2020 Labour Leadership Election

[brucejoel99]

I seriously would not trust Red Roar to tell me what colour the sky above my head was.

RLB has already rebutted this convincingly.

To the church? Because I mean, yeah, I'm aware of the RR's bias & spin, but if this was aimed at a Catholic audience, then the "rebutting" doesn't make things better, hence why I prefaced it with "If this is true."

[CumbrianLefty]

I mean, its over 90% certain I am putting Starmer as my first choice - but this attack does not convince.

[afleitch]

Lisa Nandy demonstrating she knows nothing about Scotland.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A surprising development: rather than simply endorse the designated Left candidates as expected, TSSA will be balloting its members on a selected range of options. For Leader, either Starmer or Long Bailey. For Deputy, either Rayner or Allin-Khan. I've no idea what the balloted members are likely to plump for, but Long Bailey would presumably have preferred a straight-up endorsement. But it's even worse news for a certain Large Adult Nephew...

[brucejoel99]

Lisa Nandy demonstrating she knows nothing about Scotland.

She obviously wasn't suggesting that the police go & beat up Scottish nationalists & imprison Nicola Sturgeon. She said Labour needs to look to the few examples in history wherein socialism has beaten nationalism. The socialists weren't even in power when the big post-referendum crackdown took place.

[DaWN]

I actually have some sympathy with RLB - I'm personally deeply split on abortion and it would be great if we, as a country, can avoid coming anywhere close to the poisonous discourse on the issue found in the US.

She is still utterly and completely hopeless, would be a truly appalling leader and the final nail in the coffin of a once-proud party, but I will happily admit when I feel at least some sympathy towards her.

[CumbrianLefty]

Lisa Nandy demonstrating she knows nothing about Scotland.

She obviously wasn't suggesting that the police go & beat up Scottish nationalists & imprison Nicola Sturgeon

She's bright (contrary to what somebody suggested upthread) but also slightly unworldly in a way that the offspring of academics can be. Phillips is less clever, but "streetwise" enough to express a hard line unionist position without (on this occasion, anyway) putting her foot in her mouth.

[Zinneke]

Lisa Nandy demonstrating she knows nothing about Scotland.

She obviously wasn't suggesting that the police go & beat up Scottish nationalists & imprison Nicola Sturgeon

She's bright (contrary to what somebody suggested upthread) but also slightly unworldly in a way that the offspring of academics can be. Phillips is less clever, but "streetwise" enough to express a hard line unionist position without (on this occasion, anyway) putting her foot in her mouth.

I'm sorry, I know it's still far off to evaluate these candidates based on whether they'd be a good PM (which since Blair especially has been heavily foreign policy orientated role) but starting to make comparisons between Scottish and Catalan nationalists on one side and the populist Right on the other with the simple argument that they all call themselves nationalists, is either being intellectually dishonest with her electorate, or proof that she knows diddly squat about political cultures outside of Westminster and "the town's". Which is concerning if your picking a potential PM candidate. And that's not mentioning the distasteful way she insinuated that the PSOE hardline response to Catalonia was a great thing (albeit much better than the PP response.).

Then there's her Brexit position...full of contradictions like why she didn't take Kinnocks stance of voting for May's deal knowing that binning it could pave the way for hard Brexit. Or saying she is sticking up for Northerners disgruntled with immigration and foreign capital but wants the 4 freedoms maintained.

Her overall manner and calmness is admirable though.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yesterday's "revelation" about RLB has seen certain centrist/Blairite types (including, of course, some who have been extremely vocal about the need to root out AS within the party without fear or favour) indulging in some particularly crude and witless anti-Catholic bigotry.

This really is not at all big or clever. STOP IT NOW.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yesterday's "revelation" about RLB has seen certain centrist/Blairite types (including, of course, some who have been extremely vocal about the need to root out AS within the party without fear or favour) indulging in some particularly crude and witless anti-Catholic bigotry.

This really is not at all big or clever. STOP IT NOW.

The worst stuff has come from Paul 'Midlife' Mason, who o/c is neither and even went to an RC school... but does seem to be having a Completely Normal One about his background at present; you also had that bizarre rant about how everyone in his hometown (Leigh) is basically a fascist these days. Odd duck.

[CumbrianLefty]

I actually posted that before Paul "Spice" Mason made his invaluable contribution.

(it was the new head of Progress who helped get the ball rolling yesterday, and pro-Phillips TERFs like Hadley Freeman have waded in - not to mention Oliver "biggest brain in the universe" Kamm)

Anyhow, away from this madness the new YouGov on the contest has (to use the current parlance) dropped - it has Starmer extending his final margin over RLB to 63-37. Also a first round win for Rayner.

[Lord Halifax]

https://twitter.com/CLPNominations/status/1218110853658136578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etf...

[CumbrianLefty]

This is weird, but I am oddly liking RLB more and more as the campaign moves on.

Still very unlikely to put her number 1, but her speech tonight was impressive.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Awfully tempted to support RLB if she's getting anti-Catholic attacks for not being Maximum Woke on abortion...but no, I still think she'd probably be a disaster overall.

[afleitch]

Awfully tempted to support RLB if she's getting anti-Catholic attacks for not being Maximum Woke on abortion...but no, I still think she'd probably be a disaster overall.

She's not really getting 'attacked' for it. Certainly she's being attacked in lieu of being a perceived Momentum stooge and telling priests she'd advocate for them when there's little difference between how lay Catholics view the current legislation versus other Christian faiths and the non religious. Much of the 'omg it's anti-Catholic' seems to be coming from the right wing media who can get traction out of such headlines and don't give a sh-t about her or Labour. Indeed a quick search shows in the top 3 stories from each newspaper it's in 2 for the Telegraph, 1 for the Times, 1 for the Sun (including a 'she took drugs' story) and none in the Mirror, Guardian etc.

And personally for me there's nothing 'Maximum Woke' (curiously phrased as 'woke literati' in one of the Telegraph articles :/ ) in supporting fifty year old fairly restrictive legislation which even maximum choice pro-choice advocates are reluctant to touch less it upset the balance and toxify/Americanise the issue into some macabre team sport.

The Church are itching to open that box and she does herself no favours in throwing them meat.

[CumbrianLefty]

Awfully tempted to support RLB if she's getting anti-Catholic attacks for not being Maximum Woke on abortion...but no, I still think she'd probably be a disaster overall.

I am warming to the idea of her being Shadow Chancellor if Starmer wins. A good move both on a practical level (she has a very good head for detail) and symbolic (it would hugely encourage those on the left worried that he would simply "roll back" what many see as the positive aspects of Corbynism)

[afleitch]

On reflection, I'm not seeing anything vastly different from the candidates policy wise; it's about mantle carrying and I guess ultimately about providing an ideological caretaker. Because, the public almost bought it in 2017. Almost. So I can see the need for staying true to that vision in the hope that Brexit and the Tories are a sh-tshow and Labour offering up that platform for a third time to a fickle electorate could get lucky. It's why it's not really like '1983', because 2017 wasn't. The concern is though that the demographic shifts continue amongst the northern WWC, which if anything is probably going to see a much more insular socialism offered.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Awfully tempted to support RLB if she's getting anti-Catholic attacks for not being Maximum Woke on abortion...but no, I still think she'd probably be a disaster overall.

She's not really getting 'attacked' for it. Certainly she's being attacked in lieu of being a perceived Momentum stooge and telling priests she'd advocate for them when there's little difference between how lay Catholics view the current legislation versus other Christian faiths and the non religious. Much of the 'omg it's anti-Catholic' seems to be coming from the right wing media who can get traction out of such headlines and don't give a sh-t about her or Labour. Indeed a quick search shows in the top 3 stories from each newspaper it's in 2 for the Telegraph, 1 for the Times, 1 for the Sun (including a 'she took drugs' story) and none in the Mirror, Guardian etc.

And personally for me there's nothing 'Maximum Woke' (curiously phrased as 'woke literati' in one of the Telegraph articles :/ ) in supporting fifty year old fairly restrictive legislation which even maximum choice pro-choice advocates are reluctant to touch less it upset the balance and toxify/Americanise the issue into some macabre team sport.

The Church are itching to open that box and she does herself no favours in throwing them meat.

Thanks for clarifying the situation.

[CumbrianLefty]

The first GE I was properly involved in was 1983 - and without at all understating the severity of Labour's reverse last month (it was, in almost any way you care to name, extremely serious) the simple fact remains that 28-26 screams "potential existential crisis" in a way that 33-12 does not.

[afleitch]

Awfully tempted to support RLB if she's getting anti-Catholic attacks for not being Maximum Woke on abortion...but no, I still think she'd probably be a disaster overall.

She's not really getting 'attacked' for it. Certainly she's being attacked in lieu of being a perceived Momentum stooge and telling priests she'd advocate for them when there's little difference between how lay Catholics view the current legislation versus other Christian faiths and the non religious. Much of the 'omg it's anti-Catholic' seems to be coming from the right wing media who can get traction out of such headlines and don't give a sh-t about her or Labour. Indeed a quick search shows in the top 3 stories from each newspaper it's in 2 for the Telegraph, 1 for the Times, 1 for the Sun (including a 'she took drugs' story) and none in the Mirror, Guardian etc.

And personally for me there's nothing 'Maximum Woke' (curiously phrased as 'woke literati' in one of the Telegraph articles :/ ) in supporting fifty year old fairly restrictive legislation which even maximum choice pro-choice advocates are reluctant to touch less it upset the balance and toxify/Americanise the issue into some macabre team sport.

The Church are itching to open that box and she does herself no favours in throwing them meat.

Thanks for clarifying the situation.

It's not really clarification; just my opinion of the coverage of it. If she feels under attack because of her faith (though it appears to be others saying she is, I don't know if she's made a statement), it would be unfair of me to say it's not real for her.

I think she is right to be angry at Red Roar for partially quoting her, when she specifically said that the law wouldn't be under review, in either direction, with Labour but given she said what she said during the same time colleague Stella Creasy was being directly targeted by anti-abortion groups (which got woefully low coverage, despite tipping close to being harassment under UK law) rightfully some in Labour are a little sensitive.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure I want to open this can of worms, but I've got to say, if my understanding of the current law is correct, then it really should be changed. Like, does it really allow abortion at any point until birth if the fetus is disabled? So the fetus is a person after 24 weeks if it's healthy but not if it isn't? How is this not a massive discrimination? Surely even if you're fully pro-choice otherwise you can see a problem here.

[afleitch]

I'm not sure I want to open this can of worms, but I've got to say, if my understanding of the current law is correct, then it really should be changed. Like, does it really allow abortion at any point until birth if the fetus is disabled? So the fetus is a person after 24 weeks if it's healthy but not if it isn't? How is this not a massive discrimination? Surely even if you're fully pro-choice otherwise you can see a problem here.

The text of the law is; 'that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.' Archaic language aside, it's a very tight provision, even taking into account societal changes and advances in testing and screening.

Over 24 week terminations account for 0.1% of all abortions undertaken in England and Wales and are often only recommended in cases of severe abnormality.

Indeed in Scotland, where I have easier access to statistics, abortions over 18 weeks have fallen from 10% to less than 1% over the past 40 years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure I want to open this can of worms, but I've got to say, if my understanding of the current law is correct, then it really should be changed. Like, does it really allow abortion at any point until birth if the fetus is disabled? So the fetus is a person after 24 weeks if it's healthy but not if it isn't? How is this not a massive discrimination? Surely even if you're fully pro-choice otherwise you can see a problem here.

The text of the law is; 'that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.' Archaic language aside, it's a very tight provision, even taking into account societal changes and advances in testing and screening.

Over 24 week terminations account for 0.1% of all abortions undertaken in England and Wales and are often only recommended in cases of severe abnormality.

Well, that's 0.1% too much. "Seriously handicapped" people still have exactly as much of a right to life as anybody else. The parents should have a right to leave the baby as a ward of the state if they don't feel they can take on that responsibility (no judgment there, of course), but there is no defensible grounds to allow abortion for a specific category of people that are considered "unfit". It's eugenics, plain and simple.

Between this and the fact that twice already the British judiciary has acted like a literal death panel and ordered a child to be removed from treatment against the wishes of his parents, I'm starting to think there's something deeply sick about this country.

[afleitch]

I'm not sure I want to open this can of worms, but I've got to say, if my understanding of the current law is correct, then it really should be changed. Like, does it really allow abortion at any point until birth if the fetus is disabled? So the fetus is a person after 24 weeks if it's healthy but not if it isn't? How is this not a massive discrimination? Surely even if you're fully pro-choice otherwise you can see a problem here.

The text of the law is; 'that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.' Archaic language aside, it's a very tight provision, even taking into account societal changes and advances in testing and screening.

Over 24 week terminations account for 0.1% of all abortions undertaken in England and Wales and are often only recommended in cases of severe abnormality.

Well, that's 0.1% too much. "Seriously handicapped" people still have exactly as much of a right to life as anybody else. The parents should have a right to leave the baby as a ward of the state if they don't feel they can take on that responsibility (no judgment there, of course), but there is no defensible grounds to allow abortion for a specific category of people that are considered "unfit". It's eugenics, plain and simple.

Between this and the fact that twice already the British judiciary has acted like a literal death panel and ordered a child to be removed from treatment against the wishes of his parents, I'm starting to think there's something deeply sick about this country.

Antonio.

Most of these 0.1% of terminations after 24 weeks (which is what RLB was discussing) are due to conditions such as anencephaly or other lethal conditions where death occurs immediately after birth. Unless you think woman should be obliged to carry to stillbirth. Abortions after 18 weeks, tend to happen due to delays in the bodies response to gestation (continuing menstrual bleeding for example) They are also disproportionate in some BAME communities where there can be a reluctance or lack of understanding in utilising NHS pre-natal care. Indeed the UK's extensive and supportive pre-natal care has reduced the number of abortions that take place later in a pregnancy.

In all cases, a doctors consent remains.

[Walmart_shopper]

I'm not sure I want to open this can of worms, but I've got to say, if my understanding of the current law is correct, then it really should be changed. Like, does it really allow abortion at any point until birth if the fetus is disabled? So the fetus is a person after 24 weeks if it's healthy but not if it isn't? How is this not a massive discrimination? Surely even if you're fully pro-choice otherwise you can see a problem here.

The text of the law is; 'that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.' Archaic language aside, it's a very tight provision, even taking into account societal changes and advances in testing and screening.

Over 24 week terminations account for 0.1% of all abortions undertaken in England and Wales and are often only recommended in cases of severe abnormality.

Well, that's 0.1% too much. "Seriously handicapped" people still have exactly as much of a right to life as anybody else. The parents should have a right to leave the baby as a ward of the state if they don't feel they can take on that responsibility (no judgment there, of course), but there is no defensible grounds to allow abortion for a specific category of people that are considered "unfit". It's eugenics, plain and simple.

Between this and the fact that twice already the British judiciary has acted like a literal death panel and ordered a child to be removed from treatment against the wishes of his parents, I'm starting to think there's something deeply sick about this country.

All of Ireland (and Scotland) wants to know why you only now just figured this out.

In any case, the argument for legal abortion is always a reductio ad absurdum. The argument against legal abortion is always a reductio ad finitum. In other words, either abortion should be totally legal because a person isn't a person or it should be totally illegal because a person is always a person. A healthy 24 week old fetus isn't any more deserving of life than a 22 or 20 or 18 and on and on week-old fetus. Either they are all deserving of life or none are. And a disfigured fetus us no less deserving of life than a healthy one. We talk about fetuses the in ways that would be totally unacceptable with regards to other persons, and think it's okay because they're gestational.