UK Politics Omnishambles: Page 147 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One more in the Tolly

UK Politics Omnishambles

jones

I'll be honest this was handled outrageously poor, almost like those who seem to have good intentions tried to sabotage their efforts. How could anyone look at the current ancient law and think "yea decriminalisation of the woman's involvement in an abortion is a good fix" without considering the optics of it, blatantly obvious this was going to be the response online and while @JazzG views can be dodgy he's right this will most likely blowback and swing the other way. Just trash the entire law and redraft it from scratch.

Having looked into it I think it's shocking there's no mandatory pregnancy conflict counselling in the UK.

JazzG

That is the thing, people in this country I'd say broadly support abortion laws, now if you ask them specifically are they happy for abortions up to birth to be decriminalised without any reason you'll probably get a very different response. All it will take is for a case or two to blow up in the media and watch the optics around this change very dramatically. Suddenly it becomes a case which can be politically weaponised. Like you say this should have been handled differently, I don't think anyone supports mothers who have had late miscarriages or valid reasons to abort being dragged through the courts.

RTC article from Lewis Goodall is just him pulling the same shit that some right wing people are. He is just playing with words. Those on the left are saying abortion has not been legalised up to birth, those on the right are saying they are. Technically speaking a mother can abort her baby up to birth and not get in any legal trouble. It is just illegal for a medical professional to administer that abortion. Both sides are just seeing things from their own view point. MP Stella Creasley wanted to take the bill further and essentially make it legal to abort up to birth. She then even had the cheek to write in the guardian and I quote "as if we can stop the public being dragged to the extremes if we speak in hushed tones or water down our ambitions for social justice.”. This woman clearly lives on US Twitter and making it out like the Republicans are now gonna march into Britain and snatch Abortion rights away from women. This amendment was even too extreme for pro abortion groups!

jones while @JazzG views can be dodgy he's right this

Hell has truly frozen over! You are too kind jones 😉

awooga83

JazzG politics has already become toxic jazz, the UK has been infected like everywhere else t's not this legislation that will do that it's already in politics now.

As the legislation, again I would say what were the stats that's the context needed how many people were doing the action you are concerned with versus the total number impacted that most would say was not warranted. That's the calculation when they are making these decisions what's the proportionality for the public good as a whole if many more age being adversely impacted then it's not great legislation. Even more so if you go through a police investigation and court case with all the money that will cost only to dismiss it when it gets there. Given how much you abhor public money being wasted surely that resonates with your own belief system.

jones

JazzG you have to be fair and reasonable at some point. Just because you've been wrong about every issue here since forever doesn't mean you're in the wrong here

JazzG

awooga83 It has become toxic and Labour aren't gonna win this battle if they want to play at that game. Like I said I think there would be good support for changing the law to stop going after women when not needed rather than saying fuck it, do what you like.

I'm more against waste for trivial shit, if a woman has terminated her pregnancy late on without valid reason, I wouldn't class that trivial.

awooga83

JazzG yeah but my point was you spend the money in the 90-95%% of cases where police and courts do this only to take no action that is a waste of public money given that's what the majority of the cases are. Not too mention the additional distress to those women.

JazzG

It does feel like Starmer's grip on the party has been slipping over the past few months, if this Welfare reform bill is killed would seriously undermine him. A lot of political capital by him has been spent on this and winter allowances. They've U turned on that and looks like the Welfare bill might be nerfed by his own MPs.

JazzG

awooga83 I am all for exploring every option to ensure that the high % of cases where it leads to nowhere gets reduced, we don't want to be harassing already traumatised women.

But I also feel strongly that there is a human baby growing in those women, as a society do we just let these babies be killed right up to birth and just shrug our shoulders?

awooga83

JazzG from a moral or ethical position that's totally valid jazz, but the law currently doesn't ascribe rights or protection to an unborn baby. Only when they are born born alive. Clearly everybody is entitled to a view but it's far more complex and nuanced then just keep the other law etc which was drafted in a totally different era and meant that if you didn't follow the exact stipulations (e.g Any woman who undergoes an abortion without the permission of two doctors – for example by ordering
pills online – can be prosecuted and receive a life sentence as her abortion takes place outside of the
provisions of the Act.) it suggests this was not good legislation and when considered in balance was doing much more harm then good given the proportion of the cases and that's what legislation has to consider, proportionally of it's application.

Of course you can still have a view on what legislation should be drafted but the current law doesn't actually offer the protection you might be in favour of and if you want to draft legislation you have to work out how are you going to distinguish the majority of cases which you don't take issue with from these minority and at some point you tell a woman that they don't get to have autonomy for their own body and the state will punish them for it. That's a massively complex and ethical problem in and of itself. In the same line of your thinking do we tell women they don't get to decide what happens with their own body and the government enforced it even though the law doesn't technically recognise an unborn baby. Again not saying one side is the "right" perspective but it's not quite as binary as it's explained.

JazzG

jones Good to see you starting to come round to my way of thinking, you've started your journey now. Before you know you'll be a full on Capitalist right wing nutter like me 😉

Burnwinter

As I understand it, so far three quarters of MPs and the public statements of lots of medical colleges and the BMA, and the great majority of women's advocacy groups and charities support the move to decriminalise after 24 weeks?

Should we wonder if there's something in the conditions or prospects of pregnant mothers, those that might lead to late terminations, that opponents of decriminalisation haven't fully considered?

JazzG

I don’t really like the woman but that is a difficult watch, she’s basically finished. Her colleagues have basically ditched her, Starmer oblivious to her being in that state.

They are saying it might be a personal matter which is fine but in that case she shouldn’t be there. After humiliation yesterday the optics are pretty bad.

Agree with him, the treasury get what the treasury want!

I do feel for her but they’ve all bought it on themselves. I think she’ll resign rather than being sacked.

[edit]

Markets a bit jittery. Something I read yesterday that Reeves does for now have the support of the markets, partially because they are worried about what follows if she leaves.

awooga83

JazzG who knows what's behind it people often forget that you have no idea what's going on in someone's life outside of what you see. Is all well and good saying you shouldn't be there but people make different decisions and they might think they can cope and then something comes out. I think her trapping herself with these fiscal rules that they elevated front and centre is the catastrophic mistake that could cost her and labour longer term.

Burnwinter

Oh no, a rebellion by backbench Labour parliamentarians has forced Starmer to remove plans to restrict eligibility for specific social payments. Poor, poor Rachel Reeves who won't be able to keep up with the imaginary household deficit rhetoric of the Tory press, this is certainly the worst moment in UK Labour history.

JazzG

Burnwinter this is certainly the worst moment in UK Labour history.

That will probably be at the next election….

JazzG

Burnwinter Oh no, a rebellion by backbench Labour parliamentarians has forced Starmer to remove plans to restrict eligibility for specific social payments. Poor, poor Rachel Reeves who won't be able to keep up with the imaginary household deficit rhetoric of the Tory press

Agreed, we should just keep raising tax and keep pissing it away on benefits.

RocktheCasbah

JazzG I'd happily pay more tax if it helped people worse off than myself get back on their feet again. And I work in the Third Sector, so not exactly swimming in cash.

Burnwinter

JazzG Agreed, we should just keep raising tax and keep pissing it away on benefits.

My point's if you think Starmer getting rolled by his backbench and dragooned into upsetting his Chancellor in a move that protects current social payments is a bad day for Labour, you've missed a trick. That's a decent day for that lot.

JazzG

RocktheCasbah The amount we are spending on benefits is at an all time high, what makes you think ploughing more money into this will fix anything? Record funding in the NHS yet services are an absolute shambles. Yet nobody

Starmer’s welfare bill was a load of rubbish and not really going to fix anything but there is need for need for major reform and nobody seems to have the stomach for it.

The sheer thought of this seems to horrify people, nobody is talking about throwing the disabled off benefits but the system is being abused on unbelievable scale and in some cases trapping people. This is simply not sustainable, we already pay sky high taxes and just saying you’d happily pay more isn’t going to resolve anything. I’ll give you an example of Motability scheme, 1 in 5 new cars are bought through that. Being an alcoholic supposedly qualifies you for this.

RowJimmy

JazzG and in some cases trapping people

JazzG

Look at that jump in in the last 6 years, something is going seriously wrong. As a first world country we should look after our elderly, sick and disabled but we also can’t absorb these numbers.

3000 people being signed off every day and onto benefits, all good saying you’re happy to pay more tax but this is going to end in disaster.

Pepe LeFrits

JazzG Look at that jump in in the last 6 years, something is going seriously wrong.

Most likely true but to assume that it's people taking the piss rather than it being actually needed would be to jump to the wrong conclusion.

There is a rapidly growing mental health crisis and obesity crisis in most western countries and I doubt the UK is any different

« Previous Page Next Page »