Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 17 in General
Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com

This is a complete misreading. For the foreseeable future, there is no way on earth the Lib Dems can share power with the Conservatives. Labour probably have more common ground with the Conservatives now than the Lib Dems do. https://t.co/tWM7kiFWN3

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    What would any party gain by keeping the current party in power in power for another x years.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    I think it is no surprise the LDs would back Starmer now.

    Boris will need another majority or DUP support to stay PM
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    HYUFD said:

    I think it is no surprise the LDs would back Starmer now.

    Boris will need another majority or DUP support to stay PM

    Given what Boris did in the last election / Northern Ireland I can't see the DUP being stupid enough to support the Tory party again.



    Second thoughts, the DUP stupid enough to do that.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651
    I think it is *essential* that the LDs position themselves in such a way that Labour voters can hold their nose and vote for them in LD/Con marginals. Which are *all* of the LDs targets. (Apart from Sheffield Hallam and Dunbartonshire East.)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    HYUFD said:

    I think it is no surprise the LDs would back Starmer now.

    Boris will need another majority or DUP support to stay PM

    I think the DUP ship has sailed (into the border in the Irish Sea).
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,015

    Meeks is wrong, as usual.

    What determines a possible coalition is the arithmetic.

    So, you should never rule anything out before an election.
  • The idea that any party would do a coalition with Boris is off the wall. For the Tories, this is the man who's literally turned untrustworthiness into a virtue.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651


    Meeks is wrong, as usual.

    What determines a possible coalition is the arithmetic.

    So, you should never rule anything out before an election.

    This isn't about the coalition negotiating position; it's about getting Labour votes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    edited September 17
    Meeks is right. Ideally the LDs should be placed to be kingmaker but it ain't happening and they are not going to even consider working with Tories for a political generation. Prioritising gaining labour votes makes sense.
  • Davey knows that by not ruling out a deal with the Tories the party would be in open revolt. That's not to say that some sort of confidence and supply fudge might not happen, depending on how the numbers land
  • So a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Labour Party then? Is that Davey's game.

    What a shame. My current preference would be to vote LD and get an LD/Tory coalition again but if that's not even possible then what's a centre right ex Tory supposed to do?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    edited September 17
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    edited September 17
    mwadams said:


    Meeks is wrong, as usual.

    What determines a possible coalition is the arithmetic.

    So, you should never rule anything out before an election.

    This isn't about the coalition negotiating position; it's about getting Labour votes.
    If somebody wants Labour votes why not the Labour Party?

    Ruling out centre right voters who'd be happy to see the LDs potentially moderating the Tory Party seems premature.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704

    Davey knows that by not ruling out a deal with the Tories the party would be in open revolt. That's not to say that some sort of confidence and supply fudge might not happen, depending on how the numbers land

    Theoretically, but the members would just desert again - they were more obviously open to the idea last time and still half the support went immediately.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651

    mwadams said:


    Meeks is wrong, as usual.

    What determines a possible coalition is the arithmetic.

    So, you should never rule anything out before an election.

    This isn't about the coalition negotiating position; it's about getting Labour votes.
    If somebody wants Labour votes why not the Labour Party?

    Ruling out centre right vktes who'd be happy to see the LDs potentially moderating the Tory Party seems premature.
    That's an interesting proposition - I'm not sure they weren't all squeezed in 2019; but maybe the Corbyn effect means not?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it is no surprise the LDs would back Starmer now.

    Boris will need another majority or DUP support to stay PM

    I think the DUP ship has sailed (into the border in the Irish Sea).
    Reducing the abortion time limit to 22 weeks from 24 across the UK would also attract the DUP and by 2024 Westminster may have direct rule over NI anyway if the DUP withdraw from Stormont. Frost will meanwhile continue to work to remove the Irish Sea border as the DUP want
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    That's fair enough, but you haven't done it yet and so a more liberal position might yet win out. In which case would you think Farooq should tell you to go join the DUP?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    Well, it’s my opinion only but I think Alistair is right and also that it is not coincidental this has come both post-reshuffle and the ditching of the planning reforms. Davey knows the latter has taken away his main calling card with Tory votes in the South and saying “we are a nicer version of the Tories” isn’t going to get enough votes. Far better to go after the weaker party ie Labour with a strong pro-environment message targeted at urban professionals.

    Bad news for Labour this.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449

    Davey knows that by not ruling out a deal with the Tories the party would be in open revolt. That's not to say that some sort of confidence and supply fudge might not happen, depending on how the numbers land

    The LDs have been very badly burnt electorally by coalition with Labour and with the Tories (Holyrood for the former, indyref1 and Westminster for the latter). Maybe this underlies tdhe sentiment.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    O/T

    "Geoff Marshall
    @geofftech
    Ok, NEW TUBE MAP. What i genuinely can't figure out is who or why though that the "Brewers Droop" was needed. i've changed nothing else here except straighten it out so that there's no curve, and there's plenty of space for it to fit as a straight line. So why curve it?"

    https://twitter.com/geofftech/status/1438517847756472333
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    LDs are unlikely to be the kingmakers after the next election. That honour goes to the SNP, and if Labour don’t completely rule out working with the Nationalists, the rest of the country will notice.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it is no surprise the LDs would back Starmer now.

    Boris will need another majority or DUP support to stay PM

    Given what Boris did in the last election / Northern Ireland I can't see the DUP being stupid enough to support the Tory party again.



    Second thoughts, the DUP stupid enough to do that.
    Given the recent cratering of DUP support it is by no means obvious that they will represent the majority of NI MPs who take up their Westminster seats after the next UKGE.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704

    So a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Labour Party then? Is that Davey's game.

    What a shame. My current preference would be to vote LD and get an LD/Tory coalition again but if that's not even possible then what's a centre right ex Tory supposed to do?

    His game is to get as many votes as possible now, and if that leads to awkwardness based on numbers next time he'd be too shocked and happy to mind.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,871
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
  • mwadams said:

    mwadams said:


    Meeks is wrong, as usual.

    What determines a possible coalition is the arithmetic.

    So, you should never rule anything out before an election.

    This isn't about the coalition negotiating position; it's about getting Labour votes.
    If somebody wants Labour votes why not the Labour Party?

    Ruling out centre right vktes who'd be happy to see the LDs potentially moderating the Tory Party seems premature.
    That's an interesting proposition - I'm not sure they weren't all squeezed in 2019; but maybe the Corbyn effect means not?
    How would they have been squeezed? In 2019 the Tory vote share was at the highest it's been in modern politics. It was higher than Blair achieved in any of his landslides. The only way is down now for the Tory share and who wants those votes?

    In the next election there's going to most likely be a larger pool of people who voted Tory in 2019 but are now disappointed, than Labour but are now disappointed (and willing to vote LD).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    Nothing like a spot of flage for the upper crust, old boy.
  • kle4 said:

    So a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Labour Party then? Is that Davey's game.

    What a shame. My current preference would be to vote LD and get an LD/Tory coalition again but if that's not even possible then what's a centre right ex Tory supposed to do?

    His game is to get as many votes as possible now, and if that leads to awkwardness based on numbers next time he'd be too shocked and happy to mind.
    Getting as many votes as possible is traditionally for the Lib Dems done by appealing to both centre left and centre right. Not cutting off one at the knees.

    In these Con/LD marginals most of them can only be won if there is a swing away from the Cons. Each Con voter who goes LD is worth 2 Lab voters doing so.

    Not scaring the horses on either side seems logical.
  • Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
    Abortion law has always been a personal choice by MPs.

    Putting anything like what you suggest in a manifesto would be an brave change...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    edited September 17

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Say no and roll the dice on the others not being to agree a replacement, and winning a rerun if they vote down his minority.

    For him better that gamble than gambling on the Union. If he lost then a referendum if it happened would not be his fault.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    I would have thought that ruling out a coalition on both sides would make most sense. The Lib Dems could point to the erstwhile Scottish Green strategy of limited negotiations on budgets, and otherwise deciding on a case-by-case basis.

    I think this more detached approach would help them maintain a distinct identity if a hung Parliament occurs, and avoid putting off too many voters from either side.
  • On this site I can think of many more centre right 2019 Con than centre left 2019 Lab voters who are currently politically homeless and could be tempted to go to the LDs.

    If the LDs get wholeheartedly into bed as a leftwing party they're potentiay spurning the largest pool of politically homeless voters.

    Even if you dislike Boris, I could imagine eg a Truss/Davey coalition could work well.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    Anyway FPT and for our friend @Farooq - even the Guardian is now publishing articles saying Milley must go as Chief of Staff

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/17/general-milley-cannot-undermine-civilian-authority-the-us-is-not-a-military-junta

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,634

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Incoming denial for post GE agreement between Cons and SNP for Sindyref2 from HYUFD.
  • Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    He goes for it and so does Nicola.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    Sandpit said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    Allowing a free vote on these moral issues, has prevented them becoming partisan political debating points, as we see in other countries such as the USA.

    Much better to stick with that philosophy, and allow a free vote on a number of options. 24w, 20w, 12w etc.
    And manifestoing a free vote might upset some who suspect a specific outcome, but will keep more on board than 'we will do x'.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it is no surprise the LDs would back Starmer now.

    Boris will need another majority or DUP support to stay PM

    I think the DUP ship has sailed (into the border in the Irish Sea).
    Reducing the abortion time limit to 22 weeks from 24 across the UK would also attract the DUP and by 2024 Westminster may have direct rule over NI anyway if the DUP withdraw from Stormont. Frost will meanwhile continue to work to remove the Irish Sea border as the DUP want
    I'm sure he will but his negotiations will have to happen in SW1 rather than Brussels.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    MrEd said:

    Anyway FPT and for our friend @Farooq - even the Guardian is now publishing articles saying Milley must go as Chief of Staff

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/17/general-milley-cannot-undermine-civilian-authority-the-us-is-not-a-military-junta

    Miley Cyrus is Chief of Staff???
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    edited September 17

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    He goes for it and so does Nicola.
    Nah. He can't lose both NI and Scotland - imagine the history books, he would be thinking.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681

    On this site I can think of many more centre right 2019 Con than centre left 2019 Lab voters who are currently politically homeless and could be tempted to go to the LDs.

    If the LDs get wholeheartedly into bed as a leftwing party they're potentiay spurning the largest pool of politically homeless voters.

    Even if you dislike Boris, I could imagine eg a Truss/Davey coalition could work well.

    To a degree but there needs to be a big catalyst for them to do so given that the perception of many of those voters will be that Labour is a bunch of woke loons who will come for the houses. Hence why the planning reforms were such a gift for the LDs. What else now will overcome that fear? Brexit - it’s gone. Nadine Dorries as Culture Sec - possibly.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Anyway FPT and for our friend @Farooq - even the Guardian is now publishing articles saying Milley must go as Chief of Staff

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/17/general-milley-cannot-undermine-civilian-authority-the-us-is-not-a-military-junta

    Miley Cyrus is Chief of Staff???
    She has also changed her name to ‘Milley’ :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503

    So a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Labour Party then? Is that Davey's game.

    What a shame. My current preference would be to vote LD and get an LD/Tory coalition again but if that's not even possible then what's a centre right ex Tory supposed to do?

    It is a shame, and it is probably an unforced error. (And is a bit ironic, given Davey worked very well as a Cabinet minister in the Coalition government.)

    Of course, that's also probably the cause of this. That background probably makes Davey a bit suspect to those on the Left of the LibDem party.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    That's fair enough, but you haven't done it yet and so a more liberal position might yet win out. In which case would you think Farooq should tell you to go join the DUP?
    I can only speak for myself, and seeing as how I'm NOT a member of the Conservatives (and didn't vote for them in 2019), it's not for me to set party policy. I'll just vote according to what's in the various manifestos.
    Honestly, I can see myself voting any of LD, Labour, SNP, Green right now. But there's plenty of time for events, policy and personnel changes to sort through, so that list will probably grow and shrink over time. What I do not expect is for people to demand that I put loyalty above my own principles. That sort of thing is only for people without principles.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,468

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    He goes for it and so does Nicola.
    If she is still there she would crap herself, no doubt there would be some compelling reason why it had to wait for more years.
  • Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    He goes for it and so does Nicola.
    I think so. In ordinary circumstances such a deal would be a flat no. With any other Tory PM the same. But with Boris? The Union does not matter to him. He has already abolished the UK customs union and thrown NI into a separate zone against his word and against their will.

    So why would a man who does not care for the union suddenly care for the union?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Anyway FPT and for our friend @Farooq - even the Guardian is now publishing articles saying Milley must go as Chief of Staff

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/17/general-milley-cannot-undermine-civilian-authority-the-us-is-not-a-military-junta

    Miley Cyrus is Chief of Staff???
    Miley was hoping to be the wrecking ball of Trump’s final weeks in office.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Incoming denial for post GE agreement between Cons and SNP for Sindyref2 from HYUFD.
    Too late I beat him to it. Peas in a pod him and me.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,461

    On this site I can think of many more centre right 2019 Con than centre left 2019 Lab voters who are currently politically homeless and could be tempted to go to the LDs.

    If the LDs get wholeheartedly into bed as a leftwing party they're potentiay spurning the largest pool of politically homeless voters.

    Even if you dislike Boris, I could imagine eg a Truss/Davey coalition could work well.

    Totally agree. I don't see how looking as if you are basically planning to be in a Lab-LD-SNP coalition this far out helps win those Blue Wall home counties seats that Liberals should now be after.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    Agreed. Keeping such people alive is a form of torture. We do it to keep our consciences clean by pretending we are doing something. We don’t think about the person.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited September 17

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Incoming denial for post GE agreement between Cons and SNP for Sindyref2 from HYUFD.
    There will never be another indyref2 again under a Tory government effectively, if the SNP want one they will have to get a Labour government.

    I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs.

    In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    It is a slippery slope, personally I would only allow it for those with terminal illnesses and less than 6 months to live and have that confirmed as well as them being of sound mind by at least 2 doctors
  • TOPPING said:

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    He goes for it and so does Nicola.
    Nah. He can't lose both NI and Scotland - imagine the history books, he would be thinking.
    His place in the history books will be secure that much is certain!

    Besides reject the proposal and he's out. Go for it and he's got the potential to stay on and be the PM who saved the Union. And even if the Scots go, he'll have had a long time in office and David Lloyd George is highly rated as a PM despite agreeing to Irish independence.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,441
    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    MrEd said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    Agreed. Keeping such people alive is a form of torture. We do it to keep our consciences clean by pretending we are doing something. We don’t think about the person.
    I was pleased to see that JJ also highlighted the family - which would include not only the parents but also the siblings on which it must also impact directly and indirectly.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    I agree; I think we should take doctors out of the equation and maybe allow that once all a person's children are adults then if there is unanimity, a parent can be euthanised.

    This would have a number of other advantages too. It would allow us to get rid of all the child cruelty laws. No parent would dare abuse their kid, knowing that when they reached 21 (18 is too young), then they would have the power of life or death. It would also encourage parents to be generous with the inheritance early, which would help with the housing crisis in the UK. Finally, of course, it would begin to solve the demopgraphic issues that have so plagued the country.

    I realise that there are a small number of downsides to this plan - notably the idea that it might disincentivize becoming a parent, but I'm sure we can come up with solutions to that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited September 17
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
    If I were an MP, I’d support a reduction to 22 weeks but the notion that Tory MPs who disagree should be compelled to vote against their conscience is repulsive.
    No it isn't, economic legislation is normally whipped, absolutely no reason that some social legislation cannot also be whipped if there is clear consensus of support for them across most of the party.

    The average conservative voter is now more socially conservative than the voters for any Tory government since the Thatcher years, indeed arguably more so as the party now wins more working class social conservatives and fewer middle class liberals than she did.

    No reason some of that social conservatism cannot be reflected in government policy beyond Brexit
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,185
    kle4 said:

    Meeks is right. Ideally the LDs should be placed to be kingmaker but it ain't happening and they are not going to even consider working with Tories for a political generation. Prioritising gaining labour votes makes sense.

    But the window for the Lib Dems having the role of kingmaker is very small at their current numbers or even double those numbers. It was very different in 2010 when they clearly had the third largest bloc of votes in the Commons. The window, I would say, is Tories at somewhere between 310 and a majority. If Labour are that close to a majority the SNP will give them some sort of support and the Lib Dems are irrelevant.

    Of course, if the Tories have 310 seats any alternative government is going to have a pretty hard time of it, especially on English matters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    “ In 2020, 58% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 50% in 2010 (Table 3a.vii). 22% of women had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, up from 16% in 2010.”
    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

    The scariest statistic, from a brief read through the document.
    “In 2020, 42% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous abortions. The proportion has increased steadily from 34% in 2010”
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    He goes for it and so does Nicola.
    If that happened, it would be the best news Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems could ever have. You'd have mass defections from both parties. I honestly can't see either going for it, let alone both.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    HYUFD said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    It is a slippery slope, personally I would only allow it for those with terminal illnesses and less than 6 months to live and have that confirmed as well as them being of sound mind by at least 2 doctors
    I think that's a fair initial position that covers most cases, though there are also issues.

    However, there are the rarer cases where someone cannot give consent, e.g. people in PVS or a coma. These cases are simpler, in a way, but also much more morally complex. It's just my view that keeping someone alive in that state is akin to torture.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    edited September 17
    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
    If I were an MP, I’d support a reduction to 22 weeks but the notion that Tory MPs who disagree should be compelled to vote against their conscience is repulsive.
    No it isn't, economic legislation is normally whipped, absolutely no reason that some social legislation cannot also be whipped if there is clear consensus of support for them across most of the party
    The reason to not whip such matters like economic policy is they are much more likely to be personal and emotive. Theres no reason you couldn't whip everything as a three line whip - they choose not to act that way because it causes more problems than it solves.

    Demanding utter loyalty on all matters is bad party and person management. People aren't robots and they know at some point they will disagree - having some leeway on social matters mollifies everyone.
  • MrEd said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    Agreed. Keeping such people alive is a form of torture. We do it to keep our consciences clean by pretending we are doing something. We don’t think about the person.
    We are more humane in ending a pet's suffering than a person's. Even if that person is capable of articulating that they want to die, and the pet can not.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,995
    edited September 17
    HYUFD said:

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Incoming denial for post GE agreement between Cons and SNP for Sindyref2 from HYUFD.
    There will never be another indyref2 again under a Tory government effectively, if the SNP want one they will have to get a Labour government.

    I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs.

    In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour
    You really do talk some shite.

    "I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs."

    No you wouldn't. A Tory government allowed to do what Tory governments do or a chaotic Labour led one ruining things? You'd back the Tory government every time.

    "In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour"

    Wipe the foam from your mouth and read this again. For "central belt" seats you mean "seats which would just have elected an SNP MP". So you believe that should the SNP secure the thing that SNP MPs were elected to secure, the people who voted for that thing they have just secured will vote for people against that thing in 2027?

    You really need to pull back the focus of things you post about. Preferably to wokeists and communists in Loughton or whatever that you can get sorted.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,634

    On this site I can think of many more centre right 2019 Con than centre left 2019 Lab voters who are currently politically homeless and could be tempted to go to the LDs.

    If the LDs get wholeheartedly into bed as a leftwing party they're potentiay spurning the largest pool of politically homeless voters.

    Even if you dislike Boris, I could imagine eg a Truss/Davey coalition could work well.

    It is dangerous ground to tread, either way.

    A number of 2010 LD voters did so to see the back of Labour, but I suspect there were as many, at least, tactical Labourites and left of centre LDs who were enraged at jumping into bed with the Cons.

    This time, if they were to throw their hand in with Brexit Tories (of which Truss and Sunak are well on board) they would be done for forever.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,774
    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891405/abortion-statistics-commentary-2019.pdf

    2.25 In 2019, 55% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous
    pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 49% in 2009 (Table 3a.vii).
    20% of women had had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic
    pregnancy, up from 15% in 2009.
  • On this site I can think of many more centre right 2019 Con than centre left 2019 Lab voters who are currently politically homeless and could be tempted to go to the LDs.

    If the LDs get wholeheartedly into bed as a leftwing party they're potentiay spurning the largest pool of politically homeless voters.

    Even if you dislike Boris, I could imagine eg a Truss/Davey coalition could work well.

    Totally agree. I don't see how looking as if you are basically planning to be in a Lab-LD-SNP coalition this far out helps win those Blue Wall home counties seats that Liberals should now be after.
    I doubt that there will be a LD-anything coalition. This isn't Davey saying he will prop up Starmer, far from it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Meeks is right. Ideally the LDs should be placed to be kingmaker but it ain't happening and they are not going to even consider working with Tories for a political generation. Prioritising gaining labour votes makes sense.

    But the window for the Lib Dems having the role of kingmaker is very small at their current numbers or even double those numbers. It was very different in 2010 when they clearly had the third largest bloc of votes in the Commons. The window, I would say, is Tories at somewhere between 310 and a majority. If Labour are that close to a majority the SNP will give them some sort of support and the Lib Dems are irrelevant.

    Of course, if the Tories have 310 seats any alternative government is going to have a pretty hard time of it, especially on English matters.
    That was my point. They aren't going to be kingmakers. They are seeking to rebuild and in time they might be able to tack bs k to seeking Tory support more.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
    If I were an MP, I’d support a reduction to 22 weeks but the notion that Tory MPs who disagree should be compelled to vote against their conscience is repulsive.
    No it isn't, economic legislation is normally whipped, absolutely no reason that some social legislation cannot also be whipped if there is clear consensus of support for them across most of the party
    The reason to not whip such matters like economic policy is they are much more likely to be personal and emotive. Theres no reason you couldn't whip everything as a three line whip - they choose not to act that way because it causes more problems than it solves.

    Demanding utter loyalty on all matters is bad party and person management. People aren't robots and they know at some point they will disagree - having some leeway on social matters melodies everyone.
    What HYUFD doesn't understand is that most people have limits on what they are asked to do. Eventually if they're asked to do something that offends they moral compass so much, they will just say no and take the consequences.
    HYUFD isn't like that and hasn't quite got the capacity to understand that other are.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    edited September 17
    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    I've found:

    "In 2016, 55% of women undergoing abortions had had one or
    more previous pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 47% in 2006"


    From (PDF):
    https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/abortion-stats-2016-commentary-with-tables.pdf

    Looks like that was the same in 2019 (PDF):
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891405/abortion-statistics-commentary-2019.pdf
  • On this site I can think of many more centre right 2019 Con than centre left 2019 Lab voters who are currently politically homeless and could be tempted to go to the LDs.

    If the LDs get wholeheartedly into bed as a leftwing party they're potentiay spurning the largest pool of politically homeless voters.

    Even if you dislike Boris, I could imagine eg a Truss/Davey coalition could work well.

    Totally agree. I don't see how looking as if you are basically planning to be in a Lab-LD-SNP coalition this far out helps win those Blue Wall home counties seats that Liberals should now be after.
    I doubt that there will be a LD-anything coalition. This isn't Davey saying he will prop up Starmer, far from it.
    Has he said he won't go into coalition with Labour too? Or just that he won't with the Tories?
  • isamisam Posts: 38,441
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    “ In 2020, 58% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 50% in 2010 (Table 3a.vii). 22% of women had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, up from 16% in 2010.”
    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

    The scariest statistic, from a brief read through the document.
    “In 2020, 42% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous abortions. The proportion has increased steadily from 34% in 2010”
    I am really surprised it is as high as 58%, mothers who would have an abortion.

    When you look at the grounds for NHS granting one, it is almost impossible to get an abortion for any reason other than danger to the mother or the unborn child. I reckon damage to mental health must be a big player - I don’t know anyone who has had an abortion for any other reason than it was inconvenient to have a baby, I guess they must have gone private
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    Pro_Rata said:

    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891405/abortion-statistics-commentary-2019.pdf

    2.25 In 2019, 55% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous
    pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 49% in 2009 (Table 3a.vii).
    20% of women had had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic
    pregnancy, up from 15% in 2009.
    Those are groups with both differing denominators, and overlapping.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,740
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    I agree; I think we should take doctors out of the equation and maybe allow that once all a person's children are adults then if there is unanimity, a parent can be euthanised.

    This would have a number of other advantages too. It would allow us to get rid of all the child cruelty laws. No parent would dare abuse their kid, knowing that when they reached 21 (18 is too young), then they would have the power of life or death. It would also encourage parents to be generous with the inheritance early, which would help with the housing crisis in the UK. Finally, of course, it would begin to solve the demopgraphic issues that have so plagued the country.

    I realise that there are a small number of downsides to this plan - notably the idea that it might disincentivize becoming a parent, but I'm sure we can come up with solutions to that.
    Would it? Parents would ensure they always had at least one kid under 18/21.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    “ In 2020, 58% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 50% in 2010 (Table 3a.vii). 22% of women had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, up from 16% in 2010.”
    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

    The scariest statistic, from a brief read through the document.
    “In 2020, 42% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous abortions. The proportion has increased steadily from 34% in 2010”
    I am really surprised it is as high as 58%, mothers who would have an abortion.

    When you look at the grounds for NHS granting one, it is almost impossible to get an abortion for any reason other than danger to the mother or the unborn child. I reckon damage to mental health must be a big player - I don’t know anyone who has had an abortion for any other reason than it was inconvenient to have a baby, I guess they must have gone private
    The theoretical grounds appear to bear little resemblance to what actually happens in practice. 200,000 abortions last year.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited September 17
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
    If I were an MP, I’d support a reduction to 22 weeks but the notion that Tory MPs who disagree should be compelled to vote against their conscience is repulsive.
    No it isn't, economic legislation is normally whipped, absolutely no reason that some social legislation cannot also be whipped if there is clear consensus of support for them across most of the party
    The reason to not whip such matters like economic policy is they are much more likely to be personal and emotive. Theres no reason you couldn't whip everything as a three line whip - they choose not to act that way because it causes more problems than it solves.

    Demanding utter loyalty on all matters is bad party and person management. People aren't robots and they know at some point they will disagree - having some leeway on social matters mollifies everyone.
    Having whips purely on economic matters suits libertarians who are economically conservative and socially liberal.

    Tough, post Brexit the party's core vote is more working class and socially conservative than it has been for decades and it is about time that was reflected by MPs votes too. Ensuring a mild reduction in the abortion time limit is passed to 22 weeks is just the bare minimum needed as well as bringing in the tighter immigration controls we have done, with the points system for all migrants including those from the EU
  • pingping Posts: 1,409
    edited September 17
    I’m broadly pro-choice on abortion and anti-assisted dying.

    I get the sense my position is rather unusual.

    I think my morality is strongly influenced by having a younger brother with severe disabilities and thinking through such moral issues in relation to him over a long period of time.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    “ In 2020, 58% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 50% in 2010 (Table 3a.vii). 22% of women had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, up from 16% in 2010.”
    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

    The scariest statistic, from a brief read through the document.
    “In 2020, 42% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous abortions. The proportion has increased steadily from 34% in 2010”
    On the other hand, for all the debate about shortening the legal time limits, over 90% were within the first 12 weeks (at least, in the 2019 figures - I haven't read the latest). A fair number of those that weren't were for reasons that are currently legal beyond 24 weeks.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376

    HYUFD said:

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Incoming denial for post GE agreement between Cons and SNP for Sindyref2 from HYUFD.
    There will never be another indyref2 again under a Tory government effectively, if the SNP want one they will have to get a Labour government.

    I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs.

    In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour
    You really do talk some shite.

    "I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs."

    No you wouldn't. A Tory government allowed to do what Tory governments do or a chaotic Labour led one ruining things? You'd back the Tory government every time.

    "In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour"

    Wipe the foam from your mouth and read this again. For "central belt" seats you mean "seats which would just have elected an SNP MP". So you believe that should the SNP secure the thing that SNP MPs were elected to secure, the people who voted for that thing they have just secured will vote for people against that thing in 2027?

    You really need to pull back the focus of things you post about. Preferably to wokeists and communists in Loughton or whatever that you can get sorted.
    The main reason they went from SLab to SNP is dislike of New Labour and Tory governments, they certainly did not want the SNP propping up Tory governments.

    I will not support indyref2
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    edited September 17
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
    If I were an MP, I’d support a reduction to 22 weeks but the notion that Tory MPs who disagree should be compelled to vote against their conscience is repulsive.
    No it isn't, economic legislation is normally whipped, absolutely no reason that some social legislation cannot also be whipped if there is clear consensus of support for them across most of the party
    The reason to not whip such matters like economic policy is they are much more likely to be personal and emotive. Theres no reason you couldn't whip everything as a three line whip - they choose not to act that way because it causes more problems than it solves.

    Demanding utter loyalty on all matters is bad party and person management. People aren't robots and they know at some point they will disagree - having some leeway on social matters mollifies everyone.
    Having whips purely on economic matters suits libertarians who are economically conservative and socially liberal.

    Tough, post Brexit the party's core vote is more working class and socially conservative than it has been for decades and it is about time that was reflected by MPs votes too. Ensuring mild reduction in the abortion time limit is passed to 22 weeks is just the bare minimum needed as well as bringing in the tighter immigration controls we have done, with the points system for all migrants including those from the EU
    No one is saying every social issue is a free vote and whips only on economic votes. They're saying whipping on some things is counterproductive.

    If theres support for it they wont need to whip, and by saying it will be free the party wont put off those who might oppose a change from voting for the party in the first place.

    Sometimes going easier on matters helps you achieve the goal. Put people off voting Tory by talk of whipping such votes and you might not get enough MPs to do it!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    Farooq said:

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    He goes for it and so does Nicola.
    If that happened, it would be the best news Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems could ever have. You'd have mass defections from both parties. I honestly can't see either going for it, let alone both.
    The interesting difference is that in 2014-15 the Tories and LDs were in coalition so the LDs were just as much to blame (so to speak) for indyref1 and fronted for the Tories in Scotland just as much as Slab did - much to the detriment of both parties in 2015.

    This time round a Scottish Unionist would have the choice of voting LD or Slab - so there is some threat to SCUP seats.

    In England, not so sure - it is more a matter of keeping Labour out than anythijng else.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    “ In 2020, 58% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 50% in 2010 (Table 3a.vii). 22% of women had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, up from 16% in 2010.”
    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

    The scariest statistic, from a brief read through the document.
    “In 2020, 42% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous abortions. The proportion has increased steadily from 34% in 2010”
    I am really surprised it is as high as 58%, mothers who would have an abortion.

    When you look at the grounds for NHS granting one, it is almost impossible to get an abortion for any reason other than danger to the mother or the unborn child. I reckon damage to mental health must be a big player - I don’t know anyone who has had an abortion for any other reason than it was inconvenient to have a baby, I guess they must have gone private
    About 97% are on mental health grounds. You could say this is tantamount to abortion on demand, because if you want an abortion and are instead forced to carry a baby to term it seems obvious it would be mentally distressing, but two doctors have to agree and you have to convince them you would be distressed.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Incoming denial for post GE agreement between Cons and SNP for Sindyref2 from HYUFD.
    There will never be another indyref2 again under a Tory government effectively, if the SNP want one they will have to get a Labour government.

    I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs.

    In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour
    You really do talk some shite.

    "I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs."

    No you wouldn't. A Tory government allowed to do what Tory governments do or a chaotic Labour led one ruining things? You'd back the Tory government every time.

    "In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour"

    Wipe the foam from your mouth and read this again. For "central belt" seats you mean "seats which would just have elected an SNP MP". So you believe that should the SNP secure the thing that SNP MPs were elected to secure, the people who voted for that thing they have just secured will vote for people against that thing in 2027?

    You really need to pull back the focus of things you post about. Preferably to wokeists and communists in Loughton or whatever that you can get sorted.
    The main reason they went from SLab to SNP is dislike of New Labour and Tory governments, they certainly did not want the SNP propping up Tory governments.

    I will not support indyref2
    You surely will if it becomes party policy. Indyref1 was party policy too.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    edited September 17
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Y'all know I'm ex Labour and now a LibDem. So those of you who are neither need to understand the mess out there in opposition parties. In the UK the Tories have made themselves completely alone, with no possible partner after the LD implosion of 2015 and the shitting on the DUP of 2020.

    Making a statement that "we will not work with the Tories" is not news. Nobody will work with the Tories again for a long time. But the flip isn't that we will go into coalition with Labour either. C&S is the absolute most I can see the party backing.

    The mess is that whilst all agree the Tories are unfit for office they don't know what to do about it or how to go about removing them. Unless Labour win a majority, the kingmakers will be the SNP and the threat of them holding the whip hand was a driving force in the final week of the 2015 election which gave Cameron a majority.

    Here is the real question. The Tories fall short. The only deal on the table is from the SNP who are prepared to provide confidence for a minority Tory government in exchange for favourable terms for a referendum.

    If you are Boris Johnson, what do you do...?

    Incoming denial for post GE agreement between Cons and SNP for Sindyref2 from HYUFD.
    There will never be another indyref2 again under a Tory government effectively, if the SNP want one they will have to get a Labour government.

    I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs.

    In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour
    You really do talk some shite.

    "I would demand the Tories go into opposition rather than rely on the SNP as I expect would most Tory MPs."

    No you wouldn't. A Tory government allowed to do what Tory governments do or a chaotic Labour led one ruining things? You'd back the Tory government every time.

    "In any case the SNP would not do any deal with the Tories anyway, it would guarantee their central belt seats go back to Labour"

    Wipe the foam from your mouth and read this again. For "central belt" seats you mean "seats which would just have elected an SNP MP". So you believe that should the SNP secure the thing that SNP MPs were elected to secure, the people who voted for that thing they have just secured will vote for people against that thing in 2027?

    You really need to pull back the focus of things you post about. Preferably to wokeists and communists in Loughton or whatever that you can get sorted.
    The main reason they went from SLab to SNP is dislike of New Labour and Tory governments, they certainly did not want the SNP propping up Tory governments.

    I will not support indyref2
    You will when your beloved party leader decides its the only way he can remain in power.

    And don't try to claim otherwise as you have explicitly stated many times that you accept other policies that you rejected hours earlier when it becomes party policy.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,923
    I'm with Alastair. To a lot of people Johnson is repellent. Repellent beyond any normal dislike for a politician. Even the slightest inkling that he could ally his party with someone so tainted would cost him votes.


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    edited September 17
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.

    As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.

    And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
    No chance Trump will be in jail.

    Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.

    As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
    Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.

    The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.

    Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.

    Yep.

    There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.

    The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.

    I can't see it being able to cope a second time.

    Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.

    The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
    Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
    Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
    There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.

    Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    "States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
    I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.

    Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
    You're batshit crazy.

    Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!

    Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.

    So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
    Given 50% of Texans want to make abortion completely illegal to only 45% who want it legal, pro choice activists are lucky to even get 6 weeks there
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
    And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?

    Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
    The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
    No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
    Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
    That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
    So still a living, sentient being then
    Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
    I believe in life, full stop.
    Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
    Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
    Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?

    The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
    And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.

    If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
    You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
    I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
    Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change

    12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
    65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it

    and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.




    37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time

    45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
    So you've found a poll from 2012?

    And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?

    Like I said you are so predictable.

    Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:

    39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
    17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)

    Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
    40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
    17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)

    So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.


    Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.

    38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.


    You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.

    So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
    You said you wanted a Conservative government to reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less. Even your 9 year old cherrypicked poll shows that even among 2010 Conservative voters, you are in a small minority.

    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is very much a minority opinion among Conservative voters and the country, and in the context of you massively misinterpreting (as I have shown) Texan polling on abortion to say that women who need an abortion in Texas should "feel lucky that they are allowed to up to 6 weeks", I think it's worth pointing this out.

    BTW your poll is not "more accurate". It is framed in a biased way. These are the options:

    Increase limit
    keep at 24 weeks
    reduce to 22 weeks
    reduce to 20 weeks
    reduce to less than 20 weeks
    ban abortion altogether

    If you have trouble seeing the bias here consider the opposite framing:

    Have no upper limit
    Increase limit to more than 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 28 weeks
    Increase limit to 26 weeks
    Keep limit at 24 weeks
    Reduce limit to below 24 weeks


    Despite this biased framing, there is still a majority (excluding don't knows) in favour of having the limit at 22 weeks or above. And a big majority for having the limit at 20 weeks or above. So for you to pretend that this poll in any way whatsoever shows that a majority of 2010 Conservative voters agree with your position is a barefaced lie.

    But keep changing the goalposts!

    Reminder: I pointed out that a majority of UK adults and Conservative voters disagreed with your position ("reduce the limit to 12 weeks or less"), you then selectively quoted a poll to try and mislead people. You are shameless.
    I want to reduce the abortion limit, reducing it to 22 weeks from the current 24 weeks has the support of most voters and would be the start of that process if we get a Conservative majority again at the next general election or the Conservatives have enough seats to form a government with the DUP.

    If that's in the manifesto, that rules me voting Conservative out. One step on THAT road is one step to far.
    Bye then, off to the LDs where you belong
    It's not even in the manifesto yet, bit hasty to clap him out!
    He is an abortion on demand social liberal, not a conservative
    Social liberals can still vote Tory, and if the tipping point for them is not party policy why throw away their vote? They can hardly be judged as insufficiently committed to the party if it's not party policy.
    I and others will be working to ensure it is party policy for the next general election manifesto, as MPs from across the party from Nadine Dorries to Jeremy Hunt want.

    Abortion (like capital punishment, gay marriage etc etc) has always been a matter of conscience for MPs. Are you suggesting that a whip should be applied in any future vote?
    In general terms, however I believe there is support across the party to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks from 24.

    I would yes prefer it to be a manifesto commitment in 2023/24, whipped if we return to power.

    However even if not whipped if the Tories have a majority again or most votes with the DUP I expect it would pass anyway
    If I were an MP, I’d support a reduction to 22 weeks but the notion that Tory MPs who disagree should be compelled to vote against their conscience is repulsive.
    No it isn't, economic legislation is normally whipped, absolutely no reason that some social legislation cannot also be whipped if there is clear consensus of support for them across most of the party
    The reason to not whip such matters like economic policy is they are much more likely to be personal and emotive. Theres no reason you couldn't whip everything as a three line whip - they choose not to act that way because it causes more problems than it solves.

    Demanding utter loyalty on all matters is bad party and person management. People aren't robots and they know at some point they will disagree - having some leeway on social matters mollifies everyone.
    Having whips purely on economic matters suits libertarians who are economically conservative and socially liberal.

    Tough, post Brexit the party's core vote is more working class and socially conservative than it has been for decades and it is about time that was reflected by MPs votes too. Ensuring a mild reduction in the abortion time limit is passed to 22 weeks is just the bare minimum needed as well as bringing in the tighter immigration controls we have done, with the points system for all migrants including those from the EU
    So now you’ve upset those who want 12 weeks, and have them campaigning against you. Not to mention all the Catholic groups. Much better to keep the free vote on these things, even if we all have our own opinion on where we draw the line - which I suspect, if we did a survey of PB, would cross party lines.

    Edit: not to mention there would be some scandal of a politician being involved in an abortion, in the run up to the vote.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    I agree; I think we should take doctors out of the equation and maybe allow that once all a person's children are adults then if there is unanimity, a parent can be euthanised.

    This would have a number of other advantages too. It would allow us to get rid of all the child cruelty laws. No parent would dare abuse their kid, knowing that when they reached 21 (18 is too young), then they would have the power of life or death. It would also encourage parents to be generous with the inheritance early, which would help with the housing crisis in the UK. Finally, of course, it would begin to solve the demopgraphic issues that have so plagued the country.

    I realise that there are a small number of downsides to this plan - notably the idea that it might disincentivize becoming a parent, but I'm sure we can come up with solutions to that.
    Would it? Parents would ensure they always had at least one kid under 18/21.
    The obvious issue with RCS's Modest Proposal is that that only keeps you going to about age 60 - I predict a considerable increase in adoption, especially of grandchildren ...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    Given promises made by the Lib Dems previously, I don’t think we should rule out them propping up the Tories again (Scottish Lib Dems...)
  • FossFoss Posts: 437
    Question: A Tory leadership election is triggered when 15 per cent of Tory MPs write a letter to the 1922 Committee chairman.

    Under the current rules, when is an individual classed as a Tory MP? Is it de facto after a returning officer has announced that they’re the winner of a constituency or is it de jure from when they're sworn in? Indeed, is a Tory leader effectively untouchable between the end of the previous parliament and the start of the next?

    A Johnson who can be challenged as soon as he talks to Sturgeon has a very different set of options to a Johnson who cannot and who can present something as a fait accompli.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    Pro_Rata said:

    isam said:

    Does anyone know the stats on percentage of abortions from existing mothers?

    From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891405/abortion-statistics-commentary-2019.pdf

    2.25 In 2019, 55% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous
    pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 49% in 2009 (Table 3a.vii).
    20% of women had had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic
    pregnancy, up from 15% in 2009.
    You need to know the number of pregnancies amongst each group to make sense of the statistics though.
    And the miscarriage /parent groups overlap as do the miscarriage/ childless griups so its hard to draw any sort of conclusions from this data. Its a bit like the "most cases of Covid are amongst the vaccinated" misleading truism in countries with high vaccination rates.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    On this site I can think of many more centre right 2019 Con than centre left 2019 Lab voters who are currently politically homeless and could be tempted to go to the LDs.

    If the LDs get wholeheartedly into bed as a leftwing party they're potentiay spurning the largest pool of politically homeless voters.

    Even if you dislike Boris, I could imagine eg a Truss/Davey coalition could work well.

    It is dangerous ground to tread, either way.

    A number of 2010 LD voters did so to see the back of Labour, but I suspect there were as many, at least, tactical Labourites and left of centre LDs who were enraged at jumping into bed with the Cons.

    This time, if they were to throw their hand in with Brexit Tories (of which Truss and Sunak are well on board) they would be done for forever.
    I voted LD in 2010 for two reasons:
    - Hoping to see a LD/Labour coalition (LD tempering some of Brown's more undesirable characteristics)
    - To express support for the party, in what I thought was a safe Labour seat

    On the second, although more of a natural LD supporter - voted for them in 2005 in a seat they took from Labour and I was even briefly a member around that time, possibly in 2001 too although I honestly cannot remember - I would have likely voted tactically for Labour had I realised it was about to turn into a Lab-Con marginal.

    Having said that, I wasn't horrified by either Cameron or the coalition. The main reason I voted Lab in 2015 was because I thought an EU ref might be a bad idea (I was pissed off with LD over the tuition fees debacle and by then, lived in a seat that was more obviously Lab v Con, although not very marginal).
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    I agree; I think we should take doctors out of the equation and maybe allow that once all a person's children are adults then if there is unanimity, a parent can be euthanised.

    This would have a number of other advantages too. It would allow us to get rid of all the child cruelty laws. No parent would dare abuse their kid, knowing that when they reached 21 (18 is too young), then they would have the power of life or death. It would also encourage parents to be generous with the inheritance early, which would help with the housing crisis in the UK. Finally, of course, it would begin to solve the demopgraphic issues that have so plagued the country.

    I realise that there are a small number of downsides to this plan - notably the idea that it might disincentivize becoming a parent, but I'm sure we can come up with solutions to that.
    That has to come pretty close to the top of the prize for most nut-job post ever placed on PB. And there have been a few good contenders!

    One of the most troubling things for those of us that believe in universal suffrage and free speech is that all nutters have a vote and that they also have the right to demonstrate that it might be best if they were not allowed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    I agree; I think we should take doctors out of the equation and maybe allow that once all a person's children are adults then if there is unanimity, a parent can be euthanised.

    This would have a number of other advantages too. It would allow us to get rid of all the child cruelty laws. No parent would dare abuse their kid, knowing that when they reached 21 (18 is too young), then they would have the power of life or death. It would also encourage parents to be generous with the inheritance early, which would help with the housing crisis in the UK. Finally, of course, it would begin to solve the demopgraphic issues that have so plagued the country.

    I realise that there are a small number of downsides to this plan - notably the idea that it might disincentivize becoming a parent, but I'm sure we can come up with solutions to that.
    Or alternatively we could care more for our elderly within the family as Asian and Italian families do
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936

    So a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Labour Party then? Is that Davey's game.

    What a shame. My current preference would be to vote LD and get an LD/Tory coalition again but if that's not even possible then what's a centre right ex Tory supposed to do?

    Indeed - are there going to be more ex-Tory or more ex-Labour votes up for grabs?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT: on abortion laws.

    Part of my view on this comes form a slightly different angle; one which might be non-obvious, or even wrong.

    It starts with a statement: we are far too precious about life.

    Now that's a crass thing to say, so let me elaborate: there are thousands of people who are suffering terribly, and we keep them alive when many do not want to be alive.

    Take the case of French footballer Jean-Pierre Adams. He was in a coma for 39 years before he sadly - but perhaps thankfully - died this month. 39 years, perhaps of torture for him, but also for his friends and family. He had very significant damage to his brain, so even if he had miraculously awoken from his coma, what would his quality of live have been like?

    We should also remember the case of Terri Schiavo, a young woman with PVS, over whose life a series of court cases were fought. After she was eventually left to die - seven years after the first court case - an autopsy showed that her brain weighed half that of an equivalent woman of her age.

    A few lucky people do awaken from multi-year comas. But such occurrences are rare, and the amount of suffering of patients, relatives and friends is immense.

    We need to talk about this, personally, as a society, and as a nation. I am not fond of Dignitas, but part of the issue is that Dignitas has to exist because of the laws in other states.

    Personally, I am willing to say that if I am in a long-term coma, or if I am in a state where I have a persistently very low quality of life, am in pain, and cannot do many of the things I love - either through illness, accident, or old age - I would rather reach a happy end that continue the suffering of myself, my family, and friends. even if there is a 1% chance of recovering, I think an end would be best. I wish there was a way I could legally say it without outsiders, religious bigots and others interfering.

    How does this connect to abortion? Put simply, many of the people who are pro-life would baulk at any assisted suicide or dignity in death laws. And I think a compassionate, humane society really needs such laws. I do not want to give these people such power over my death if I was in such an unfortunate position.

    (1): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/27/jean-pierre-adams-footballer-coma

    I agree; I think we should take doctors out of the equation and maybe allow that once all a person's children are adults then if there is unanimity, a parent can be euthanised.

    This would have a number of other advantages too. It would allow us to get rid of all the child cruelty laws. No parent would dare abuse their kid, knowing that when they reached 21 (18 is too young), then they would have the power of life or death. It would also encourage parents to be generous with the inheritance early, which would help with the housing crisis in the UK. Finally, of course, it would begin to solve the demopgraphic issues that have so plagued the country.

    I realise that there are a small number of downsides to this plan - notably the idea that it might disincentivize becoming a parent, but I'm sure we can come up with solutions to that.
    That has to come pretty close to the top of the prize for most nut-job post ever placed on PB. And there have been a few good contenders!

    One of the most troubling things for those of us that believe in universal suffrage and free speech is that all nutters have a vote and that they also have the right to demonstrate that it might be best if they were not allowed.
    I think RCS is being ironic ... vide Swift A Modest Proposal.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    Foss said:

    Question: A Tory leadership election is triggered when 15 per cent of Tory MPs write a letter to the 1922 Committee chairman.

    Under the current rules, when is an individual classed as a Tory MP? Is it de facto after a returning officer has announced that they’re the winner of a constituency or is it de jure from when they're sworn in? Indeed, is a Tory leader effectively untouchable between the end of the previous parliament and the start of the next?

    A Johnson who can be challenged as soon as he talks to Sturgeon has a very different set of options to a Johnson who cannot and who can present something as a fait accompli.

    Between the dissolution of Parliament, and the swearing-in after the subsequent election, there are no MPs.
This discussion has been closed.