20
Womens’ rights are all too easily pushed aside when some other noisier group comes along.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-corbyn-not-equipped-to-run-britain-say-three-in-four-voters/ar-BBXatAv?ocid=spartanntp
Did the actual returning officer fancy an early night or what?
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1197902904469970944
We can then disagree to our hearts content about whatever but still sleep at night.
http://www.expressio.fr/expressions/avoir-le-cul-borde-de-nouilles.php
Up there with "Changing trains at Baker Street"
Think the public will leave them absolutely crystal clear that they're in the last chance saloon in three weeks time...
As in 'the tabloid mocking was superfluous and unecessary'
The lynch mob was sarcasm, which would be obvious if you'd read the exchange rather than just the username and decided to troll on that basis
Things may only get worse.
Now, he could've bought a house with them instead.
Its shocking that it currently isn't.
United Kingdom
The law on sex-selective abortion is unresolved in the United Kingdom. In order for an abortion to be legal, doctors need to show that continuing the pregnancy could threaten the physical or mental health of the mother. In a recent case, two doctors were caught on camera offering a sex-selective abortion but the Director of Public Prosecution deemed it not in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.[171] Following this incidence, MPs voted 181 to 1 for a Bill put forward by Tessa Munt and 11 other MPs aiming to end confusion about the legality of this practice.[172][173] Organisations such as BPAS and Abortion Rights have been lobbying for the decriminalisation of sex-selective abortions.[174][175]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#By_country
40% (Broon 2010) -> 28/27% (MIliband, Corbyn 2017) -> 15?% (Corbyn 2019)
Labour have just opened a massive box belonging to Pandora, if they think that religious groups will just accept this and vote Labour because they always do. There’s a line that they’ve crossed, whereby people of otherwise lapsed religion start identifying themselves as such to oppose policies like abortion on demand.