Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

LionsV2 wrote:

Galted wrote:

As much as I agree with you that much of the reason for the Leave vote was the racism and pig-ignorance of the likes of Lionsv2 and old people, I'm not sure the questions you're asking are particularly relevant.  I'd quite like a cut in local crime but couldn't name a single local criminal.

I beg your pardon?

No doubt the mods will do nothing about that.

He said you were “PIG IGNORANT”. I’ve heard of hard of hearing before but not hard of reading.

Some people are putting money on Lib dems winning Lewisham..Gone from 25 to 12/1..

Labour's shortlist comprises of mainly BAME candidates...The constituency is over 50% BAME....They will no doubt choose a local campaigner..

Labour were up 8% there in the recent locals and whoever has just quit had a 21,000 majority..

If any of these "punters" want to invest in my future plan to drill for oil in my back garden I will happily oblige them..

@Trussman - whilst last week's local elections showed that in certain areas the Lib Dems 'are back' I can't see them seriously challenging Labour in inner city seats like Lewisham East for any time yet. They are itching for a winnable by-election but Lewisham East won't be it.

Yougov

Con 43
Lab 38

Funny thing about this poll is YG has working class support for Labour at 37%...

With every other pollster Labour are considerably higher..

Every other pollster has the two Parties neck and neck..

Outlier ??....Could be..

Anyone following the Irish referendum on repealing the 8th amendment (i.e. legalising abortion)? Watching this one with interest as it may have a knock-on effect on other countries with strict anti-abortion laws.

Following a recent trend of older/rural voters winning out against younger/urban voters, will this vote buck the trend?

It's an interesting one. Makes me feel hopeful that Ireland is finally putting this on the table. But equally, it makes me feel depressed that we're evening having this debate in 2018.

Exit poll showing a landslide (68:32) for repealing the law - v encouraging if true, and will be interesting to see if there's a ripple effect in other countries with strict abortion laws and in neighbouring Northern Ireland (bet the DUP aren't happy!).

A sad day for Ireland.

MrInvisible wrote:Exit poll showing a landslide (68:32) for repealing the law

No surprises, then.

Duty281 wrote:

MrInvisible wrote:Exit poll showing a landslide (68:32) for repealing the law

No surprises, then.

Margin is a surprise.

Great news and good to see Ireland moving in to the 21st Century..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Great news and good to see Ireland moving in to the 21st Century..

I agree. A few decades later than it should have been made but still they got there in the end.

Northern Ireland will now start to look increasingly isolated with their current tough laws - will be interesting to see what happens there...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/abortion-referendum-likely-to-put-pressure-on-northern-ireland-politicians

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Great news and good to see Ireland moving in to the 21st Century..

Killing babies great news?

Worlds a mess.

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Great news and good to see Ireland moving in to the 21st Century..

Killing babies great news?

Worlds a mess.

Or babies being born after mother has been raped. Certainly not fair to the mother. Or baby born when unplanned/unwanted and born into a terrible situation. Take your pick but to believe that all babies conceived should be born regardless of extreme circumstances is just plain wrong.

If something is intriniscally wrong it cannot be justified by circumstances.

Your logic allows for all actions depending on circumstance. Stupid.

The question is wether we value human life or not.

I do, though who knows why - humanity is a stain on the planet, god the things we do to each other.

Ent wrote:If something is intriniscally wrong it cannot be justified by circumstances.

Your logic allows for all actions depending on circumstance. Stupid.

The question is wether we value human life or not.

I do, though who knows why - humanity is a stain on the planet, god the things we do to each other.

Stupid? Hmm is it stupid to say it is morally, legally and humanly wrong to r*** a woman and impregnate her totally against her will and then expect this woman to give birth to this child whose father is a sex beast and then bring that child up especially if this woman is mentally shattered after her experience and financially in no position to rear the child. Join the 21st century eh and get out of the dark ages.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:If something is intriniscally wrong it cannot be justified by circumstances.

Your logic allows for all actions depending on circumstance. Stupid.

The question is wether we value human life or not.

I do, though who knows why - humanity is a stain on the planet, god the things we do to each other.

Stupid? Hmm is it stupid to say it is morally, legally and humanly wrong to r*** a woman and impregnate her totally against her will and then expect this woman to give birth to this child whose father is a sex beast and then bring that child up especially if this woman is mentally shattered after her experience and financially in no position to rear the child. Join the 21st century eh and get out of the dark ages.

Engage your brain and think about what you are suggesting.

Something is either wrong or it isn't. To allow circumstances to dictate allows said r***ist you have described to be a r***ist based on his circumstances. It allows any crime based on circumstance.

It is a very, very stupid position you adopt.

Ireland has just said yes to legislation allowi unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. In 2014 (last published statistics) less than 0.0075% of pregnancies were due to r*** (r*** crisis centre) 1/4 of these were aborted and 80 % of the live births were parented by the mother.

The r*** argument is a stupid argument used by people who can't really think properly.

Thinking you aren't human until birth is a more sensible argument.

Get an education.

Ent wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Ent wrote:If something is intriniscally wrong it cannot be justified by circumstances.

Your logic allows for all actions depending on circumstance. Stupid.

The question is wether we value human life or not.

I do, though who knows why - humanity is a stain on the planet, god the things we do to each other.

Stupid? Hmm is it stupid to say it is morally, legally and humanly wrong to r*** a woman and impregnate her totally against her will and then expect this woman to give birth to this child whose father is a sex beast and then bring that child up especially if this woman is mentally shattered after her experience and financially in no position to rear the child. Join the 21st century eh and get out of the dark ages.

Engage your brain and think about what you are suggesting.

Something is either wrong or it isn't. To allow circumstances to dictate allows said r***ist you have described to be a r***ist based on his circumstances. It allows any crime based on circumstance.

It is a very, very stupid position you adopt.

Ireland has just said yes to legislation allowi unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. In 2014 (last published statistics) less than 0.0005% of pregnancies were due to r*** (r*** crisis centre) 1/4 of these were aborted and 80 % of the live births were parented by the mother.

The r*** argument is a stupid argument used by people who can't really think properly.

Thinking you aren't human until birth is a more sensible argument.

Get an education.

Thank heavens the Irish who voted and majority of the worlds think different from yourself.

Good refuting the arguments there. Well done.

Just know you live in a society where we allow babies to be killed because they are inconvenient and you do nothing about it.

Anyway I am very passionate about this issue (as you can tell) and there is a huge amount of misinformation out there, despite being able to Google the statistics on your phone.

Apologies for getting personal.

Ent wrote:Just know you live in a society where we allow babies to be killed because they are inconvenient and you do nothing about it.

Agreed, it’s a very sad situation.

World is a mess if a Man r***s you and you have to have his baby..

Health of the Woman should always come before Pro life nutters.....

Sinn Fein appear to be now in favour of legalising abortion in Northern Ireland judging from banners that their leader Mary Lou McDonald was holding over in Dublin. A few comments from both Labour and Tory MPs wanting to see the law changed in Northern Ireland too - DUP will no doubt dig in their heels but Northern Ireland is now starting to look a bit isolated and stuck in a timewarp on this and other issues (e.g. same-sex marriage).

Ent wrote:A sad day for Ireland.

Neither a sad or a good day for Ireland. In my opinion, most Irish people don't want on demand abortion, but there was a serious issue with the health care of women. Some horrific stories told over the last few months by women who have been very poorly treated by the system (including the death of one young Indian woman). Two couples a week travel to the UK to get their child with Fatal foetal abnormality delivered early.

1) Read freakonomics. It is a great book and there is a very interesting chapter on abortion
2) Quality of life. Nobody likes abortions, but at the end of the day a pregnancy and birth at the wrong time of life can absolutely wreck 2 lives (child and mother) and may of course indirectly wreck many more.
3) Physical and mental health. Maybe this is an extension of the first 2 but it is worth pointing out that having a baby is a big deal, both physically and mentally.
4) You can't stop abortions anyway. All you can do is make them safe and legal.

I am a dad. I am immensly proud of my sons and of being a dad. When my wife was pregnant with my 2nd son there was a risk of Downs at one point. Thankfully it came to nothing (nucal fold test and older mother but ended up just being down to being a big baby) and we didn't have to make that decision.

Had he been Downs he may have been OK, or he may have been a millstone that stopped his brother getting attention and put huge pressure on us as a couple and family. Quite frankly if we had been faced with that decision I would have gone with what my wife wanted but could easily live with an abortion and the chance to start again.

I will never get the mentality on display.

You are literally talking about having one of your children killed and being ok with it.

People's lives get wrecked all the time, doesn't mean you can end the life of someone else. This logic can be used for children who have been born already.... ah this 3rd baby is ruining my life and stopping my other 2 children getting attention - euthanasia time.

You are talking about eugenics and getting rid of disabled people essentially.

Ultimately if something is wrong it is wrong and can't be justified by circumstances. So if it is ok to take human life she it is inconvenient for it here should be no age restriction.

lostinwales wrote:1) Read freakonomics. It is a great book and there is a very interesting chapter on abortion 

Ah yes, the legalisation of abortion in certain states has also seen a decline in crime in those same states. A very dangerous, and utterly stupid, line of argument which, if followed through, presumably means we can start killing off those lucky enough to be born who are at risk of committing crime at some point in the future, based entirely off of demographics.

There is no doubt that we value life on a scale - humans, pets, animals for food, insects etc. If we truly value life, why do we value some life more than others? Yet we do, and always have and always will.
Unborn babies are simply somewhere on that scale. The scale varies from individual to individual, hence we can give people an individual choice on abortion.
At a certain point, a certain stage in the development of the foetus - it is a somewhat, but certainly not a wholly arbitrary point - it reaches that point in the scale where society gives it more value and the individual no longer gets to decide, based on the decision of society, and it can no longer be aborted.

This is pretty much how society needs to function. Not everybody will be happy, but that's also how society works.

lostinwales wrote:1) Read freakonomics. It is a great book and there is a very interesting chapter on abortion
2) Quality of life. Nobody likes abortions, but at the end of the day a pregnancy and birth at the wrong time of life can absolutely wreck 2 lives (child and mother) and may of course indirectly wreck many more.
3) Physical and mental health. Maybe this is an extension of the first 2 but it is worth pointing out that having a baby is a big deal, both physically and mentally.
4) You can't stop abortions anyway. All you can do is make them safe and legal.

I am a dad. I am immensly proud of my sons and of being a dad. When my wife was pregnant with my 2nd son there was a risk of Downs at one point. Thankfully it came to nothing (nucal fold test and older mother but ended up just being down to being a big baby) and we didn't have to make that decision.

Had he been Downs he may have been OK, or he may have been a millstone that stopped his brother getting attention and put huge pressure on us as a couple and family. Quite frankly if we had been faced with that decision I would have gone with what my wife wanted but could easily live with an abortion and the chance to start again.

First of all, on-demand abortion will only be up to 12 weeks. It probably wouldn't be there except for the number of women taking abortion pills bought over the internet without medical supervision.

After 12 weeks, abortion will only be available to those where the life of the mother is threatened (FFA, incest, r***, mental health) and will require the approval of two doctors/consultants. Abortion for disability, Down Syndrome etc. will not be an option.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There is no doubt that we value life on a scale - humans, pets, animals for food, insects etc. If we truly value life, why do we value some life more than others? Yet we do, and always have and always will.
Unborn babies are simply somewhere on that scale. The scale varies from individual to individual, hence we can give people an individual choice on abortion.
At a certain point, a certain stage in the development of the foetus - it is a somewhat, but certainly not a wholly arbitrary point - it reaches that point in the scale where society gives it more value and the individual no longer gets to decide, based on the decision of society, and it can no longer be aborted.

This is pretty much how society needs to function. Not everybody will be happy, but that's also how society works.

A somewhat contradictory post;

People can choose to have abortions if they want, but only when we say they can.

Should be all or nothing, if we allow abortion we should allow euthanasia for any dependent a competent adult wishes to end the life of.

There's nothing contradictory about saying there is a point at which life reaches a stage beyond which it is unacceptable to terminate it. We simply disagree at where that point lies.

Is there something contradictory is being anti-abortion but eating meat? Is that not valuing some life over other life?

Ent wrote:I will never get the mentality on display.

You are literally talking about having one of your children killed and being ok with it.

People's lives get wrecked all the time, doesn't mean you can end the life of someone else. This logic can be used for children who have been born already.... ah this 3rd baby is ruining my life and stopping my other 2 children getting attention - euthanasia time.

You are talking about eugenics and getting rid of disabled people essentially.

Ultimately if something is wrong it is wrong and can't be justified by circumstances. So if it is ok to take human life she it is inconvenient for it here should be no age restriction.

Yep. To save the other kids and the rest of the family that is something I am prepared to deal with. Look I think it is fantastic what people do with their children when those children are born disabled. But it is a horrendously difficult task and not one I feel I am up to. If one of my kids now ends up disabled that will be different, because I know them, love them and have invested a great deal of my life in them. There is a line and we have that line in different places, but the survival of the human species isn't at risk. Quality of life is however a big deal.

Are you prepared to be still wiping the bottom of your 40 year old child when you are in your 70's?

And I am not asking you to choose to abort your child, I just don't want you to control somebody else's choice.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:1) Read freakonomics. It is a great book and there is a very interesting chapter on abortion 

Ah yes, the legalisation of abortion in certain states has also seen a decline in crime in those same states. A very dangerous, and utterly stupid, line of argument which, if followed through, presumably means we can start killing off those lucky enough to be born who are at risk of committing crime at some point in the future, based entirely off of demographics.

No it implies that giving people control over when they have children increases the chances that those children grow up loved and cared for, and in turn increases the chance that when they grow up they will be good parents. It is a good argument.

It is also worth pointing out that evidence suggests killing grown up criminals does nothing for crime figures

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There is no doubt that we value life on a scale - humans, pets, animals for food, insects etc. If we truly value life, why do we value some life more than others? Yet we do, and always have and always will.
Unborn babies are simply somewhere on that scale. The scale varies from individual to individual, hence we can give people an individual choice on abortion.
At a certain point, a certain stage in the development of the foetus - it is a somewhat, but certainly not a wholly arbitrary point - it reaches that point in the scale where society gives it more value and the individual no longer gets to decide, based on the decision of society, and it can no longer be aborted.

This is pretty much how society needs to function. Not everybody will be happy, but that's also how society works.

A somewhat contradictory post;

People can choose to have abortions if they want, but only when we say they can.

Should be all or nothing, if we allow abortion we should allow euthanasia for any dependent a competent adult wishes to end the life of.

This is what I don't understand about this whole argument. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. You have no right to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. None at all.

It's a complex one. I would be (reasonably) happy to have a Downs child I think, but there are some horrendous abnormalities I wouldn't want to live with.
Personally, I don't think ~12 weeks is much more than a ball of cells with potential. Extrapolate that and we're back with Python's 'Every sperm is sacred'. Absurd.

For me, I'd draw the line at what's survivable if a baby has to be delivered early - around 24 weeks at best these days. Then again, just because medicine can keep them alive, I'm not sure it's necessarily a good thing every time.

Finally, there are, and have always been, far too many men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There is no doubt that we value life on a scale - humans, pets, animals for food, insects etc. If we truly value life, why do we value some life more than others? Yet we do, and always have and always will.
Unborn babies are simply somewhere on that scale. The scale varies from individual to individual, hence we can give people an individual choice on abortion.
At a certain point, a certain stage in the development of the foetus - it is a somewhat, but certainly not a wholly arbitrary point - it reaches that point in the scale where society gives it more value and the individual no longer gets to decide, based on the decision of society, and it can no longer be aborted.

This is pretty much how society needs to function. Not everybody will be happy, but that's also how society works.

A somewhat contradictory post;

People can choose to have abortions if they want, but only when we say they can.

Should be all or nothing, if we allow abortion we should allow euthanasia for any dependent a competent adult wishes to end the life of.

Not a fan of nuance, are you?

Labour gone from 1/50 to 1/100 to win Lewisham...

Must be getting feedback that the anti Brexit Lib dems are failing to enthuse...

Con 43...Lab 40
Con 41...Lab 41
Con 40...Lab 40
Con 39...Lab 39
Con 42...Lab 38..

Take your pick...

Trump to win 2nd term......5/4

May to go this year.....2/1
Corbyn.........................4/1

No deal Brexit............. 6/4

Next Tory leader...

Gove 6/1

Next Labour leader

Thornberry 5/1

Certainly if I was a betting man I would take 6/1 Gove..

I think May is toast....Gove will get to the final run off and the membership are predominantly Brexiteers..

Gove as PM. Could it get any worse...

There is this thing I aways remember from 'I, Claudius' about how each Caesar would anoint a successor who was worse than them to make them look better in history. Maybe this is May's one hope of not going down in history as our worst ever PM. Corbyn might be able to do that but it is not a given as it would be with Gove.

With a bit of luck Gove might meet a similar fate to Caligula. Hacked down and brutally slaughtered by his own guards.

superflyweight wrote:With a bit of luck Gove might meet a similar fate to Caligula.  Hacked down and brutally slaughtered by his own guards.  

If that happened one would hope that the guards are experts

Paul Dacre is resigning, smart money is on David Davis resigning soon, Theresa May is on her last, feckless legs, Farage is getting his EU pension confiscated and is a “person of interest” in an FBI fraud case and Corbyn is being pushed towards SM membership.

Carlsberg dont do Wednesdays...

Samo wrote:Paul Dacre is resigning, smart money is on David Davis resigning soon, Theresa May is on her last, feckless legs, Farage is getting his EU pension confiscated and is a “person of interest” in an FBI fraud case and Corbyn is being pushed towards SM membership.

Carlsberg dont do Wednesdays...

Corbyn actually attacked the Government's brexit plans today too. I am not sure but it is entirely possible that it is the first time he's done that in 2 years. It is amazing what a man can achieve with 2 E grade A levels

The age old mistake of equating Academic achievement with intelligence..

Brexit will cost us billions and Cameron went to Eton didn't he ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The age old mistake of equating Academic achievement with intelligence..

Brexit will cost us billions and Cameron went to Eton didn't he ??

Oh smart people can have dumb ideas. Dumb people can have dumb ideas too.

To be honest the gap between 'smart' and 'dumb' as far as decision making goes is very narrow. I think a lot of 'smart' primarily means better recall and faster processing of information, plus actually learning to use your brain. I suspect a very great many people try to avoid using their brains at all if they can, but when they have to can perform better than they would expect.

Anyway going to Eton isn't actually a sign of intelligence, just a sign of expensive schooling. Incidently JC got his 2 E grade A levels from a very high performing grammar school having gone to a private prep school, so the quality of his academic education was probably on a par with Cameron. (And I know you are not interested but I went to an average comprehensive but ended up a maths PhD)

Either way, pretty douchey post tbh.

Pr4wn wrote:Either way, pretty douchey post tbh.

Whose?

Bringing A-Level grades into an argument such as this. Kinda cheapens everything else he has to say.

Pr4wn wrote:Bringing A-Level grades into an argument such as this. Kinda cheapens everything else he has to say.

#

Who me? I'll clarify. His A'levels were a long, long time ago, and should not necessarily relate to what he is capable of. But it is more evidence that maybe he isn't that capable in the first place.

I do think it is interesting that there is a correlation between academic achievement and voting remain. Seems like JC fits that correlation.

Shocking week for the Tories.  

Con 44 +2
Lab 37 -2

I don't understand it..Perhaps this Islamophobia stuff is playing well with Ukipers..