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

Charles said:

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?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

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?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

It does exist; just not yet independently. But then the decrepit aged do not live independently either, nor the severely disabled.

MaxPB said:

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.

I can't copy the link on my phone but go to YouTube and search for paracetamoxyfrusebendoneomycin and "amateur transplants"

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

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?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

It does exist; just not yet independently. But then the decrepit aged do not live independently either, nor the severely disabled.

But they have been born. Rights primarily exist between birth and death.

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

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?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.

That is not the law. You may want it to be, but it isn't.

Charles said:

@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?

I find it creepy and cringy. I also find it none of my business.

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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

That isn't true or late term abortion would not be unlawful.

Late term abortions aren't covered by a blanket ban. There are exceptions.

Philip_Thompson said:

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-

...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?

It's trite law that an unborn child has certain rights. It's a crime to kill an unborn child, subject to the statutory exception of the 1967 Act; an unborn child will also have inheritance rights under the law relating to intestacy.

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

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?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.

@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?

I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.

Perhaps our Clive never learned what happened to the Light Brigade...

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

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?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.

@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?

I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.

LOL! From what my mum said when I was young its legal until the 76th

Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.

The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.

Alistair said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Alistair said:

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 .

Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.

Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.

Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.

I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?

Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?

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.

That depends on success. Labour's next leader is probably at very long odds at the moment.

What do we know?

- That Labour's membership is dominated by the hard left
- That they do not necessarily do the hard graft and may easily flake but have proven to turn out in elections.
- That the PLP have, for now, a blocking majority for a hard left nomination if they keep their nerve.
- That the NEC is in the balance and no rule changes designed solely for factional advantage are likely to pass.
- That the preliminary boundary review proposals will hit Labour and will cause some internal conflict over seats (including in Islington, amusingly).
- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.

What can we take from that?

1. That barring accidents or a mass exodus of new members, Corbyn is likely to serve through to 2020. The PLP may despair but they have no means of getting rid. They have tried everything in their arsenal and it has failed. Until the lie of the land changes (which may be something they have influence over), they'll simply have to wait it out.

2. That mass deselections are unlikely given that the timetable makes it difficult. The rule changes necessary to enable them would in all probability occur after the new boundaries are confirmed and so after the process for selections has begun.

3. Labour is very likely to lose the next election and Corbyn is, as such, likely to stand down then. (He has given hints to the contrary but he'd be into his 70s by that point and to serve another term would mean fighting the 2025 election at 76; the left ought to be able with the new membership to get the proportion of Corbynites in parliament over 15% even without mass deselections: retirements alone ought to provide sufficient scope).

4. The next leader is almost certainly already in parliament, holds a seat that is winnable now and under any likely changes, even against, say, a 15% Tory national lead, and is a Corbyn-supporter.

There cannot be too many such candidates and most will be available at good odds.

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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

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

The argument is, implicitly, against abortion on demand.

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

and the rights of the viable foetus?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.

That is not the law. You may want it to be, but it isn't.

Charles said:

@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?

I find it creepy and cringy. I also find it none of my business.

I know it's not the law - but it was the focus of the recent debate on whether to reduce the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks to reflect advanced in medical science.

As for being "none of your business" it is the obligation of society to set riles about the balancing of rights between different actors. We may disagree on where the line is drawn but it's absolutely your business.

On abortion, I can see a case to lower the abortion limit to 20 weeks, but no further.

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

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?

What are the rights of a being that doesn't yet exist?

If it can survove independently of it's mother (around 18 weeks now I believe) then it is a separate living entity.

@Philip_Thompson I guess you are in favour of partial birth abortion then?

I've always felt the 46th trimester should be the cut off point.

Do your kids agree?

Moses_ said:

Alistair said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Alistair said:

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 .

Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.

Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.

Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.

I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?

Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?

The need for certain PBers to very occasionally break off from their endless excoriation (and rt-ing of others' excoriation) of Clinton to proclaim how awful both candidates are is certainly slightly weird. If they think it's a defence against partisanship, they're deluded.

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?

The threshold is a percentage, not an absolute number. So a big electoral defeat may solve the problem for him without needing to get any rule change through.

On the discussions on this thread this is gross discrimination which one Parliamentarian is seeking to address with a Bill. 2nd reading later this month http://allequal.org.uk/

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

On abortion, I can see a case to lower the abortion limit to 20 weeks, but no further.

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable aborting a fetus after about 14 weeks, but there are all sorts of complex personal, social and physiological reasons why that isn't always possible and late-term abortion decisions, including the ethics of them, should be left to medics and the mother, rather than prohibited by statue.

That's kind of a cowardly way out, as its Mr Thompson, he says it's not his business, which is code for not wanting to think about it. Leaving it to the medics and the mother is all well and good, but project yourself forward 50 years when science may be allowing people to hold basic communication in utero with your 14 week fetus ("hurts","like"). The problem with late term decisions being made without reference to the law is you are on the slippery slope to the approach in China where its legal at any point before the "child" takes it's first breath.

There is no slippery slope. In fact, there is no slope: we decide through parliament exactly how long we think the limit should be and, periodically, it is reviewed.

I don't think independent viability of the foetus should be the only test. A woman may find out very late she is pregnant and in no position to carry it to term, or her life could be at risk, or it may carry serious defects. And one must bear in mind that if that choice is legally denied then some women may resort to unsafe illegal methods.

It is very much a grey area and rather than enforcing a black or white choice, I am content for a mother in consultation with medical staff, and their partner/family, to make their own decision.

And I have never known a woman who took such a decision lightly.

Indigo said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.

Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.

45%+ of Americans seem quite happy with it. Let your democratic credentials shine through and just let the people decide ffs, banging on about it endless here is pointless, only about 2-3 posters vote in the American elections.

Perhaps OGH or a minion could put up a small FAQ about using the quote system.

Moses_ said:

Alistair said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Alistair said:

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 .

Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.

Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.

Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.

I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?

Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?

Pointing out something is factually incorrect is not desperate.

Especially when people may be using it to inform their political betting.

Philip_Thompson said:

hamiltonace said:

Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.

The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.

A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.

If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.

Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.

I understand that fully as I run a manufacturing company. The drop shold be good news for me long term but rapid changes are not good as they cause chaos. I am tied into some NHS contracts I may have to default on as the profits have disappeared at existing prices. Inflation may be low but many of my suppliers invoice me in euros or dollars.

There is no slippery slope. In fact, there is no slope: we decide through parliament exactly how long we think the limit should be and, periodically, it is reviewed.

I don't think independent viability of the foetus should be the only test. A woman may find out very late she is pregnant and in no position to carry it to term, or her life could be at risk, or it may carry serious defects. And one must bear in mind that if that choice is legally denied then some women may resort to unsafe illegal methods.

It is very much a grey area and rather than enforcing a black or white choice, I am content for a mother in consultation with medical staff, and their partner/family, to make their own decision.

And I have never known a woman who took such a decision lightly.

I was part way through writing something similar, but then noticed that you'd phrased it infinitely more clearly.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

If you bought a bigger house you'd have more leverage...

My wife keeps sending me links to properties on the Knight Frank website. Do you think she's trying to tell me something?

That she wants to leave the PRC?

(But why Knight Frank - they only sell very grand, big properties. I'd suggest Lane Fox or Strutt & Parker).

I think we'll be remaining the PRC, not least because my wife's primary goal is to find somewhere that is walking distance from our childrens' schools. Which pretty much means between Hampstead and Belsize Park.

david_herdson 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.

That depends on success. Labour's next leader is probably at very long odds at the moment.

What do we know?

- That Labour's membership is dominated by the hard left
- That they do not necessarily do the hard graft and may easily flake but have proven to turn out in elections.
- That the PLP have, for now, a blocking majority for a hard left nomination if they keep their nerve.
- That the NEC is in the balance and no rule changes designed solely for factional advantage are likely to pass.
- That the preliminary boundary review proposals will hit Labour and will cause some internal conflict over seats (including in Islington, amusingly).
- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.

What can we take from that?

1. That barring accidents or a mass exodus of new members, Corbyn is likely to serve through to 2020. The PLP may despair but they have no means of getting rid. They have tried everything in their arsenal and it has failed. Until the lie of the land changes (which may be something they have influence over), they'll simply have to wait it out.

2. That mass deselections are unlikely given that the timetable makes it difficult. The rule changes necessary to enable them would in all probability occur after the new boundaries are confirmed and so after the process for selections has begun.

3. Labour is very likely to lose the next election and Corbyn is, as such, likely to stand down then. (He has given hints to the contrary but he'd be into his 70s by that point and to serve another term would mean fighting the 2025 election at 76; the left ought to be able with the new membership to get the proportion of Corbynites in parliament over 15% even without mass deselections: retirements alone ought to provide sufficient scope).

4. The next leader is almost certainly already in parliament, holds a seat that is winnable now and under any likely changes, even against, say, a 15% Tory national lead, and is a Corbyn-supporter.

There cannot be too many such candidates and most will be available at good odds.

The fourth is worded too tightly; they just need to hold or be selected for a safe-ish seat after the final changes are proposed. Some currently with very marginal seats may well inherit a safe seat after the changes (there is one such down my way).

As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.

MonikerDiCanio said:

619 said:

Moses_ said:

Alistair said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Alistair said:

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 .

Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.

Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.

Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.

I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?

Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?

It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.

Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.

Snob Hillary doesn't only have contempt and pity for those inhabiting their parents' basements, she also weirdly despises " baristas ". Not everyone is as lucky as ultra privileged Chelsea Clinton who landed a $ 900,000 pa job straight out of college..

Trump was luckier.

Philip_Thompson said:

hamiltonace said:

Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.

The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.

A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.

If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.

Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.

Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .

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?

200 seats wouldn't be a bad loss at all. In fact, if the new boundaries come in then it's roughly where Labour will be starting the election (admittedly, in a parliament of 600 MPs, rather than 650).

MarkSenior said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hamiltonace said:

Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.

The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.

A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.

If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.

Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.

Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .

A currency is not a virility symbol. It's a value.

Sean_F said:

MarkSenior said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hamiltonace said:

Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.

The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.

A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.

If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.

Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.

Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .

A currency is not a virility symbol. It's a value.

Errr, surely it's a medium for exchange.

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

MarkSenior said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hamiltonace said:

Sterling continues to fall with Ms May's A50 timetable being set. This timetable does not resolve any uncertainity but just ensures that more uncertainity is to follow. There is a possiblity we could reach £1 to 1 euro in the next few months.

The opposition to the Tories is not Labour but the markets. If they think her ideas wont work they will act immediately. Dont look at the FTSE as a guide to the UK ecomony it is the £ exchange rate that will tell us what's happening.

A freely floating exchange rate is a stabiliser that acts as a shock absorber and helps with shocks and transitions. We should be very glad we still have our own currency.

If sterling falls it boosts the economy via improving exports (and making us more attractive for tourism etc) while dampening imports. Given our enormous and long running trade deficit that is a good thing. The trade off is importing inflation but given that inflation is well BELOW target that is currently a good thing not a bad thing.

Only if inflation looks like getting out of control would we need to panic.

Why should we be very glad that we now have a currency that the rest of the world post Brexit vote think it is less desirable to hold than the Bangladeshi Taka . Pb Brexiteers the false peddlers of devaluation as a panacea for the economic problems facing this country caused by the Brexit vote .

A currency is not a virility symbol. It's a value.

Errr, surely it's a medium for exchange.

Indeed. And, notwithstanding any short run benefit, having a currency that values everything we produce more cheaply and everything that the rest of the world produces more dearly is not, in the longer term, a good thing

Edit/ particularly as any short run gain is significantly offset by the cost of importing components that go into very many of our exports.

Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform on the EU27's hard line on Brexit:

http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/why-27-are-taking-hard-line-brexit

Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.

Indigo said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.

Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.

45%+ of Americans seem quite happy with it. Let your democratic credentials shine through and just let the people decide ffs, banging on about it endless here is pointless, only about 2-3 posters vote in the American elections.

hitler was elected.

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform on the EU27's hard line on Brexit:

http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/why-27-are-taking-hard-line-brexit

Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.

I must say, I didn't realize that Juncker would be leading the negotiations for the 27:

Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.

TGOHF said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.

But Brexit hasn't happened yet.

"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.

I'm interested in the facts. Not much interested in ascribing motives to others.

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

TGOHF said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.

But Brexit hasn't happened yet.

"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.

Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?

Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.

If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.

tlg86 said:

IanB2 said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform on the EU27's hard line on Brexit:

http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/why-27-are-taking-hard-line-brexit

Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.

I must say, I didn't realize that Juncker would be leading the negotiations for the 27:

Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.

Hasn't he delegated it to the Dutch guy Guy?

He might have done. What I'm getting at is that when it comes to it, the countries themselves will want to be close to the negotiations.

Or, in other words, that the French and Germans will both need to be happy with the outcome, and there mustn't be another country with a particularly strong objection to any of its terms. Which is the way the EU works already (adding the UK to F and G).