Is Dorries having second thoughts? – politicalbetting.com
Is Dorries having second thoughts? – politicalbetting.com
The FT is reporting that Dorries might delay her resignation with the suggestion that she’ll try to cause the maximum problems as she can for Sunak. Certainly, it would be easier for the Tories if they were all held on the same day and the bad news for Sunak would last only a few days.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Next thread please.
Modi's much-heralded "high-speed" trains run along the 365 mile coast of Kerala in 8 hours (for example) - an average speed of just 45 mph!!
For example, With this post from earlier, where it may appear I actually hit reply and told you that you are wrong, inflation will go under 5 allowing PM Sunak to claim victory and urge us to rejoice, the post is not really about telling you that you are wrong, it’s about explaining how you are in fact right about the subtleties of Thatcherism - it’s wrongly thought today as just being all about free markets, tax down, and pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom - but in reality there were situations where Thatcherism put taxes up, where windfall taxes were imposed, the x-factor of Thatcherism that made it work was not a slavish devotion to liberal economics, but it’s application at every moment within framework of good government - like when Lewis Hamilton says the ideal race pace is being on the right tyre for every moment, every single lap.
So when you call yourself a Thatcherite, and I call myself a Thatcherite, here is the definition we want people to understand isn’t it?
Thatcherism considered uniting the political faiths and colours of British society behind aspiration for all, a genuine all in it together approach, very much the opposite of populism. The very opposite of Thatcherism is to divide on the basis of defending privilege so just to sneak over the line and win elections - the defending privilege approach is exactly the malaise through every policy and every effort the Conservative Party has fallen into these days isn’t it. The Party which gave the world Thatcherism no longer appears to understand it, none of its leaders seem capable of passing the exam question: what is Thatcherism?
Are we in agreement? The need for real Thatcherism, and don’t get us wrong, don’t think of cosplay Thatcherism.
I confess not to having been taking a keen interest but I assumed she was never actually proposed for one.
Ms Dorries is no different. She is just BJO's mirror image on the right.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.
Be assured we will fight you secular liberals with such gross disrespect for human life you would abort up to birth every step of the way.
Now you or I would notice the absurdity of our current position (I've said I'm going but you can't make me go) and not want it to go on a second longer than necessary. That's why we're not Johnson groupies.
She's made things easier for Sunak by not even pretending it is not completely personal. Even Boris pretends it's about principle.
In any case, as HYUFDs a delay probably helps, as much as it can.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
I have today informed the chief whip that I am standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, with immediate effect.
It has been an honour to serve as the MP for such a wonderful constituency but it is now time for another to take the reins.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742?s=20
I'll get my coat
That isn't resigning as an MP.
As linked to the other day the idea of someone in frustration saying they would resign then regretting it did come up when Adams resigned, given he didn't ask for one of the formal appointments, just to resign, which was taken as a request to be so appointed.
Should I, as the Member for East Antrim, in a fit of despair when I see who will replace Gerry Adams, express publicly the view that I wished that I was not a Member of a House that contained such a person, would the Chancellor take that as an indication that I should no longer be a Member of this House and therefore appoint me to an office of the Crown? That seems to be the implication of the ruling that you have made.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2011-01-26/debates/11012654000003/EuropeanUnionBill#404
Got to go now and do my hair 💇♀️
She doesn't want to go to the Lords, she's aiming for Keir Starmer's job.
Is it not entirely possible that she doesn't understand the process involved?
For you wish to advocate baby murder so there can be abortion on demand until birth.
Literally just 1% of the population advocate abortion to birth, that is how extreme yours and Bart's position on this is
https://righttolife.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Where-Do-They-Stand-Abortion-Survey-Data-Tables.pdf (p17)
Given that they appear to seriously believe a) Trump should have the same immunity from prosecution (even if he were guilty) as Presidents do (at least as far as the DOJ treats them), and b) that Trump still has all the rights, powers and privileges he did whilst he was President.
For LLG frequently showing in the 60s, why wait till May 1st to work out how you are tactically voting, and tell pollsters something different till then - when you know today and can be right up front will the pollster?
Dutch Salute theory is based on HY being right about something he posted last week - in much of the blue wall the main challenge to the Tories are Lib Dem’s - so if it goes with current polling this degree of Labour voting will be many wasted votes in so many places and hand the seats to the Tories.
it’s no longer an If there’s going to be tactical voting to get the Tories out, With 60% LLG a great number will know exactly how to vote tactical a long time before the General Election.
However, this tactical voting is going to be massively regional - many telling pollsters today they will vote Lab, will start to tell pollsters Lib Dem instead. But they will do this in certain places, not evenly across the nation. In the Nationwide poll Labour will FALL - Labours lead over the Tories will FALL - all this with no extra Tory votes but Lib Dem’s on the rise.
This national polling, at first glance looking much more optimistic for the Tories, will utterly disguise what is really shaping up - the national polling picture cannot give us what will actually be going on - swing calculators based on average swing will slip woefully behind the huge variation in tactical vote between place to place, region to region, wall to wall.
Voters knowing in the coming months how they will vote tactically in the general election, simply becoming all up front with pollsters about their vote, and how tactical voting will be wildly different from place to place not showing in the nationwide polls, this explains Dutch Salute theory. What to look out for, what is causing it, and the added caution this builds into the NATIONAL POLLS, that, if I’m right, will if anything show Tories closing the gap to Labour, yet completely miss the tactical storm brewing.
Evidential evidence to evidently prove my theory? Last weeks Blue Wall poll where you would expect Lib Dem gain at Labours expense had lots, todays Red Wall survey where you would not expect much had none. The overall picture has a Dutch Salute on trend.
Human legislators decided that the dividing point for human rights purposes should be 24 weeks.
The history of the decision and its reasons are a bit complicated, but that is roughly the point at which the foetus can survive on its own. Now.
Originally, it was chosen to be well before viability, but those darned doctors keep moving the goal posts.
What they want is the purity of reducing the party to the People's Popular Front For The Liberation of Judea. And absolutely none of those People's Front For The Liberation of Judea - they're basically Romans.
It seems to me that treating birth as the point at which one acquires human rights, compared to birth minus one day as being the point where one has none, is just as arbitrary.
They go beyond that, and take rather definitive positions on legal matters in a way they really do not need to to still lick his boots, yet do anyway.
My vote for them in 2024 is really going to be one of holding my nose . With Starmers new found Brexit zeal and their ridiculous over the top balancing the books mantra I’m finding it difficult to muster up any enthusiasm.
I want rid of the Tories and that’s it . But really I expected a bit more !
Certainly by the 27th week the foetus would not be induced. Good luck going to the NHS at 27 weeks and requesting an induction or c-section with no other reason than the foetus is "ready".
Birth is the beginning of life, there's a reason why we consider someone's age to be 16 at 16 years after birth, rather than 16 years after conception, or 16 years after 24 weeks after the last period before conception.
Arguing for abortion up the point of birth is an argument for inhumanity, however logical it may seem to you.
I can't imagine any woman other than in the most extreme and most wretched of circumstances would want to do something so inhumane.
And if she, having weighed up the inhumanity of it and having felt the kicks etc still wants to do it, then I would regret the decision but think it should be hers and hers alone.
Unless or until the foetus is ready to be born, and I don't mean "theoretically if accidentally born could have a very slim chance of survival after spending months in a NICU", I mean "can be scheduled today for an induction or c-section".
However by 24 weeks most medics are agreed life can survive outside the uterus and there is therefore no doubt life has begun by that point and any abortion after that point is murder, simple as
You are an ideological ultra liberal republican secularist, the idea you are the oracle of all knowledge and facts rather than using them to suit your ideological agenda is absurd
How old are you? Isn't an easy question.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1668639388220235777
https://patient.info/pregnancy/labour-childbirth/caesarean-section#:~:text=After 24-25 weeks of,your baby than caesarean section.
I think most scientists would say that gametes are living cells, so there is a continuum of life from adult to gamete to zygote to foetus to baby. "Life" doesn't start at 24 weeks. But lots of things are living: bacteria, amoeba, mosquitoes, cabbages. What is living isn't particularly important to the ethical debate.
I think most scientists would shy away from claims as to when consciousness begins. That's a hugely complicated question. There are brain structures associated with consciousness that develop around 24-28 weeks, so that's a possible lower limit for consciousness, but most scientists would couch that with a lot of caveats. But animals have some degree of consciousness and we don't give them many rights, so the ethical debate is more complicated than finding a simple cut-off for consciousness anyway. Because there isn't a simple cut-off for consciousness: it's something that develops over time, through to maybe 18 months post-birth.
The ability to feel pain is... guess what? Complicated. Yes, there are brain structures around 24-28 weeks that may be necessary, although other parts of the system are developed much earlier. We're not quite certain. So, with caveats, maybe we could say the cut-off is around 24 weeks. But, again, animals can feel pain and we don't give them many rights, so the ethical debate is more complicated than finding a simple cut-off for pain.
Science is complicated. Legislation often has to be somewhat simpler and I'm not saying 24 weeks isn't a good cut-off for legislative purposes. I note 90% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. I also note that the demand for post-24 week abortions is very small and tends to involve very difficult and complicated cases.
Are you conscious when asleep? Or having surgery?
Being able to be terminated only if not conscious therefore has no meaning if you can't settle those two. And others.
How about whilst dreaming, as opposed to deep sleep?
Is one conscious? Or both? Or neither?
Anti-abortionists love talking about late abortion, because it makes their arguments look better. I think a good way to counter religious extremism in this area is to be very clear that the vast majority of abortions are early, and concern tiny clumps of cells that are very obviously not people, not babies.
It'll be Labour using the precedent soon enough.
Edit:
NOT SOON ENOUGH.
And even them the fact we kill animals for food is no argument for legalising murder
So yes the foetus can survive outside the uterus in those circumstances
Also, abortion after 24 weeks involves 'delivering' your foetus in some way, albeit not alive. It's nothing like the medical procedure at under 12 weeks that normally happens and is closer to a period.
I respect 'my body my choice', but when there are alternatives to get the foetus out of your body alive, hand over to medical professionals to look after until old enough to adopt, it should no longer be your choice to make.
That is why late term abortion as a 'pro choice' mantra is immoral nonsense from a liberal perspective.