politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clive Lewis can be Labour’s future if he plays his cards ri

RobD said:

First

a autonomous robot would have beaten you to it. If they weren't staying underground, waiting for the signal. (probably the eurovision song contest. Is Royaume-Uni still invited?)

https://soundcloud.com/guardianaustralia/first-ever-recording-of-computer-music

National - LA Times Tracker

Clinton 42.2 .. Trump 46.9

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

New Jersey - Rutgers University

Clinton 50 .. Trump 29

https://eagletonpollblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rutgers-eagleton-poll-2016-election-head-to-head-results1.pdf

williamglenn said:

dugarbandier said:

RobD said:

First

a autonomous robot would have beaten you to it.

The first thing a real autonomous robot would do is deny the existence of autonomous robots. I have my doubts about Rob.

True, I do have to go back t the PB Tory bunker for reprogramming on occasion

Fargle to be at Trumps side for next debate and appeared as a cheerleader for him on CNN yesterday. A surreal year continues...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/02/nigel-farage-invited-as-a-guest-of-donald-trump-for-next-preside/

JackW said:

williamglenn said:

There are penalties for posting voodoo polls now.

I'm a deep cover Trumpster ...

Admit it... Trump has tickled your ARSE.

williamglenn said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Fargle to be at Trumps side for next debate and appeared as a cheerleader for him on CNN yesterday. A surreal year continues...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/02/nigel-farage-invited-as-a-guest-of-donald-trump-for-next-preside/

Because Trump thinks American voters are crying out for advice from foreigners? Perhaps Hillary should counter by organising a write-in from Guardian readers.

If Trump wins we might need to rely on Farage as our best link to the President

Our new ambassador in Washington?

RobD said:

Admit it... Trump has tickled your ARSE.

He wants to make America great again ....

"I can see there being a fair amount of pressure for Labour’s next leader to be a woman"

There always is, and it never seems to happen.

Not a bad tip by Keiran, but too short at 8/1.

" clearly some form of accommodation between the leadership and Labour MPs will need to be made so that the party can start looking outwards"

Keiran makes the mistake of assuming that the leadership thinks and acts like normal career politicians, and that their activist supporters are interested in running a large mainstream party challenging for power. Neither is the case.

Corbyn is not interested in compromise beyond giving those who disagreed a second chance to show unconditional loyalty; the activists are - as he notes in the anecdote quoted - still less forgiving or pragmatic. To them, there is only one acceptable face of Corbynism and it is Corbyn.

What about after 2020 and a disastrous result? For a start, Lewis has to be returned to parliament. His current Norwich South seat is far from rock-solid (the Lib Dems won it in 2010), and it's surrounded by a sea of blue. The boundary reforms look to have made it at best marginal and quite probably Con-leaning (one Lab/Grn ward out three Con/LD wards in).

If he does get back then if he runs he stands a chance. But that's a lot of ifs over the course of four years. Not anything like 8/1 value in my book.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Ishmael_X said:

Looking at the threader it looks odds on for next Lab leader to be ethnic minority. As opposed to female 30/1 Jewish 3000/1.

Because Labour's not had a Jewish leader since, erm, the last one.

Different party now. Also - on a practical level - who would be the likely candidates? Ruth Smeeth? Luciana Berger?

Talking of lost Labour leaders with marginal seats I am enjoying Ed Balls book. The first sentence sets the tone: "Being present at your own funeral is greatly overrated."

So far there is very little in the way of philosophy or deep political thought. He simply comes across as an amusing, intelligent and articulate human being. Admittedly that is at least 2 strikes against him in the current Labour party, possibly 4.

https://twitter.com/eurobriefing/status/782821714581344256

Ishmael_X said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Ishmael_X said:

Looking at the threader it looks odds on for next Lab leader to be ethnic minority. As opposed to female 30/1 Jewish 3000/1.

Because Labour's not had a Jewish leader since, erm, the last one.

And of couse nothing has changed since then.

You will find that statements about odds and probabilities quite often refer to future rather than past events.

If you disagree I'll have £1000 for Arkle to win the 1964 Cheltenham Gold Cup at any odds you care to name.

Will -10/1 do you?

First question: when will Jeremy Corbyn now go? The assumption seems to be not this side of the general election and I agree with that, but it isn't a completely safe assumption. If he feels his work is complete, that someone else can do the next stage better and that it is safe for his project to do so, I would expect Jeremy Corbyn to step down. I'd place about a 1 in 4 chance on that.

If he goes before the next election it will only be to an anointed successor. The two candidates for that are John McDonnell and Clive Lewis. Personally I cannot imagine John McDonnell sitting it out bad he has sufficient influence over his leader to get the endorsement. Maybe in the 1 in 4 chance of Jeremy Corbyn stepping down Clive Lewis has a 1 in 10 chance of being next up.

More likely, Jeremy Corbyn will fight the next election and lose. The assumption now is that the general election won't be before 2020 and that seems to me a considerably less safe assumption, despite the constant briefings from government to that effect. Its hand may be forced or Theresa May may yet decide to cut and run. I'd place about a 2 in 5 chance on an election before that date, mostly front end loaded to 2017.

The significance of this is the age of the candidates next time and the state of the Labour Party structures. The longer Jeremy Corbyn is in charge, the harder it will be for non-Corbynites to use party structures to deny candidates of the left a place on the ballot. In the next year or two it will matter to show some distance from Jeremy Corbyn, to ensure a place on the ballot. After that, the opposite will be true: the place on the ballot will be best secured and the vote then won by being Jeremy Corbyn's loyallest lieutenant.

Clive Lewis is currently riding both of these horses quite effectively. But he shows promise rather than necessarily being the finished article. 8/1 overall is good value, even taking into account the time value of money, but only in the context of a field that has no obvious alternatives that will appeal to the special tastes of this electorate.

YellowSubmarine said:

The Telegraph: Liam Fox challenges Philip Hammond to issue new deadline for eliminating the deficit. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwzvjL9zE

@BBCNormanS: Govt will borrow to boost house building

@BBCNormanS: So new May/Hammond economic strategy = more borrowing, more investment and intervention; less austerity

Can he hold his seat against a Corbyn-scale adverse swing? According to the Greens there the boundary changes are going to help the Tories:
https://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/09/13/all-change-for-norwich-as-electoral-boundaries-set-to-shift/

just the unifier needed

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/67847/labour-mp-clive-lewis-faces-probe-over-four-letter

I have not read a thread-header in yonks but found Kieran's one interesting: Young Lewis could be a future leader post-BrExit. There is nothing wrong with being a social-democrat and a patriot.*

My fear - as highlighted by Herdie-boy is that Norwich-South is too marginal. He needs somewhere safe. [Lewisham-Greenwich?]

As for the next leader of the Labour party being a woman; why? Lady-whats-her-name hates white-van-man and what has the delectable Nandy achieved so far...?

I fear that Labour has no leadership and no suitable candidates at present: So maybe time for a Michael-Howard interim? Hilary Benn as next leader...?

* As a Thatcherite liberal I disagree much with much about social-democracy but accept that opposition is better than orthodoxy. I was also going to replace 'patriot' with HM Subject but I am not sure of the youngster's views on our Gracious Monarchy.

edmundintokyo said:

Can he hold his seat against a Corbyn-scale adverse swing? According to the Greens there the boundary changes are going to help the Tories:
https://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/09/13/all-change-for-norwich-as-electoral-boundaries-set-to-shift/

Clearly that's his first job.

Meantime, JC could help them both by stating clearly whether or not he believes in Parliamentary democracy. He won't of course, because if he does one or other half of the Party's membership will walk out in disgust.

PlatoSaid said:

williamglenn said:

dugarbandier said:

RobD said:

First

a autonomous robot would have beaten you to it.

The first thing a real autonomous robot would do is deny the existence of autonomous robots. I have my doubts about Rob.

@malcolmg has already been outed

Autonomous Robots not Talking Turnips. Do pay attention. Cuckoo.

RobD said:

dugarbandier said:

RobD said:

First

a autonomous robot would have beaten you to it. If they weren't staying underground, waiting for the signal. (probably the eurovision song contest. Is Royaume-Uni still invited?)

https://soundcloud.com/guardianaustralia/first-ever-recording-of-computer-music

I love how God Save The Queen was the first music to be played on a computer.

sounds a bit like this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7D_UN9adnQ

King, surely?

I fully appreciate that is always easier to sound more dynamic in government when you can actually do things but the difference between yesterday and the inward looking shambles of the Labour Party Conference was as marked as I can ever recall between the two main parties. Brexit barely got a mention at the Labour Party Conference other than some references in passing by McDonnell. And yet, as yesterday made absolutely clear, like it or loathe it, its implications for every aspect of government policy in this country are going to be profound.

The next leader of the Labour Party really needs to get that. So far the field is clear.

What about Jon Trickett? No baggage unlike McDonnell. Could have stood instead of Corbyn. Respected by moderates.

foxinsoxuk said:

Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.

Agreed. In Lewis' favour, he might appeal to the membership, the PLP and the electorate. Against, he holds a very marginal seat that's not defensible on current polling, and with chaos likely to erupt in all directions where current MPs fight like ferrets in a sack for the new seats the odds of him getting one are, if not low, not good enough for this bet.

I'm also doubtful about his leadership potential - he seems very gaffe prone which suggests poor judgement. A bit like a more serious and grounded version of Boris, or perhaps an honest Jeffrey Archer.

Morning. Good article from Kieran but I can't see a bet this far out on the next leader of either party. Remember that Corbyn opened at 100/1 in a four horse race.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Strong words but he has a good point. Why spend millions on developing new tests for something incurable, if not eugenics?

On the positive side of medicine, are we one step closer to a cure for AIDS?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/02/hiv-cure-close-after-disease-vanishes-from-blood-of-british-man/

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.

Agreed. In Lewis' favour, he might appeal to the membership, the PLP and the electorate. Against, he holds a very marginal seat that's not defensible on current polling, and with chaos likely to erupt in all directions where current MPs fight like ferrets in a sack for the new seats the odds of him getting one are, if not low, not good enough for this bet.

I'm also doubtful about his leadership potential - he seems very gaffe prone which suggests poor judgement. A bit like a more serious and grounded version of Boris, or perhaps an honest Jeffrey Archer.

A walking oxymoron, then ?

DavidL said:

I fully appreciate that is always easier to sound more dynamic in government when you can actually do things but the difference between yesterday and the inward looking shambles of the Labour Party Conference was as marked as I can ever recall between the two main parties. Brexit barely got a mention at the Labour Party Conference other than some references in passing by McDonnell. And yet, as yesterday made absolutely clear, like it or loathe it, its implications for every aspect of government policy in this country are going to be profound.

The next leader of the Labour Party really needs to get that. So far the field is clear.

I do not disagree, but elections are often lost by governments demonstrating their incompetence provided the opposition does not look completely incompetent. Difficult for Labour at present!

As the implications of Brexit percolate through to the people, we shall see whether the government continues to look competent. I think that for Labour to keep quiet on the subject was probably wise. I think that the LDs should not have had such a knee jerk response, better to have accepted Brexit and campaigned for an EEA arrangement rather than demand a neverendum.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.

Actually I would not have a child of mine aborted, and I have not participated in abortions in my career.

However, I respect other people's views and do not want to impose my beliefs on them. The politicisation of abortion in the USA is something that I would not want to see here.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.

So it's all right to "kill" people before they're conceived, then? If you want to go back to the ethics -and scientific capacity - of your parents' childhood, fine. Just have the decency to say so.

There are no quick and easy fixes in this area.

I like Kieran's thinking here - am on Lewis, Thornberry and Nandy at good prices.

I see Columbians rejected a peace deal to end a 52 year civil war. Leaving aside the reasoning for that decision, what gets me is there was a really low turnout - really seems the sort of thing people should turnout for, whether they support or oppose it.

foxinsoxuk said:

Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.

People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.

May be this time it's different?

I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection

If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.

So it's all right to "kill" people before they're conceived, then? If you want to go back to the ethics -and scientific capacity - of your parents' childhood, fine. Just have the decency to say so.

There are no quick and easy fixes in this area.

What on earth do you mean, kill before conception?

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.

Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.

So it's all right to "kill" people before they're conceived, then? If you want to go back to the ethics -and scientific capacity - of your parents' childhood, fine. Just have the decency to say so.

There are no quick and easy fixes in this area.

What on earth do you mean, kill before conception?

Isn’t that what contraception is, effectively? Some methods anyway. In terms of evolution, it’s apparently only humans, and possibly dolphins and bonobos which get pleasure out of sexual intercourse. For other mammals it’s simply a question of procreation.

rottenborough said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.

People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.

May be this time it's different?

I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection

If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?

Frankly, who knows. 'Normal' politicians tend to resign these days the day after a defeat. In the past this wasn't the case and often stayed on to fight another election. Personally I suspect his age will tell by 2020 and he will stand down, but not before the nominations thing is sorted (because he will be 'talked out' of standing down by McD and Len).

Gladstone, Grover Cleveland, for example.

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

http://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/782834021462138881

it has struck me that it's strange how May and other remainer Tories are in a weird situation - committed to brexit to respect the popular vote, and keen to demonstrate we can make a success of it, which I believe is possible or I'd never have voted leave, but they sometimes need to act like arch brexiteers, when by definition as remainers they thought any potential leave scenario was less good then remaining.

It's one of those political switches that makes sense and we all accept, but every now and again you do a doubletaje as the
Necessity of political language talking points contradicts their earlier stance.

Point of order, being a remainer does not mean that "any potential" leave scenario was less good than remaining.

It is entirely possible (indeed likely) that a significant amount of people could see a potential leave scenario that was better than remaining but saw a great deal of risk, uncertainty, difficulty and other scenarios that were worse ... so they backed Remain not due to an inability to see a good leave scenario, but due to the perceived risks of the bad ones.

Now that the decision is made, that risk issue is moot. It is their job to get us now to the good scenario.

PlatoSaid said:

For those who poo pood the issue

The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2603412/

It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.

They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .

OldKingCole said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.

So it's all right to "kill" people before they're conceived, then? If you want to go back to the ethics -and scientific capacity - of your parents' childhood, fine. Just have the decency to say so.

There are no quick and easy fixes in this area.

What on earth do you mean, kill before conception?

Isn’t that what contraception is, effectively? Some methods anyway. In terms of evolution, it’s apparently only humans, and possibly dolphins and bonobos which get pleasure out of sexual intercourse. For other mammals it’s simply a question of procreation.

I don't believe that. Dogs certainly seem to enjoy it.

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Strong words but he has a good point. Why spend millions on developing new tests for something incurable, if not eugenics?

On the positive side of medicine, are we one step closer to a cure for AIDS?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/02/hiv-cure-close-after-disease-vanishes-from-blood-of-british-man/

May be, may be not.

But a functional cure is the holy grail.

One of the most interesting companies in this field, in my opinion, is UBP out of Taiwan

http://www.unitedbiopharma.com/eng/index.html

Just wanted to get your opinion on it. What do you make if the $3bn from Facebook to "cure all disease". I have the figure required to do that about 100 times higher.

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.

Anyone should be able to get one, for any reason.

and the rights of the viable foetus?

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Very strong words from Dominic Lawson:

"the British Health Service would do for Down’s people what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews: total elimination.

Actually, the mentally disabled had been the guinea-pigs for the mass extermination by gassing of the Jewish population. In 1939, German doctors launched the Aktion T-4 programme to kill roughly 200,000 disabled people, mostly children. It was openly argued that this was for their own good, as their lives were ‘not worthy of living’; and also for that of society as a whole, as the cost of their care was an unfair burden on the ‘healthy’ population....

...My daughter [who has Downs] is now 21 and intelligent enough to understand this. When I told her about the controversy yesterday, she emailed me to say: ‘But they don’t know what I am capable of and they didn’t know that when I was born. We don’t deserve this hate. It is just wrong and you know it.’"

DOMINIC LAWSON: A chilling medical test that I fear will make humanity so much the poorer

http://dailym.ai/2dkpUw6

Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.

This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.

As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.

Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.

Actually I would not have a child of mine aborted, and I have not participated in abortions in my career.

However, I respect other people's views and do not want to impose my beliefs on them. The politicisation of abortion in the USA is something that I would not want to see here.

The problem with that approach (and I am not trying to personalise it) is that it is the job of doctors - and others - to stand up for the most vulnerable. A viable foetus has rights too: they don't just magically appear at tge moment of birth

Its not magic, those who are born have rights, those who haven't been born don't. What rights does someone have before they are born?