Corbyn to be PM within 6 months?

[Psamathe]

England's NHS is devolved too, it can do what it likes. That isnt discrimination either.
It isnt their job to try and provide equitable treatment to those of the devolved powers in other regions.

Or we could drop taxes and services in Wales and just send everybody over to England for free treatment. :mrgreen:

It is up to England to set its provisions - which it has now done.

If I (as a British Citizen) go to NI I expect to get NHS treatment in line with their provisions and not be be discriminated against because I'm from England. So reasonable that people from NI can expect to receive treatment in England in line with provisions by the English NHS.

Should be be be banning anybody from Saudi Arabia from going into our pubs because their own laws (in Saudi Arabia) ban drinking/sale of alcohol ?

Ian

[blackbike]

JC's only redeeming feature is that he is a supporter of brexit.

Tony Benn was too, and he was another lefty with limited appeal to the wider electorate.

[meic]

If I (as a British Citizen) go to NI I expect to get NHS treatment in line with their provisions

Yes but that isnt the same as going to NI just in order to get their NHS treatment.

If you come to Wales just to get a free prescription, you will be disappointed (or at least legally should be).
http://gov.wales/topics/health/nhswales ... s/?lang=en

Its called devolution!

[pwa]

There is an obvious point, a fertilised egg.

How about the eighth amendment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Am ... of_Ireland

I'm not Irish, but I don't feel that it is appropriate to take rights away from a mother to grant them to a fetus.

What if, hypothetically, your blood could save someone else's life? Could the state require you to give it? What if your kidney could save someone's life? You have two, maybe it's okay to forcibly remove one?

Is it ethical to force a mother to carry a child to term? Most women experience some effects that are a result of pregnancy long after they have delivered; effects such as prolapse and incontinence are the most common, but pregnancy and child birth also cause many other problems, including an increased probability of death.

Is it ethical to require a mother to risk these problems without even knowing if the fertilised egg can become a viable human being?

Without trying to answer any of your questions directly (and they are getting a bit OT anyway) you are skirting around the central issue that marks the schism on this matter: how do we deal with the emergence of a new human life that exists for nine months within another human life, and how do we value both of those lives at the same time, especially if their interests come into conflict. It is a very complicated and, for me, disturbing area of ethics. I worry that those of us with concerns about abortion being resorted to too readily are being made to feel that we are uncaring and prehistoric when, in fact, some of us think about this from all angles and do not reject the idea of abortion in extreme circumstances. But is bothers me that the number of children being born with Down's is falling, which is because of selective abortion. Do we look at people with Down's and see them as so inferior and troublesome that it would be better if they had never been born?

[meic]

Do we look at people with Down's and see them as so inferior and troublesome that it would be better if they had never been born?

The answer is yes, even to the point that we will kill 1 in 600 non-Down's fetuses in the process of finding out if a fetus is a Down's so that we can abort it.

This was the first time that my wife (and I*) had to consider whether we would abort, what if the test came up positive? Having decided that we would not abort, it made no sense to risk the baby through taking the test.

I find many internet references to a total elimination in Iceland but they are all of a suspiciously similar origin, so I doubt its validity.

* One of those modern women who felt that parents have joint responsibility, even if she does always hold the veto.

[pete75]

unless Jezza goes the whole hog and sends the educated classes to work on farms until they die

Hmmmm not all the "educated classes" are so namby pamby farm work would kill them. You may well be but most aren't. Anyway you should be grateful to the many East Europeans working on farms so you don't have to.

[PH]

So I would be looking at 20 to 1 against him now the Tories are shifting on public sector pay and some of their anti pensioner policies.
Al

Are you offering those odds are are you just talk?
I posted Ladbrokes odds on page 1 of this thread, they haven't changed. Tories and Labour are both evens to form the next government.
Corbyn to become PM at some time is 6/4. That's the bookies betting it's more likely than not.
Your predictions are wildly different to those who are actually doing the betting rather than the talking.

[Psamathe]

.....
Its called devolution!

Exactly, (as I keep saying) England deciding what rules apply to devolved matters in England (like charging British Citizens for certain NHS services). Why should NI start objecting when England makes a decision about an issue the affects only England on a devolved matter ? If NI, Scotland & wales want to make their devolved decisions then let England do the same!

Ian

[meic]

Why should NI start objecting when England makes a decision about an issue the affects only England on a devolved matter

I dont think that they ever have. All of the complaints have been from English about how the NI conduct the NI health service.

[Cyril Haearn]

Can anyone explain the how the odds are calculated and expressed? Why are they called *odds*?

What is the difference between 10/3 and 100/30?

I think if the odds are 100/1 it means the event is rather unlikely but I could multiply my stake by 100, right?

Gambling is apparently a big problem in society, there are lots of betting shops. Does anyone here gamble?

Diolch yn fawr iawn

[PH]

Can anyone explain the how the odds are calculated and expressed? Why are they called *odds*?

What is the difference between 10/3 and 100/30?

I think if the odds are 100/1 it means the event is rather unlikely but I could multiply my stake by 100, right?

Gambling is apparently a big problem in society, there are lots of betting shops. Does anyone here gamble?

Diolch yn fawr iawn

odds can be looked at as winnings or probability. Like all fractions they can be reduced by a common denominator, so there is no difference between 10/3 and 100/30.
Take that as the example:
Win - For every £3 you bet you could win £10
Probability - 3/(10+3) = 23 The event has a 23% probability
Realistically though bookies don't operate as a charity, add at least 10% either way to work out what they're actually predicting.
I like a bet now and again, particularly when I see something quoted as less likely to happen than I think. I have a few quid on Corbyn becoming PM at better odds than are current. I'm already up by betting he'd be leader at the last election.

[landsurfer]

2ND FAVOURITES .... in minor races .....
We have been to Cheltenham Ladies Day 4 times and on the basis of 2nd favourites we have made profits every time .... pennies not pounds but fun.

Friends are followers of the Turf ... they go to race meetings with £500 to lose ... to lose!
Part of the price of their day out .... a lot cheaper than an F1 event ...
They have never lost at the meetings we have accompanied them to ...
And we have always won a quid or 2 lol

[pete75]

Part of the price of their day out .... a lot cheaper than an F1 event ...

Is F1 expensive? Haven't been for a long time but always used to go to British Grand Prix and the International Trophy at Silverstone which was a Grand Prix in all but name. It was a cheap day out I thought - often even the bars were free. Maybe dad working for a firm that made F1 cars helped though.

[Vorpal]

Do we look at people with Down's and see them as so inferior and troublesome that it would be better if they had never been born?

The answer is yes, even to the point that we will kill 1 in 600 non-Down's fetuses in the process of finding out if a fetus is a Down's so that we can abort it.

This was the first time that my wife (and I*) had to consider whether we would abort, what if the test came up positive? Having decided that we would not abort, it made no sense to risk the baby through taking the test.

I find many internet references to a total elimination in Iceland but they are all of a suspiciously similar origin, so I doubt its validity.

* One of those modern women who felt that parents have joint responsibility, even if she does always hold the veto.

I have to admit that is not a reason for abortion that I am entirely uncomfortable with. When I was pregnant with Littlest, I was told that due to my age, and ultrasound results, they considered us very high risk for Down's symdrome. They recommended amniocentesis (they stick a needle in and take out some fluid, which can be genetically tested). They suggested that I should have the test early rather than late because of the limit on when I could have an abortion. There is a small risk associated with the test (there is a slightly increased miscarriage rate among women who have had that test), and I didn't feel that it would affect the outcome (I was not going to abort), so I didn't have the test.

[blackbike]

Labour's deputy leader says Corbyn is secure as leader and calls for party unity.

That is a sure sign that all is not well.

It reminds me of a vote of confidence from a chairman to a football manager.

Who knows where JC will be in 6 months?

Given the Labour Party's divisions I'd say the back benches, where he spent three decades without ever being given a front bench post and where was often a rebel who disobeyed the leadership, are more likely than No 10.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n#comments