This is such a heap of bullshit. Why? Because the Tories (and Labour before them) have had complete control over non-EU immigration and yet it has accounted for over 50% of that immigration and they have done nothing about it. Why? Because immigration is good for the economy.
Nobody is saying stop immigration you muppet!
Why does EU immigration account for nearly half of our immigration when 93% of global population are non-EU? We should allow the best and brightest in without discrimination.
Im sure you have many talents but knowledge of immigration law is not one of them. The U.K. Points Based System under the Conservative Party (now disingenuously described by your disgrace of a party as “Australian” because, you know, mostly white, mostly English speaking) has effectively stopped non-EU immigration for talented people and post-Brexit it will be expanded to stop it for EU people too. The only people it worked for are rich investors, not necessarily the “best” and not necessarily the “brightest”. The Conservative Party only cares about money. It had no time for talented people without it as their immigration record attests. There is no open category under the Points Based System for “best” or “brightest” - only “loaded” or “more loaded”.
The reason for so many people coming here from the EU is because it is reciprocal. How many countries are going to let our undereducated populace in after Brexit - particularly as our universities will go down the pan with no overseas academics.
How many undereducated Brits take advantage of freedom of movement?
I’m saying we are comparatively undereducated as a nation. We rely on people from overseas to do everything from pick our apples to run our central bank. We are a dumb nation - as Brexit proves.
Your own post gives some evidence to your theory but I don't think it is concrete proof.
That’s fine. I have a whole back catalogue of your posts to provide it.
I have to say even I'm surprised as to how little play the Labour freebie on train fares has got. I thought it would be looked upon pretty poorly, but it seems to have disappeared without a trace.
It's bribe fatigue.
I hope you are right. Labour`s spending plans are surely terrifying.
The reaction on the official labour twitter was sub optimal from their perspective
But we dont just need the best and brightest. We need low skilled migration because of our demographics. And there are reasons why migration from our neighbouring countries are better than those far away, just as there are reasons why migration from countries we have some shared history with via the Commonwealth are also better sources of migration than countries that are both far away and we have less in common with.
We do primarily need the best and brightest. Our own unskilled can do low skilled jobs. But if there's certain industries which desperately need more migrants like for example care then that can be accounted for via points - more care workers come from non-EU than from within the EU.
More of our emigration goes to far away countries so that doesn't explain why location is so important or why we need uncontrolled migration.
How do we trust the Tories to run a points based system for immigrants from the whole world when they can’t run one for part of the world at the moment? They have a track record and it is abysmal
As you're well aware, this is the sort of system that only works properly if you can run it for the whole world.
Does anyone know if we’re expecting just an ICM poll today ? I’ve seen suggestions of an Ipsos Mori aswell but can’t find anything to confirm that .Thanks.
You can spread as much disinformation as you want but but the facts are completely on my side. I work in the field. We have closed the Highly Skilled Migrant Route, we have stopped graduates being able to work here after graduation, and the number of Entrepreneur visas issued is derisory. Your last leader (yes, your last leader) described migrants as “citizens of nowhere” and your current leader is open about is iliberality regarding people who are not straight, white males.
At my last firm we acted for a Canadian Theatre company whose temporary Tier 1 application was turned down as the playwright was not part of the group.They were performing Shakespeare.Russian oligarchs were fine though.That’s how bad the Tory points system is.
Theresa May was never my leader, I abandoned the party when she was elected and unequivocally stated my opposition to her thank you very much. She was as much my leader as Jeremy Corbyn is currently Chuka's leader. Your unsubstantiated bullshit claims are disproven by the facts. We received over 200k net non-EU immigration last year - do you really believe those are all Russian oligarchs? Muppet. Please try and provide some evidence to substantiate your lies because reality and facts are not on your side.
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
You can get one at home, I believe. My brother has one on his fence.
I was referring to electric cars. The number of times I can park outside my house does not make it sensible to rely on an electric car in London. I don't use it often - mainly for transporting plants or to travel out of the city. In the Lakes when I move there, yes, I can charge at home but would need reliable charging points in the area. You don't want to be stuck on the fells with a car that's run out of energy. BTW - still no response from Labour on the abortion question. Very feeble of them. The Tories responded within 24 hours on the WASPI issue.
You might be surprised how many charging points there are even in remote areas. This map shows quite a few in the Lake District. Depends on your personal circumstances, but for most people the range is sufficient nowadays. https://www.zap-map.com/live/
One issue round here is the trip hazard presented by trailing electric cables across the pavement at night.
*Betting Post* Looking for potential Lab from Con gains and its obviously quite tricky. Possibly Putney, Cities of Westminster Chipping Barnet and Chingford or Watford on a very good night.
The strongest case outside the M25 I can see is Truro & Falmouth. Labour came within 4,000 votes last time and there are still 8,500 Lib Dem votes to squeeze. While I appreciate Cornwall Lib Dems are not SE Lib Dems, the constituency is around 55% remain and has a fairly large student population from the Arts uni that has helped swell the Labour vote.
Yougov MRP has it likely Tory, but there is a slight overlap between Lab and Con and on a good day for Corbyn if the polls tighten further this could be one of the few Tory seats to go red and buck the trend.
I don't think its going to happen but at odds of over 5/1 on Betfair I've had a tickle.
Tut, tut - you can get 6/1 with Coral, Lads and W Hill.. I think I`ll leave that one with you.
*Betting Post* Looking for potential Lab from Con gains and its obviously quite tricky. Possibly Putney, Cities of Westminster Chipping Barnet and Chingford or Watford on a very good night.
The strongest case outside the M25 I can see is Truro & Falmouth. Labour came within 4,000 votes last time and there are still 8,500 Lib Dem votes to squeeze. While I appreciate Cornwall Lib Dems are not SE Lib Dems, the constituency is around 55% remain and has a fairly large student population from the Arts uni that has helped swell the Labour vote.
Yougov MRP has it likely Tory, but there is a slight overlap between Lab and Con and on a good day for Corbyn if the polls tighten further this could be one of the few Tory seats to go red and buck the trend.
I don't think its going to happen but at odds of over 5/1 on Betfair I've had a tickle.
Tut, tut - you can get 6/1 with Coral, Lads and W Hill.. I think I`ll leave that one with you.
Sorry just to state I got 6-1 but there wasn't any left for you guys! Thanks for letting me know in case I top up!.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
Sort of on topic, it looks like Cummings has saved up most of the Tory donations to do a final ten-day social media blitz of all the key messages. Fans might recall this is exactly what he did with Vote Leave.
Meanwhile Labour recently announced redundancies. We may see an example of one of the things that money can buy.
That was really strange, especially as Uncle Len has just opened the purse and bunged Labour a load of dosh.
It happens at every election - people are taken on with short-term contracts expiring immediately after the election. The alternative would be to be understaffed in elections or overstaffed in between. I assume all the parties do the same.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Abortion is a conscience issue and should never be party political. Quite frankly this is moot. Why the hell do you think that women will wait 40 weeks then elect to have an abortion as a form of contraception? Its a non issue.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
I think "abortion for convenience" concerns are overplayed. I`m not in favour of late term abortions, obviously, but would never call an abortion murder.
The 2017 election left money to be made on Lab Holds. I've rather been hoping for the same and have bet on many of the same seats. However I feel this day that we are either we are at peak labour already or that the forthcoming peak labour is priced in. It's hard to find value at present, though 6/4 in Workington does look not shabby.
That is bellweather, isn't it. Where Workington goes ...
5 point swing and the 61st tory target. If Workington goes, and the life has been sucked out of the LibDems by London commuter friendly policies... Well you know what you're getting.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Abortion is a conscience issue and should never be party political. Quite frankly this is moot. Why the hell do you think that women will wait 40 weeks then elect to have an abortion as a form of contraception? Its a non issue.
We don’t agree on much but on this issue you’ve made an excellent point .
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
I think "abortion for convenience" concerns are overplayed. I`m not in favour of late term abortions, obviously, but would never call an abortion murder.
I cant see what else it should be called. Deciding 'cant be arsed' in the last month of pregnancy is sub human. There won't be a rash of abortions for convenience but to act as a society to permit it late term is just repugnant.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
I think "abortion for convenience" concerns are overplayed. I`m not in favour of late term abortions, obviously, but would never call an abortion murder.
I cant see what else it should be called. Deciding 'cant be arsed' in the last month of pregnancy is sub human. There won't be a rash of abortions for convenience but to act as a society to permit it late term is just repugnant.
I respect your view - maybe religiously inspired? - but I can`t get worked up about this issue.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
I think "abortion for convenience" concerns are overplayed. I`m not in favour of late term abortions, obviously, but would never call an abortion murder.
I cant see what else it should be called. Deciding 'cant be arsed' in the last month of pregnancy is sub human. There won't be a rash of abortions for convenience but to act as a society to permit it late term is just repugnant.
You're right, there won't be. This is a non-issue. The only reason people would act so late to request an abortion is because they'd have a very good reason to and I'm not going to second judge them as to why that might be.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Abortion is a conscience issue and should never be party political. Quite frankly this is moot. Why the hell do you think that women will wait 40 weeks then elect to have an abortion as a form of contraception? Its a non issue.
Its not a non issue when labour are apparently legalizing it. It shows a callous disregard for life.
The 2017 election left money to be made on Lab Holds. I've rather been hoping for the same and have bet on many of the same seats. However I feel this day that we are either we are at peak labour already or that the forthcoming peak labour is priced in. It's hard to find value at present, though 6/4 in Workington does look not shabby.
That is bellweather, isn't it. Where Workington goes ...
5 point swing and the 61st tory target. If Workington goes, and the life has been sucked out of the LibDems by London commuter friendly policies... Well you know what you're getting.
Your first indicator will be Newcastle and Sunderland not declaring early due to a recount.
Thanks. So you agree that this policy will discriminate against the poor in favour of the better off. And this is what they wanted. For balance? Some policies benefit the poor at the expense of the rich, and some, like this one, do the opposite. I mean I wouldn't mind but I don't think that was their intention. You for example didn't understand it to begin with. So again what worries me is the competency of Labour for all the announced policies.
Indeed. I'm agreeing with what I said in the first place! One must look at the whole package of proposed deltas. Excellent use of both of our time, that was.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
I think "abortion for convenience" concerns are overplayed. I`m not in favour of late term abortions, obviously, but would never call an abortion murder.
I cant see what else it should be called. Deciding 'cant be arsed' in the last month of pregnancy is sub human. There won't be a rash of abortions for convenience but to act as a society to permit it late term is just repugnant.
I respect your view - maybe religiously inspired? - but I can`t get worked up about this issue.
Spiritually not religiously. I dont go in for cults.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Abortion is a conscience issue and should never be party political. Quite frankly this is moot. Why the hell do you think that women will wait 40 weeks then elect to have an abortion as a form of contraception? Its a non issue.
Its not a non issue when labour are apparently legalizing it. It shows a callous disregard for life.
Labour shouldn't be engaging in a conscience issue, but I won't oppose them on a conscience one either. Its got nothing to do with party politics. And I've not seen even one Labour MP, or one Labour advert or one Labour speech dedicated to this subject so this does not seem a priority for them.
This is a non-issue debate on a non-issue topic. There's enough real concerns about Labour that terrify me without engaging in conscience hypotheticals.
You can spread as much disinformation as you want but but the facts are completely on my side. I work in the field. We have closed the Highly Skilled Migrant Route, we have stopped graduates being able to work here after graduation, and the number of Entrepreneur visas issued is derisory. Your last leader (yes, your last leader) described migrants as “citizens of nowhere” and your current leader is open about is iliberality regarding people who are not straight, white males.
At my last firm we acted for a Canadian Theatre company whose temporary Tier 1 application was turned down as the playwright was not part of the group.They were performing Shakespeare.Russian oligarchs were fine though.That’s how bad the Tory points system is.
Theresa May was never my leader, I abandoned the party when she was elected and unequivocally stated my opposition to her thank you very much. She was as much my leader as Jeremy Corbyn is currently Chuka's leader. Your unsubstantiated bullshit claimed are disproven by the facts. We received over 200k net non-EU immigration last year - do you really believe those are all Russian oligarchs? Muppet. Please try and provide some evidence to substantiate your lies because reality and facts are not on your side.
That’s total non-EU you muppet, including asylum seekers, family members and the like. There is no breakdown by category.
You want a fact? The total number of people admitted under the Innovator Visa in the last three months was 2 (two as in one more than 1)
So the points based system you relentlessly champion has not managed to attract enough “best and brightest” to half fill a decent sized football stadium.
5 point swing and the 61st tory target. If Workington goes, and the life has been sucked out of the LibDems by London commuter friendly policies... Well you know what you're getting.
Yes. I'll be getting clinically depressed. But I will be counting my money because this - the big Con win - is what I'm expecting. I'm long at 15 Con majority in SIZE and have not closed out a penny of it.
5 point swing and the 61st tory target. If Workington goes, and the life has been sucked out of the LibDems by London commuter friendly policies... Well you know what you're getting.
Yes. I'll be getting clinically depressed. But I will be counting my money because this - the big Con win - is what I'm expecting. I'm long at 15 Con majority in SIZE and have not closed out a penny of it.
That`s interesting - you`re not convinced about the narrowing in the polls?
5 point swing and the 61st tory target. If Workington goes, and the life has been sucked out of the LibDems by London commuter friendly policies... Well you know what you're getting.
Yes. I'll be getting clinically depressed. But I will be counting my money because this - the big Con win - is what I'm expecting. I'm long at 15 Con majority in SIZE and have not closed out a penny of it.
That's a great bet. Well done, and well done for going large.
He said "we have a queen's speech that was blocked by Parliament"
Why did he lie about that?
He didn't. The Queen's speech was heavily focused on delivering Brexit. Everything in it required MPs to vote through the deal Johnson had agreed with the EU. They blocked it, thus blocking the whole of his legislative agenda. Hence this general election.
The bill passed its second reading. How is that blocking it?
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
Accuracy is important on such a subject. So what Labour has said is the following:- 1. Two references in the manifesto: one to "decriminalising abortions" and one to changing the law in NI on abortions so that it is the same as in the rest of the country. 2. In response to a question by the Catholic Herald, a spokeswoman said that the former (the reference to decriminalisation) meant that a woman would be able to get an abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. 3. In response to a question for further clarification, a spokesperson said that Labour would ensure that abortion would be properly regulated, safe and that there would be consultation in relation to the details of decriminalisation. This last has been described on here by @ydoethur as a classic non-denial denial. Quite what any of this means is anyone's guess but given that there has not been a specific rebuttal of what Labour's spokeswoman said to the newspaper (point 1 above) and no clarification that existing term limits would remain (unlike, say, the Lib Dems who make it clear in their manifesto that these would remain) then you could draw this conclusion. Changing the default assumption but keeping the term limits is one thing. But allowing a woman to abort a healthy child for any reason whatever at say, 39 weeks is horrific. I really hope this is not Labour's policy. But I am worried that they seem unwilling or unable to clarify this.
He didn't. The Queen's speech was heavily focused on delivering Brexit. Everything in it required MPs to vote through the deal Johnson had agreed with the EU. They blocked it, thus blocking the whole of his legislative agenda. Hence this general election.
The bill passed its second reading. How is that blocking it?
The timetable motion to put it into effect was blocked.
Theresa May was never my leader, I abandoned the party when she was elected and unequivocally stated my opposition to her thank you very much. She was as much my leader as Jeremy Corbyn is currently Chuka's leader. Your unsubstantiated bullshit claimed are disproven by the facts. We received over 200k net non-EU immigration last year - do you really believe those are all Russian oligarchs? Muppet. Please try and provide some evidence to substantiate your lies because reality and facts are not on your side.
That’s total non-EU you muppet, including asylum seekers, family members and the like. There is no breakdown by category.
You want a fact? The total number of people admitted under the Innovator Visa in the last three months was 2 (two as in one more than 1)
So the points based system you relentlessly champion has not managed to attract enough “best and brightest” to half fill a decent sized football stadium.
Grow a brain.
Those aren't the only categories though are they? Innovators can get in through other schemes which is perhaps why that visa system is underutilised. As for the chart of the entrepreneur scheme, that YOU chose to highlight, that seems to show increasing numbers in recent years. Thousands of entrepreneurs per year coming here is a good thing not a bad thing in my eyes.
At least you've expanded from just Russian Oligarchs now, but unless you are claiming that 200k "Russian oligarchs, asylum seekers and family members" came last year the evidence does show the points system is working at attracting people - increasing numbers of people in fact. As for family members, not sure why you'd want to exclude or trivialise them? Same for asylum seekers.
I support the current law on abortion, but I was a bit surprised that around 200k abortions were carried out in the uk last year - that seems quite high to me. I was also a bit troubled by the no of women who have had repeat abortions
"39% of women who had an abortion had one or more previous abortions"
To my mind, easier access to contraception would be much more preferable to more abortions. I'd be happier if contraception were made cheaper and more easily available.
He didn't. The Queen's speech was heavily focused on delivering Brexit. Everything in it required MPs to vote through the deal Johnson had agreed with the EU. They blocked it, thus blocking the whole of his legislative agenda. Hence this general election.
The bill passed its second reading. How is that blocking it?
The timetable motion to put it into effect was blocked.
On this occasion the specific lies are forgivable. It's self evident truth that the make-up of parliament was blocking Johnson's agenda (the fact that he had engineered that somehwhat notwithstanding)
Theresa May was never my leader, I abandoned the party when she was elected and unequivocally stated my opposition to her thank you very much. She was as much my leader as Jeremy Corbyn is currently Chuka's leader. Your unsubstantiated bullshit claimed are disproven by the facts. We received over 200k net non-EU immigration last year - do you really believe those are all Russian oligarchs? Muppet. Please try and provide some evidence to substantiate your lies because reality and facts are not on your side.
That’s total non-EU you muppet, including asylum seekers, family members and the like. There is no breakdown by category.
You want a fact? The total number of people admitted under the Innovator Visa in the last three months was 2 (two as in one more than 1)
So the points based system you relentlessly champion has not managed to attract enough “best and brightest” to half fill a decent sized football stadium.
Grow a brain.
Those aren't the only categories though are they? Innovators can get in through other schemes which is perhaps why that visa system is underutilised. As for the chart of the entrepreneur scheme, that YOU chose to highlight, that seems to show increasing numbers in recent years. Thousands of entrepreneurs per year coming here is a good thing not a bad thing in my eyes.
At least you've expanded from just Russian Oligarchs now, but unless you are claiming that 200k "Russian oligarchs, asylum seekers and family members" came last year the evidence does show the points system is working at attracting people - increasing numbers of people in fact. As for family members, not sure why you'd want to exclude or trivialise them? Same for asylum seekers.
“ Innovators can get in through other schemes which is perhaps why that visa system is underutilised. ”
What other schemes? I work in an immigration law team so would LOVE to be enlightened by your superior knowledge. Pray tell what other schemes the “best and brightest” can use. Tier 2?
We’re talking about highly skilled immigration. Don’t saddle me with your own xenophobic views.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
I think "abortion for convenience" concerns are overplayed. I`m not in favour of late term abortions, obviously, but would never call an abortion murder.
I cant see what else it should be called. Deciding 'cant be arsed' in the last month of pregnancy is sub human. There won't be a rash of abortions for convenience but to act as a society to permit it late term is just repugnant.
You're right, there won't be. This is a non-issue. The only reason people would act so late to request an abortion is because they'd have a very good reason to and I'm not going to second judge them as to why that might be.
I believe that if the foetus is very severely disabled then abortion is permitted at a very late stage of pregnancy. I have to say that, absent such a reason, I find it hard to see what other reason a woman might have for going through what is an induced labour, one in which the doctors have to kill the child in the womb before labour is started as, of course, if the child is born alive they could not do so once it is born. One reason, of course, might be that it is only at a late stage that a woman discovers that the child is a girl and doesn't want one. Is that a good reason for getting rid of an otherwise healthy baby? It may well be a non-issue in practice. I have no idea how many late-term abortions there are now. But if so why is Labour even raising it as an issue and not clarifying that this is not what decriminalisation means. Easy enough to do so as the Lib Dems have done. My guess - and I really hope I am wrong on this - is that there is a split between those who don't want to have any limits and those who do and the manifesto has come up with some fudged wording putting any clarification into "let's deal with this later" box.
Indeed. I'm agreeing with what I said in the first place! One must look at the whole package of proposed deltas. Excellent use of both of our time, that was.
Will it be alternate days a policy for the richer, then the other days one for the poorer? That would only be fair I suppose. Or will it be one out of three in favour of the poorer?
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Abortion is a conscience issue and should never be party political. Quite frankly this is moot. Why the hell do you think that women will wait 40 weeks then elect to have an abortion as a form of contraception? Its a non issue.
Its not a non issue when labour are apparently legalizing it. It shows a callous disregard for life.
Labour shouldn't be engaging in a conscience issue, but I won't oppose them on a conscience one either. Its got nothing to do with party politics. And I've not seen even one Labour MP, or one Labour advert or one Labour speech dedicated to this subject so this does not seem a priority for them.
This is a non-issue debate on a non-issue topic. There's enough real concerns about Labour that terrify me without engaging in conscience hypotheticals.
Not a hypothetical. It's in the manifesto. Voters are entitled to ask what it means in practice.
He didn't. The Queen's speech was heavily focused on delivering Brexit. Everything in it required MPs to vote through the deal Johnson had agreed with the EU. They blocked it, thus blocking the whole of his legislative agenda. Hence this general election.
The bill passed its second reading. How is that blocking it?
The timetable motion to put it into effect was blocked.
On this occasion the specific lies are forgivable. It's self evident truth that the make-up of parliament was blocking Johnson's agenda (the fact that he had engineered that somehwhat notwithstanding)
Parliament does not exist to do the government's bidding. It is for government to work within the constraints of the Parliament the people elected - the Will of the People, as it were.
He didn't. The Queen's speech was heavily focused on delivering Brexit. Everything in it required MPs to vote through the deal Johnson had agreed with the EU. They blocked it, thus blocking the whole of his legislative agenda. Hence this general election.
The bill passed its second reading. How is that blocking it?
The timetable motion to put it into effect was blocked.
On this occasion the specific lies are forgivable. It's self evident truth that the make-up of parliament was blocking Johnson's agenda (the fact that he had engineered that somehwhat notwithstanding)
Parliament does not exist to do the government's bidding. It is for government to work within the constraints of the Parliament the people elected - the Will of the People, as it were.
Parliament (the will of the people) voted for the election. so it's not worth arguing. I was merely pointing out that his 'lie' wasn't really meant to deceive as such. I'm not forgiving all the other whoppers. and general mendacity.
He didn't. The Queen's speech was heavily focused on delivering Brexit. Everything in it required MPs to vote through the deal Johnson had agreed with the EU. They blocked it, thus blocking the whole of his legislative agenda. Hence this general election.
The bill passed its second reading. How is that blocking it?
The timetable motion to put it into effect was blocked.
On this occasion the specific lies are forgivable. It's self evident truth that the make-up of parliament was blocking Johnson's agenda (the fact that he had engineered that somehwhat notwithstanding)
Parliament does not exist to do the government's bidding. It is for government to work within the constraints of the Parliament the people elected - the Will of the People, as it were.
Theresa May was never my leader, I abandoned the party when she was elected and unequivocally stated my opposition to her thank you very much. She was as much my leader as Jeremy Corbyn is currently Chuka's leader. Your unsubstantiated bullshit claimed are disproven by the facts. We received over 200k net non-EU immigration last year - do you really believe those are all Russian oligarchs? Muppet. Please try and provide some evidence to substantiate your lies because reality and facts are not on your side.
That’s total non-EU you muppet, including asylum seekers, family members and the like. There is no breakdown by category.
You want a fact? The total number of people admitted under the Innovator Visa in the last three months was 2 (two as in one more than 1)
So the points based system you relentlessly champion has not managed to attract enough “best and brightest” to half fill a decent sized football stadium.
Grow a brain.
Those aren't the only categories though are they? Innovators can get in through other schemes which is perhaps why that visa system is underutilised. As for the chart of the entrepreneur scheme, that YOU chose to highlight, that seems to show increasing numbers in recent years. Thousands of entrepreneurs per year coming here is a good thing not a bad thing in my eyes.
At least you've expanded from just Russian Oligarchs now, but unless you are claiming that 200k "Russian oligarchs, asylum seekers and family members" came last year the evidence does show the points system is working at attracting people - increasing numbers of people in fact. As for family members, not sure why you'd want to exclude or trivialise them? Same for asylum seekers.
42% of immigration is either under 16 or over 65 so obviously family members with more family member immigration from outside of the EU.
Will it be alternate days a policy for the richer, then the other days one for the poorer? That would only be fair I suppose. Or will it be one out of three in favour of the poorer?
Yes, Topping, it will be a bit like that. The rich will get a leg up every Thursday. (If I was on my phone it would be a 'rolled eyes' emoticon here).
Supposing a woman is on the table about to give birth suddenly starts screaming that she doesn’t want the baby. What are the medical team supposed to do? Abort? if not, can she sue? Yes, I know this would be, hopefully, extremely rare, but just supposing? Given that zlabour want to change the law, I think one is entitled to ask.
Theresa May was never my leader, I abandoned the party when she was elected and unequivocally stated my opposition to her thank you very much. She was as much my leader as Jeremy Corbyn is currently Chuka's leader. Your unsubstantiated bullshit claimed are disproven by the facts. We received over 200k net non-EU immigration last year - do you really believe those are all Russian oligarchs? Muppet. Please try and provide some evidence to substantiate your lies because reality and facts are not on your side.
That’s total non-EU you muppet, including asylum seekers, family members and the like. There is no breakdown by category.
You want a fact? The total number of people admitted under the Innovator Visa in the last three months was 2 (two as in one more than 1)
So the points based system you relentlessly champion has not managed to attract enough “best and brightest” to half fill a decent sized football stadium.
Grow a brain.
Those aren't the only categories though are they? Innovators can get in through other schemes which is perhaps why that visa system is underutilised. As for the chart of the entrepreneur scheme, that YOU chose to highlight, that seems to show increasing numbers in recent years. Thousands of entrepreneurs per year coming here is a good thing not a bad thing in my eyes.
At least you've expanded from just Russian Oligarchs now, but unless you are claiming that 200k "Russian oligarchs, asylum seekers and family members" came last year the evidence does show the points system is working at attracting people - increasing numbers of people in fact. As for family members, not sure why you'd want to exclude or trivialise them? Same for asylum seekers.
42% of immigration is either under 16 or over 65 so obviously family members with more family member immigration from outside of the EU.
Quite. The chart above does nothing to support @Philip_Thompson ’s contention that our points based system is geared towards the “brightest and best”. The number of people it lets in based on their own merits is tiny and getting smaller.
Today's prize for the most mistakes in a single headline goes to George Osborne's Evening Standard: "Kitchen porter grabbed 7ft pike from wall and charged at London Bridge attacker to help others escape". It's also described in that article as a "gladiatorial pike." Soon it is bound to become an 11ft jousting lance. The Polish chap and the others deserve formal bravery awards. So far I've only read that he might get one from Poland. He deserves one from this country.
That`s interesting - you`re not convinced about the narrowing in the polls?
I am to some extent but I cannot see the Cons polling less than 42% given they are consolidating the Leave vote so well. Then OK, Labour might squeeze the LDs some more and end up 34/35. But with the LDs failing to make hay off the Cons in remain seats, this means a very good Con majority if they take a raft of seats off Labour in Leave areas in the North and the Midlands. And that, IMO, is what is going to happen. In 2017 that was the strategy too, of course, and it fell well short. This time, Brexit being ready to go, and "Boris" being so much not Mrs May, I am convinced it will.
That's a great bet. Well done, and well done for going large.
Thanks. Confession time though - on a pure pro MO, I ought to be taking, say, half the profit. Reason I'm not is, yes, I do still think the majority will be high 2 digits, but there is also an element of wanting that financial cushion against what, believe me, would be (for me) the truly ghastly experience watching the final leg of the Boris Johnson Project being duly implemented.
So in the absence of denial we can assume labour are proposing binning babies at 40 weeks for contraceptive purposes in the interests of 'wimmins rites innit'
"for contraceptive purposes" rather reveals your position - does it not? I`m surprised this is even an issue in the country. Maybe it isn`t?
My position is abortion up to 24 weeks for any purpose is macabre imo but ok. After that then if life or health is threatened then abortion should be permitted but abortion for convenience or 'dont want it' late term is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
Abortion is a conscience issue and should never be party political. Quite frankly this is moot. Why the hell do you think that women will wait 40 weeks then elect to have an abortion as a form of contraception? Its a non issue.
Can happen. Very, very sad episode in the life of a family member resulted in a late abortion.
That's useful, as there was a suspicion that the previous finding was an outlier, and/or that the London Bridge attacks might have some unpredictable effect. (For what it's worth, my opinion is that people are right not to change their votes either way because of a single terrorist incident, horrible though it was.)
The question is now what methodological differences ICM has to other polls, so we can assess their relative claims. Can anyone provide a helpful summary?
Comments
Your unsubstantiated bullshit claims are disproven by the facts. We received over 200k net non-EU immigration last year - do you really believe those are all Russian oligarchs? Muppet.
Please try and provide some evidence to substantiate your lies because reality and facts are not on your side.
I think I`ll leave that one with you.
Labour appear to believe women should have the right to murder their babies late term and are apparently reluctant to clarify. Probably because its indefensible.
Protect the foxes but f*** unborn children.
Well you know what you're getting.
This is a non-issue debate on a non-issue topic. There's enough real concerns about Labour that terrify me without engaging in conscience hypotheticals.
You want a fact? The total number of people admitted under the Innovator Visa in the last three months was 2 (two as in one more than 1)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/833b08fe-ec49-11e9-85f4-d00e5018f061
In the last 10 years only a few more than 21,000 people have been able to settle as a. Entrepreneur-
https://www.connaughtlaw.com/uk-entrepreneur-visa-success-rate-extensions-settlement/
So the points based system you relentlessly champion has not managed to attract enough “best and brightest” to half fill a decent sized football stadium.
Grow a brain.
1. Two references in the manifesto: one to "decriminalising abortions" and one to changing the law in NI on abortions so that it is the same as in the rest of the country.
2. In response to a question by the Catholic Herald, a spokeswoman said that the former (the reference to decriminalisation) meant that a woman would be able to get an abortion on demand throughout pregnancy.
3. In response to a question for further clarification, a spokesperson said that Labour would ensure that abortion would be properly regulated, safe and that there would be consultation in relation to the details of decriminalisation.
This last has been described on here by @ydoethur as a classic non-denial denial.
Quite what any of this means is anyone's guess but given that there has not been a specific rebuttal of what Labour's spokeswoman said to the newspaper (point 1 above) and no clarification that existing term limits would remain (unlike, say, the Lib Dems who make it clear in their manifesto that these would remain) then you could draw this conclusion.
Changing the default assumption but keeping the term limits is one thing. But allowing a woman to abort a healthy child for any reason whatever at say, 39 weeks is horrific. I really hope this is not Labour's policy. But I am worried that they seem unwilling or unable to clarify this.
At least you've expanded from just Russian Oligarchs now, but unless you are claiming that 200k "Russian oligarchs, asylum seekers and family members" came last year the evidence does show the points system is working at attracting people - increasing numbers of people in fact. As for family members, not sure why you'd want to exclude or trivialise them? Same for asylum seekers.
I was also a bit troubled by the no of women who have had repeat abortions
"39% of women who had an abortion had one or more previous abortions"
To my mind, easier access to contraception would be much more preferable to more abortions. I'd be happier if contraception were made cheaper and more easily available.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/808556/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2018__1_.pdf
What other schemes? I work in an immigration law team so would LOVE to be enlightened by your superior knowledge. Pray tell what other schemes the “best and brightest” can use. Tier 2?
We’re talking about highly skilled immigration. Don’t saddle me with your own xenophobic views.
One reason, of course, might be that it is only at a late stage that a woman discovers that the child is a girl and doesn't want one. Is that a good reason for getting rid of an otherwise healthy baby?
It may well be a non-issue in practice. I have no idea how many late-term abortions there are now. But if so why is Labour even raising it as an issue and not clarifying that this is not what decriminalisation means. Easy enough to do so as the Lib Dems have done.
My guess - and I really hope I am wrong on this - is that there is a split between those who don't want to have any limits and those who do and the manifesto has come up with some fudged wording putting any clarification into "let's deal with this later" box.
(If I was on my phone it would be a 'rolled eyes' emoticon here).
Confirmed - HP from this I think?
The question is now what methodological differences ICM has to other polls, so we can assess their relative claims. Can anyone provide a helpful summary?