Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
“Who is coaching her for PMQs?”
I would. Except I’m frightened if it went wrong she would shout and yell and throw things at me. 😕
Lots of Labour governments are famous for people yelling at and being nasty to each other and their ministry officials, and there is zero need for that childish behaviour tbh.
An insight into quite how thin-skinned and intolerant of dissent some of those on the American Right really are. These are really angry people, and reflexively authoritarian.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
The problem is that most of the spending - as I detailed below - is mandated by law. And Congress will need to change the law.
It's also the case that the vast majority of spending is not on civil servants, but on people. People who voted. And many of whom did not vote for Trump.
Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Support for Low Income Americans, and Debt Interest make up around 70% of the US budget - and maybe more.
The place where there is the most opportunity to cut costs is undoubtedly healthcare, where the US system is hideously expensive. (The US federal government spends more, as a percentage of GDP, on healthcare than the UK government. And we get universal healthcare, and they do not.)
But changing this would require wholesale reform of the entire system, way beyond merely allowing Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate drug prices*.
The fundamental problem is that medical procedures cost at least 5x more in the US than in the UK**, because (a) doctors are paid much more, (b) hospitals get sued all the time, and (c) the process of charging is incredibly complicated because hospitals are private institutions that have many different contracts.
* Medicare/Medicaid between them spend around $150bn a year on prescription medicines, which works out as about 8% of total US government healthcare spending.
** A MRI scan in the US typically costs around $3,000 against around £400 in the UK.
I've heard it suggested that negotiating the drug prices would mean a reduction in spending of 70% - thoughts?
A 70% reduction on $150bn would save about $90bn a year - i.e. more than the entire budget of the Department of Education. It would be amazing if the US government could push it through.
However, it would require a change in the law, and the pharmaceutical companies have some of the most expensive and best lobbyists in the world. Their pitch will be: if you do this, then we'll have to cut back dramatically on R&D spending and then we won't cure cancer. Or - worse - that the Chinese will cure cancer, and then we'll all be in hock to China.
Can Trump persuade essentially every Republican Congressman to vote through a change? Well, we'll see, but there are going to be some Congressmen in districts where Pharma companies have massive facilities, and they will have a lot of pull.
Oh indeed. It would be one of the few populist measures that would be
1) Popular among the vast majority of the population, not just the MAGA mob 2) Be vaguely sensible 3) Actually achieve what it sets out to do.
I therefore think it very unlikely to happen.
I don't believe the 70% figure, as noted above.
But given Congress has already voted through similar measures (albeit not across the board) under Biden, and there's significant Democratic support for such policies, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as Robert suggests to get them to pass a coherent bill.
Musk might need to chat with his cost cutting partner in crime Ramaswany, whose fortune was founded in biotech.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
I suspect there are more "Badenoch-ites" than there were "Sunak-ites".
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
(Germany are blocking Eurofighter sales to places which are Britain's ally but not so much Germany's, but they finally agreed the planes could go to a NATO ally, even if it's Turkey.)
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
The problem is that most of the spending - as I detailed below - is mandated by law. And Congress will need to change the law.
It's also the case that the vast majority of spending is not on civil servants, but on people. People who voted. And many of whom did not vote for Trump.
Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Support for Low Income Americans, and Debt Interest make up around 70% of the US budget - and maybe more.
The place where there is the most opportunity to cut costs is undoubtedly healthcare, where the US system is hideously expensive. (The US federal government spends more, as a percentage of GDP, on healthcare than the UK government. And we get universal healthcare, and they do not.)
But changing this would require wholesale reform of the entire system, way beyond merely allowing Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate drug prices*.
The fundamental problem is that medical procedures cost at least 5x more in the US than in the UK**, because (a) doctors are paid much more, (b) hospitals get sued all the time, and (c) the process of charging is incredibly complicated because hospitals are private institutions that have many different contracts.
* Medicare/Medicaid between them spend around $150bn a year on prescription medicines, which works out as about 8% of total US government healthcare spending.
** A MRI scan in the US typically costs around $3,000 against around £400 in the UK.
I've heard it suggested that negotiating the drug prices would mean a reduction in spending of 70% - thoughts?
A 70% reduction on $150bn would save about $90bn a year - i.e. more than the entire budget of the Department of Education. It would be amazing if the US government could push it through.
However, it would require a change in the law, and the pharmaceutical companies have some of the most expensive and best lobbyists in the world. Their pitch will be: if you do this, then we'll have to cut back dramatically on R&D spending and then we won't cure cancer. Or - worse - that the Chinese will cure cancer, and then we'll all be in hock to China.
Can Trump persuade essentially every Republican Congressman to vote through a change? Well, we'll see, but there are going to be some Congressmen in districts where Pharma companies have massive facilities, and they will have a lot of pull.
Oh indeed. It would be one of the few populist measures that would be
1) Popular among the vast majority of the population, not just the MAGA mob 2) Be vaguely sensible 3) Actually achieve what it sets out to do.
I therefore think it very unlikely to happen.
I don't believe the 70% figure, as noted above.
But given Congress has already voted through similar measures (albeit not across the board) under Biden, and there's significant Democratic support for such policies, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as Robert suggests to get them to pass a coherent bill.
Musk might need to chat with his cost cutting partner in crime Ramaswany, whose fortune was founded in biotech.
Who knows - that number comes from campaigners for national healthcare….
As to Congress - they have passed small nibbles at the edges. A wholesale smashing of price protection on pharmaceuticals would be a Battle Royale. 10s of billions (at the very least) at stake. For every year. The Pharmaceutical industry funds Congress massively. For a reason.
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
Are the clicks generated by the Guardian posting or others sharing their articles, though?
They are withdrawing from the first rather than the second.
Spot on.
The actual impact is likely to be very small, because somebody will setup GuardianBot that just automatically Tweets Guardian news stories.
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
There are other places to get married than a church.
On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
And buried but if you want a Church wedding only or funeral the C of E being established church is the only reason you get that as of right and that is of course a pivotal reason for its existence.
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
I'm struggling to think what in my 19 years of posting here might have led you to classify me as 'left liberal'. Unless this is your rather dry humour poking through!
Come on cookie, you're just a closeted woke leftie liberal. We all know it, stop pretending (I do think you're pretty liberal for what it's worth)
That said, I'd be intrigued to see a list of posters (plural may be unjustified!) whom hyufd does not consider to be left liberal, remembering that he is, I think the only True Conservative in the village forum (BigG for example defintely does not cut it, I believe)
I am not a pure and true [right wing] conservative and betrayed the party by voting for Blair but to be fair I have never voted Plaid unlike @HYUFD
Heretic.
Please step this way to your involuntary cremation. In the interests of recycling we are using this location
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
There's a touch of Johnson/Cummings about it.
Absolutely. My one confident prediction of the Trump presidency is that Musk and Trump will fall out, bigly. But I think that Trump will ultimately prevail.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
It might be a reflection of where the majority of their income comes from. If the donations they solicit are more important to them than advertising, then it would encourage them to take up a more crusading stance of battling against Trump/Musk, which wouldn't be consistent with continuing to use twitter.
They may judge that they will garner more income from donations, then they lose from foregone clickthroughs from twitter.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
The problem is that most of the spending - as I detailed below - is mandated by law. And Congress will need to change the law.
It's also the case that the vast majority of spending is not on civil servants, but on people. People who voted. And many of whom did not vote for Trump.
Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Support for Low Income Americans, and Debt Interest make up around 70% of the US budget - and maybe more.
The place where there is the most opportunity to cut costs is undoubtedly healthcare, where the US system is hideously expensive. (The US federal government spends more, as a percentage of GDP, on healthcare than the UK government. And we get universal healthcare, and they do not.)
But changing this would require wholesale reform of the entire system, way beyond merely allowing Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate drug prices*.
The fundamental problem is that medical procedures cost at least 5x more in the US than in the UK**, because (a) doctors are paid much more, (b) hospitals get sued all the time, and (c) the process of charging is incredibly complicated because hospitals are private institutions that have many different contracts.
* Medicare/Medicaid between them spend around $150bn a year on prescription medicines, which works out as about 8% of total US government healthcare spending.
** A MRI scan in the US typically costs around $3,000 against around £400 in the UK.
I've heard it suggested that negotiating the drug prices would mean a reduction in spending of 70% - thoughts?
A 70% reduction on $150bn would save about $90bn a year - i.e. more than the entire budget of the Department of Education. It would be amazing if the US government could push it through.
However, it would require a change in the law, and the pharmaceutical companies have some of the most expensive and best lobbyists in the world. Their pitch will be: if you do this, then we'll have to cut back dramatically on R&D spending and then we won't cure cancer. Or - worse - that the Chinese will cure cancer, and then we'll all be in hock to China.
Can Trump persuade essentially every Republican Congressman to vote through a change? Well, we'll see, but there are going to be some Congressmen in districts where Pharma companies have massive facilities, and they will have a lot of pull.
Oh indeed. It would be one of the few populist measures that would be
1) Popular among the vast majority of the population, not just the MAGA mob 2) Be vaguely sensible 3) Actually achieve what it sets out to do.
I therefore think it very unlikely to happen.
I don't believe the 70% figure, as noted above.
But given Congress has already voted through similar measures (albeit not across the board) under Biden, and there's significant Democratic support for such policies, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as Robert suggests to get them to pass a coherent bill.
Musk might need to chat with his cost cutting partner in crime Ramaswany, whose fortune was founded in biotech.
Who knows - that number comes from campaigners for national healthcare….
As to Congress - they have passed small nibbles at the edges. A wholesale smashing of price protection on pharmaceuticals would be a Battle Royale. 10s of billions (at the very least) at stake. For every year. The Pharmaceutical industry funds Congress massively. For a reason.
The IRA provisions will save around 20 billion pa. They might have gone much further without GOP opposition.
If Trump is really determined about pushing it through, and strongarms GOP members, there are very probably enough Democrats to help get a bill through. It would be pushing at an open door.
Of course one way of sabotaging it would be to include measures the Democrats couldn't countenance.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
No it's not. It's a tax on property.
There is a lot of chat on PB about making the tax system relatively better for working people. Increasing council tax in lieu of other tax increases (like NICs) would meet that objective.
Political suicide, but I'd reform council tax and link it to home values (with a big discount for flats and terraced housing, to make it a proxy land tax) and double it as a proportion of the tax burden.
An insight into quite how thin-skinned and intolerant of dissent some of those on the American Right really are. These are really angry people, and reflexively authoritarian.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
I suspect there are more "Badenoch-ites" than there were "Sunak-ites".
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
There are other places to get married than a church.
On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
And buried but if you want a Church wedding only or funeral the C of E being established church is the only reason you get that as of right and that is of course a pivotal reason for its existence.
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
I'm struggling to think what in my 19 years of posting here might have led you to classify me as 'left liberal'. Unless this is your rather dry humour poking through!
Come on cookie, you're just a closeted woke leftie liberal. We all know it, stop pretending (I do think you're pretty liberal for what it's worth)
That said, I'd be intrigued to see a list of posters (plural may be unjustified!) whom hyufd does not consider to be left liberal, remembering that he is, I think the only True Conservative in the village forum (BigG for example defintely does not cut it, I believe)
I am not a pure and true [right wing] conservative and betrayed the party by voting for Blair but to be fair I have never voted Plaid unlike @HYUFD
Heretic.
Please step this way to your involuntary cremation. In the interests of recycling we are using this location
I am being buried by my parents so to avoid such confusion !!!!
Though not yet hopefully
Your parents must have most impressive longevity!
Well spotted - I need to express myself better when commenting on PB !!!!!
It makes perfect sense, I just read it the way I indicated first time round and did a bit of a double take.
I do like the idea of generations of families being buried together - although I have no faith in an afterlife, I do find the concept of a final resting place next to one's loved ones strangely comforting (and I'd much rather be buried than cremated - being decomposed and feeding a tree for example is much more appealing than being rapidly oxidised)
Thanks for another awesome and thought-provoking thread heading, Miss Cycle.
I can see arguments on both sides but I do worry that a "right to die" could eventually become a "duty to die" for the sick, elderly and vulnerable...
Yes, they will see it as their duty to die and stop being a burden, when they are actually much loved!
Is why “right to die” laws will always be rejected by a UK parliament. We ain’t weird and dumb like some countries around the world.
You don't think Labour, with their big majority, will vote it through?
There’s a danger of that, as some Labour MPs are nothing but stupid student politics, and not just the young ones.
But it’s a small risk. UK is founded on strong shared values. Even if some MPs like the idea of state assisting people to die on what could be a passing whim, most of those will recognise the infrastructure is just not in place to allow such policy to work as advertised anyway.
Social care is absolute abject mess for decades - regardless whose in power and claims of sorting it - it’s not even in place for decent ending up for those who don’t even want to or even deserve to die, so adding something like this right now if for the birds.
Let’s be cynical, Yes Minister fashion. The timing of Labour bringing this forth now, is to assist the bill (and momentum of campaign behind it) to die.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
The problem is that most of the spending - as I detailed below - is mandated by law. And Congress will need to change the law.
It's also the case that the vast majority of spending is not on civil servants, but on people. People who voted. And many of whom did not vote for Trump.
Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Support for Low Income Americans, and Debt Interest make up around 70% of the US budget - and maybe more.
The place where there is the most opportunity to cut costs is undoubtedly healthcare, where the US system is hideously expensive. (The US federal government spends more, as a percentage of GDP, on healthcare than the UK government. And we get universal healthcare, and they do not.)
But changing this would require wholesale reform of the entire system, way beyond merely allowing Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate drug prices*.
The fundamental problem is that medical procedures cost at least 5x more in the US than in the UK**, because (a) doctors are paid much more, (b) hospitals get sued all the time, and (c) the process of charging is incredibly complicated because hospitals are private institutions that have many different contracts.
* Medicare/Medicaid between them spend around $150bn a year on prescription medicines, which works out as about 8% of total US government healthcare spending.
** A MRI scan in the US typically costs around $3,000 against around £400 in the UK.
I've heard it suggested that negotiating the drug prices would mean a reduction in spending of 70% - thoughts?
A 70% reduction on $150bn would save about $90bn a year - i.e. more than the entire budget of the Department of Education. It would be amazing if the US government could push it through.
However, it would require a change in the law, and the pharmaceutical companies have some of the most expensive and best lobbyists in the world. Their pitch will be: if you do this, then we'll have to cut back dramatically on R&D spending and then we won't cure cancer. Or - worse - that the Chinese will cure cancer, and then we'll all be in hock to China.
Can Trump persuade essentially every Republican Congressman to vote through a change? Well, we'll see, but there are going to be some Congressmen in districts where Pharma companies have massive facilities, and they will have a lot of pull.
Oh indeed. It would be one of the few populist measures that would be
1) Popular among the vast majority of the population, not just the MAGA mob 2) Be vaguely sensible 3) Actually achieve what it sets out to do.
I therefore think it very unlikely to happen.
I don't believe the 70% figure, as noted above.
But given Congress has already voted through similar measures (albeit not across the board) under Biden, and there's significant Democratic support for such policies, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as Robert suggests to get them to pass a coherent bill.
Musk might need to chat with his cost cutting partner in crime Ramaswany, whose fortune was founded in biotech.
Who knows - that number comes from campaigners for national healthcare….
As to Congress - they have passed small nibbles at the edges. A wholesale smashing of price protection on pharmaceuticals would be a Battle Royale. 10s of billions (at the very least) at stake. For every year. The Pharmaceutical industry funds Congress massively. For a reason.
The IRA provisions will save around 20 billion pa. They might have gone much further without GOP opposition.
If Trump is really determined about pushing it through, and strongarms GOP members, there are very probably enough Democrats to help get a bill through. It would be pushing at an open door.
Of course one way of sabotaging it would be to include measures the Democrats couldn't countenance.
Thanks for another awesome and thought-provoking thread heading, Miss Cycle.
I can see arguments on both sides but I do worry that a "right to die" could eventually become a "duty to die" for the sick, elderly and vulnerable...
Yes, they will see it as their duty to die and stop being a burden, when they are actually much loved!
Is why “right to die” laws will always be rejected by a UK parliament. We ain’t weird and dumb like some countries around the world.
You don't think Labour, with their big majority, will vote it through?
There’s a danger of that, as some Labour MPs are nothing but stupid student politics, and not just the young ones.
But it’s a small risk. UK is founded on strong shared values. Even if some MPs like the idea of state assisting people to die on what could be a passing whim, most of those will recognise the infrastructure is just not in place to allow such policy to work as advertised anyway.
Social care is absolute abject mess for decades - regardless whose in power and claims of sorting it - it’s not even in place for decent ending up for those who don’t even want to or even deserve to die, so adding something like this right now if for the birds.
Let’s be cynical, Yes Minister fashion. The timing of Labour bringing this forth now, is to assist the bill (and momentum of campaign behind it) to die.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
The problem is that most of the spending - as I detailed below - is mandated by law. And Congress will need to change the law.
It's also the case that the vast majority of spending is not on civil servants, but on people. People who voted. And many of whom did not vote for Trump.
Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Support for Low Income Americans, and Debt Interest make up around 70% of the US budget - and maybe more.
The place where there is the most opportunity to cut costs is undoubtedly healthcare, where the US system is hideously expensive. (The US federal government spends more, as a percentage of GDP, on healthcare than the UK government. And we get universal healthcare, and they do not.)
But changing this would require wholesale reform of the entire system, way beyond merely allowing Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate drug prices*.
The fundamental problem is that medical procedures cost at least 5x more in the US than in the UK**, because (a) doctors are paid much more, (b) hospitals get sued all the time, and (c) the process of charging is incredibly complicated because hospitals are private institutions that have many different contracts.
* Medicare/Medicaid between them spend around $150bn a year on prescription medicines, which works out as about 8% of total US government healthcare spending.
** A MRI scan in the US typically costs around $3,000 against around £400 in the UK.
I've heard it suggested that negotiating the drug prices would mean a reduction in spending of 70% - thoughts?
A 70% reduction on $150bn would save about $90bn a year - i.e. more than the entire budget of the Department of Education. It would be amazing if the US government could push it through.
However, it would require a change in the law, and the pharmaceutical companies have some of the most expensive and best lobbyists in the world. Their pitch will be: if you do this, then we'll have to cut back dramatically on R&D spending and then we won't cure cancer. Or - worse - that the Chinese will cure cancer, and then we'll all be in hock to China.
Can Trump persuade essentially every Republican Congressman to vote through a change? Well, we'll see, but there are going to be some Congressmen in districts where Pharma companies have massive facilities, and they will have a lot of pull.
Oh indeed. It would be one of the few populist measures that would be
1) Popular among the vast majority of the population, not just the MAGA mob 2) Be vaguely sensible 3) Actually achieve what it sets out to do.
I therefore think it very unlikely to happen.
I don't believe the 70% figure, as noted above.
But given Congress has already voted through similar measures (albeit not across the board) under Biden, and there's significant Democratic support for such policies, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as Robert suggests to get them to pass a coherent bill.
Musk might need to chat with his cost cutting partner in crime Ramaswany, whose fortune was founded in biotech.
Who knows - that number comes from campaigners for national healthcare….
As to Congress - they have passed small nibbles at the edges. A wholesale smashing of price protection on pharmaceuticals would be a Battle Royale. 10s of billions (at the very least) at stake. For every year. The Pharmaceutical industry funds Congress massively. For a reason.
Note that the pharmacies (and associated insurance companies which own the pharmacy benefit managers) are as big a part of the problem. It's not (in a lot of cases) a matter of negotiating directly with the manufacturers, and changing that is resisted by the management companies, not the manufacturers.
"Price protection" isn't the best description of the price gouging that goes on. And patent protection is something else again. Messing with that might threaten the entire US Pharma (and certainly the biotech) industry, which is probably not the best idea.
(The GOP, of course, is ideologically opposed to "national healthcare".)
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
I suspect there are more "Badenoch-ites" than there were "Sunak-ites".
Given the diminished nature of the PCP, I wouldn't be too sure.
People who want others to suffer with no hope of relief are condoning torture.
No one wants that. The law being debated on PB isn't "An Act not to make people's lives miserable".
(Snip)
But in many cases, that's the alternative. That's what's happening up and down the country at the moment, to hundreds, if not thousands, of people. And sometimes doctors are being left to make decisions alone that they really should not be put in a position to make.
This needs fixing. This bill may or many not be the way forward, but the current situation cannot be left as it is.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
I haven't seen it - I suspect recollections may vary.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
There's a touch of Johnson/Cummings about it.
Absolutely. My one confident prediction of the Trump presidency is that Musk and Trump will fall out, bigly. But I think that Trump will ultimately prevail.
I don’t agree. Although Musk may be a genius in some spheres, in others he might be very naive, even a simpleton. Musk might genuinely believe in some daft political and macro economic positions and think it might work.
The whole US concept of businessmen may be better to elect to power than politicians is IMO naive and simpleton - businessmen can be far too transactional and short termist - exactly what US people and their allies just don’t need right now if ever - career politicians stronger for caring about legacy and their place in history.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
I haven't seen it - I suspect recollections may vary.
It was the first time I have actually laughed at a Starmer joke, when he welcomed Farage back from the US by adding to the immigration figures
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
I haven't seen it - I suspect recollections may vary.
So which tribe are you now, Lucky? We have established you are not Thatcherite, as most Conservatives aren’t these days, as Lady Thatchers instincts would 100% have been to protect household incomes during historic credit crunch.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
I haven't seen it - I suspect recollections may vary.
It was the first time I have actually laughed at a Starmer joke, when he welcomed Farage back from the US by adding to the immigration figures
That was actually so lame and unfunny, it cried out for canned laughter.
(Germany are blocking Eurofighter sales to places which are Britain's ally but not so much Germany's, but they finally agreed the planes could go to a NATO ally, even if it's Turkey.)
Goodoh.
We have a 35%+ workshare on those iirc. So worth ~£1.5 billion unless I missed something.
(I'm thinking that - given Trump - we may be in for getting some more of these when the Govt get around to the need to strengthen the RAF.)
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
I would not make that assumption at all. It comes perilously close to the idea that there is "life that is not worthy of life."
Quota, from the Twitter, on changing voter coalitions:
It would be fascinating to see similar for the Cons and Lab here. My feeling is that it probably would be quite a similar story. Probably easy enough to do with the BES and a bit of time...
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
"Dogecoin" is a cryptocurrency (market abbr DOGE) on whose Board Musk sits The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is the putative govt department to which Musk will be put in command.
George Will provides a succinct summary of Musk's problem: "Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent, and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-federal-spending/
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
There's a touch of Johnson/Cummings about it.
Absolutely. My one confident prediction of the Trump presidency is that Musk and Trump will fall out, bigly. But I think that Trump will ultimately prevail.
I don’t agree. Although Musk may be a genius in some spheres, in others he might be very naive, even a simpleton. Musk might genuinely believe in some daft political and macro economic positions and think it might work.
The whole US concept of businessmen may be better to elect to power than politicians is IMO naive and simpleton - businessmen can be far too transactional and short termist - exactly what US people and their allies just don’t need right now if ever - career politicians stronger for caring about legacy and their place in history.
It's also a different dynamic. In business, the owner ultimately gets their way, even if that way is obviously predictably headed for disaster. That's what ownership is, after all.
In politics, everyone has a bit of their own mandate. They won in their district, their state. Even Trump isn't going to be able to ignore that completely, though he will try and succeed a lot.
Not just businessmen who fall into that trap. There's also the Duke of Wellington's readout after his first Cabinet meeting.
“An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them."
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Yes, I think you're right. I certainly hope that my mum (Alzheimer's*) doesn't linger on for years. She's either oblivious to her condition or - worse - she's not. From the outside, it's impossible to tell.
"Dogecoin" is a cryptocurrency (market abbr DOGE) on whose Board Musk sits The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is the putative govt department to which Musk will be put in command.
Quota, from the Twitter, on changing voter coalitions:
It would be fascinating to see similar for the Cons and Lab here. My feeling is that it probably would be quite a similar story. Probably easy enough to do with the BES and a bit of time...
The "Never Trump" Republicans and anti-Boris Conservatives can be understood as a reaction against the voter coalition being too down market for them. They want to belong to the tribe of the rich and cosmopolitan, regardless of policy.
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
"Dogecoin" is a cryptocurrency (market abbr DOGE) on whose Board Musk sits The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is the putative govt department to which Musk will be put in command.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Yes, I think you're right. I certainly hope that my mum (Alzheimer's*) doesn't linger on for years. She's either oblivious to her condition or - worse - she's not. From the outside, it's impossible to tell.
I'm sure you are up on all this but Age UK are an excellent source of free information.
People who want others to suffer with no hope of relief are condoning torture.
No one wants that. The law being debated on PB isn't "An Act not to make people's lives miserable".
(Snip)
But in many cases, that's the alternative. That's what's happening up and down the country at the moment, to hundreds, if not thousands, of people. And sometimes doctors are being left to make decisions alone that they really should not be put in a position to make.
This needs fixing. This bill may or many not be the way forward, but the current situation cannot be left as it is.
Yes it can. Indeed what we really need is *more* of the current situation - the application of common sense, discretion, turning a blind eye and effective decriminalisation.
It was good enough for George V, good enough for my grandparents, and it's good enough for the rest of us.
What we don't need is the increased involvement of politicians, lawyers and attention-seeking 'activists'.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
There are so many examples of democracy failing us, that it isn’t surprising that people are increasingly wondering whether a benign dictatorship might work for us so much better.
The two problems being, firstly, once installed, it can be very difficult to ensure that a dictatorship remains benign. Power corrupts, and it is a rare dictator that remains sane and benign as the years in office chalk up. And secondly, assuming that this does, when the benign dictator dies, or loses power, it’s so easy for everything to fall apart in the battle for the succession, and there’s no guarantee that the successor who emerges will be in the least bit benign.
We have lived through a period where the benefits of democracy, in the round, have trumped the various authoritarians, oligarchs and fanatics that the rest of the world has thrown against us. Much of which is the attitudinal tail bequeathed to us from our fathers and grandfathers who fought the wars of the twentieth century. As these generations pass, it isn’t obvious how we will be able to bulwark our way of life from the threats presented by the modern world.
Quota, from the Twitter, on changing voter coalitions:
It would be fascinating to see similar for the Cons and Lab here. My feeling is that it probably would be quite a similar story. Probably easy enough to do with the BES and a bit of time...
The "Never Trump" Republicans and anti-Boris Conservatives can be understood as a reaction against the voter coalition being too down market for them. They want to belong to the tribe of the rich and cosmopolitan, regardless of policy.
No.
The "Never Trump" Republicans and anti-Boris Conservatives can be understood as people who want good government for the people.
Something neither Trump nor Boris were capable of delivering.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
I would not make that assumption at all. It comes perilously close to the idea that there is "life that is not worthy of life."
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
It's quite an exercise writing one of those. One really needs two; one for Financial Affairs and one for Medical. We've set up, and registered both for both of us; we claim to be of sound mind at the moment, but who knows what the future holds. I never thought, when I was considering them that I'd be in the state I am now.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes, the suicide framing is a little disingenuous.
No it really isn't. Because if you actually read the Bill it is specifically about changing the 1961 Suicide Act to remove the criminalisation of those who assist a suicide. It also specifically states that the person must actually do the act themselves ie lift the cup containing poison to their own lips or press the syringe into themselves. So it will do precisely nothing for those cases - which are the ones which have come to court - where the person is unable to do even that. They would not be able to be helped by this Bill.
It is being presented dishonestly. The underlying premise is wrong because people are able now to end their life at a time and in a way of their own choosing. This Bill makes no change to that at all. It does not give someone the right to actively end the life of another person because that would be euthanasia - rather than assisted suicide. Though I strongly suspect that that is where the proponents of this Bill want to go.
I will also pick up on some other of your and @BartholomewRoberts' comments.
1. The comparison with animals is facile. Animals do not ask us to kill them. We are not fulfilling their wishes. We make the decision to kill them for all sorts of reasons.
2. Suicide is often a cry for help. Yes it is. So is a demand by a disabled person for a ramp at home to help them live more comfortably. But the response to just such a request in Canada was to suggest assisted dying instead. People who are lonely, depressed, worried about being a burden or their finances or whether they will get proper social care may well seek to end their lives because there is no alternative. But the reality is that they are asking for help and because we don't want to spend money on social care or palliative care or proper care for the disabled or proper mental health care and support or any of the things that would help improve the lives of those who need and want our help we're going to offer them an early death instead.
There is something deeply chilling and selfish about such a society. Until we have properly invested in palliative care, in mental health care, in care for the disabled, in social care, we should not be talking - as this Bill does - about imposing a legal duty on a health care system to offer death as a service.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
I would not make that assumption at all. It comes perilously close to the idea that there is "life that is not worthy of life."
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
I haven't seen it - I suspect recollections may vary.
It was the first time I have actually laughed at a Starmer joke, when he welcomed Farage back from the US by adding to the immigration figures
That was actually so lame and unfunny, it cried out for canned laughter.
Well I found it funny but we all have different humour levels thankfully
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
I haven't seen it - I suspect recollections may vary.
It was the first time I have actually laughed at a Starmer joke, when he welcomed Farage back from the US by adding to the immigration figures
That was actually so lame and unfunny, it cried out for canned laughter.
Well I found it funny but we all have different humour levels thankfully
The ruined Temple of the Giant Dugong has been rebuilt! Faith in Huge Manatee restored. 🤗
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
There's a touch of Johnson/Cummings about it.
Absolutely. My one confident prediction of the Trump presidency is that Musk and Trump will fall out, bigly. But I think that Trump will ultimately prevail.
I don’t agree. Although Musk may be a genius in some spheres, in others he might be very naive, even a simpleton. Musk might genuinely believe in some daft political and macro economic positions and think it might work.
The whole US concept of businessmen may be better to elect to power than politicians is IMO naive and simpleton - businessmen can be far too transactional and short termist - exactly what US people and their allies just don’t need right now if ever - career politicians stronger for caring about legacy and their place in history.
It's also a different dynamic. In business, the owner ultimately gets their way, even if that way is obviously predictably headed for disaster. That's what ownership is, after all.
In politics, everyone has a bit of their own mandate. They won in their district, their state. Even Trump isn't going to be able to ignore that completely, though he will try and succeed a lot.
Not just businessmen who fall into that trap. There's also the Duke of Wellington's readout after his first Cabinet meeting.
“An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them."
Sometimes the Duke Of Wellington really does appeal.
I always liked his idea that the way to deal with the Cato Street conspirators was to have the Cabinet (supplemented by Bow Street Runners) set an ambush for them. A brace of pistols each…
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
Just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
My daughter wouldn't qualify for a credit card. Just needs a debit card which we could pre-load.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes, the suicide framing is a little disingenuous.
No it really isn't. Because if you actually read the Bill it is specifically about changing the 1961 Suicide Act to remove the criminalisation of those who assist a suicide. It also specifically states that the person must actually do the act themselves ie lift the cup containing poison to their own lips or press the syringe into themselves. So it will do precisely nothing for those cases - which are the ones which have come to court - where the person is unable to do even that. They would not be able to be helped by this Bill.
It is being presented dishonestly. The underlying premise is wrong because people are able now to end their life at a time and in a way of their own choosing. This Bill makes no change to that at all. It does not give someone the right to actively end the life of another person because that would be euthanasia - rather than assisted suicide. Though I strongly suspect that that is where the proponents of this Bill want to go.
I will also pick up on some other of your and @BartholomewRoberts' comments.
1. The comparison with animals is facile. Animals do not ask us to kill them. We are not fulfilling their wishes. We make the decision to kill them for all sorts of reasons.
2. Suicide is often a cry for help. Yes it is. So is a demand by a disabled person for a ramp at home to help them live more comfortably. But the response to just such a request in Canada was to suggest assisted dying instead. People who are lonely, depressed, worried about being a burden or their finances or whether they will get proper social care may well seek to end their lives because there is no alternative. But the reality is that they are asking for help and because we don't want to spend money on social care or palliative care or proper care for the disabled or proper mental health care and support or any of the things that would help improve the lives of those who need and want our help we're going to offer them an early death instead.
There is something deeply chilling and selfish about such a society. Until we have properly invested in palliative care, in mental health care, in care for the disabled, in social care, we should not be talking - as this Bill does - about imposing a legal duty on a health care system to offer death as a service.
You say "it is specifically about changing the 1961 Suicide Act to remove the criminalisation of those who assist a suicide. It also specifically states that the person must actually do the act themselves ie lift the cup containing poison to their own lips or press the syringe into themselves."
So the medical professional could only hand the syringe to a person who is terminally ill with less than 6 months life expectancy?
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
It's quite an exercise writing one of those. One really needs two; one for Financial Affairs and one for Medical. We've set up, and registered both for both of us; we claim to be of sound mind at the moment, but who knows what the future holds. I never thought, when I was considering them that I'd be in the state I am now.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
When we did those for mum several years before she died, it was about £800 to have it done by the family solicitor.
Why is disposing of the ashes a problem (seriously)?
You can even scatter yourselves should you wish. We put both parent's ashes in a columbarium under a joint plaque - the first in 2009, and added the second in 2019.
It was entirely handled by the undertaker, who's office and house is next door to the churchyard which itself is 2 fields away from where they used to live for 33 years.
That may be a more localised arrangement than usual, but I think there are a wide range of services are out there. Including long barrows if you are an historically imaginative pagan, as most of them tend to be.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
I would not make that assumption at all. It comes perilously close to the idea that there is "life that is not worthy of life."
Is yours a religious stance?
More philosophical, I think, but the two overlap.
Yes. Honestly said. All the philosophy UK has today comes from Christianity.
All the silly fools (so many gathered on PB like muons caught in a mine) socialised into British values, but claim they are not remotely Christian or religious at all, oh no, so sadly oblivious to where their values and philosophy actually came from!
I can tell you. Christian thinkers on shoulders of other Christian thinkers, century after century going way back, all the way back.
Come to Sunday School and I can put you right on even more!
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Yes, I think you're right. I certainly hope that my mum (Alzheimer's*) doesn't linger on for years. She's either oblivious to her condition or - worse - she's not. From the outside, it's impossible to tell.
I can say with personal family experience Alzheimers is a very distressing experience for everyone involved
Towards the end of my father in laws life, we took him into our home and looked after what had become the shell of the wonderful man
We did have assistance from nurses and social care workers, and when I thanked them for their care for my father in law they said their main concern was for our family, including our 3 children who were 18, 13 and 10 at the time, as it can cause increased stress in the family and the children
He finally passed away with us holding his hands, and he had no idea who we were, but to us he was the same wonderful father and papa as he had always been
George Will provides a succinct summary of Musk's problem: "Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent, and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-federal-spending/
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
Just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
My daughter wouldn't qualify for a credit card. Just needs a debit card which we could pre-load.
Chase offers much the same rates and is the consumer arm of a major bank - JP Morgan.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes but how long will it stay like that when the principle is established? We've already seen in Canada and Holland that assisted suicide is being extended to those with mental illnesses.
And so it should. I have a parent with vascular dementia and the other with Alzheimer's. It should be about quality of life not quantity and compliance with a person's wishes. I know what my parent's wishes are (or rather 'were' - when they had mental capacity). And their personal wishes are not being complied with. My mother cannot move, has to be hoisted everywhere, is doubly incontinent, cannot feed herself, cannot speak and almost certainly recognises no-one. Yet she is being prescribed every medication under the sum to prolong her life for as long as possible.
"Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive officiously to keep alive."
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
Just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
My daughter wouldn't qualify for a credit card. Just needs a debit card which we could pre-load.
Well all of them limit the amount of cash you can withdraw from a cashpoint - so you need to take care there - I think the only debit card that has zero limitation is First Direct and she would probably not get one of those...
And I didn't say a credit card for herself - it was get a card for yourself and make her an additional card holder. That way she has a backup plan if she needs things in a hurry.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
There are so many examples of democracy failing us, that it isn’t surprising that people are increasingly wondering whether a benign dictatorship might work for us so much better.
The two problems being, firstly, once installed, it can be very difficult to ensure that a dictatorship remains benign. Power corrupts, and it is a rare dictator that remains sane and benign as the years in office chalk up.
IIRC the Romans had a Dictator insurance policy of a one year term limit for Dictators.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes but how long will it stay like that when the principle is established? We've already seen in Canada and Holland that assisted suicide is being extended to those with mental illnesses.
And so it should. I have a parent with vascular dementia and the other with Alzheimer's. It should be about quality of life not quantity and compliance with a person's wishes. I know what my parent's wishes are (or rather 'were' - when they had mental capacity). And their personal wishes are not being complied with. My mother cannot move, has to be hoisted everywhere, is doubly incontinent, cannot feed herself, cannot speak and almost certainly recognises no-one. Yet she is being prescribed every medication under the sum to prolong her life for as long as possible.
"Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive officiously to keep alive."
That's all very well with someone who is seriously ill but my mother has dementia, with no other life-threatening ailments, no history of stroke or heart problems for instance, and could live (more accurately "exist") like this for five years or more.
George Will provides a succinct summary of Musk's problem: "Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent, and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-federal-spending/
Veterans Affairs is also sacrosanct.
So 30% of the budget from the 35% that isn't sacrosanct so roughly 85% of everything else...
Cos Boris said - change the points system to open the floodgates cos I want to make friends with the FT. *LITERAL QUOTE*
I am always very wary of Big Dom quotes, he is rather expert at not giving any context and letting the media run with it, often well aware that the context was Boris either being stroppy and going f##k you all, i hope everybody dies, screw you guys i'm going home...or he wasn't being serious and joking around.
George Will provides a succinct summary of Musk's problem: "Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent, and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-federal-spending/
Veterans Affairs is also sacrosanct.
So 30% of the budget from the 35% that isn't sacrosanct so roughly 85% of everything else...
Surely it’s the service provided that’s sacrosanct, rather than the budget? The challenge is to deliver the same service for less money, with one example given of renegotiating prices paid for drugs.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
There are so many examples of democracy failing us, that it isn’t surprising that people are increasingly wondering whether a benign dictatorship might work for us so much better.
The two problems being, firstly, once installed, it can be very difficult to ensure that a dictatorship remains benign. Power corrupts, and it is a rare dictator that remains sane and benign as the years in office chalk up.
IIRC the Romans had a Dictator insurance policy of a one year term limit for Dictators.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes, the suicide framing is a little disingenuous.
No it really isn't. Because if you actually read the Bill it is specifically about changing the 1961 Suicide Act to remove the criminalisation of those who assist a suicide. It also specifically states that the person must actually do the act themselves ie lift the cup containing poison to their own lips or press the syringe into themselves. So it will do precisely nothing for those cases - which are the ones which have come to court - where the person is unable to do even that. They would not be able to be helped by this Bill.
It is being presented dishonestly. The underlying premise is wrong because people are able now to end their life at a time and in a way of their own choosing. This Bill makes no change to that at all. It does not give someone the right to actively end the life of another person because that would be euthanasia - rather than assisted suicide. Though I strongly suspect that that is where the proponents of this Bill want to go.
I will also pick up on some other of your and @BartholomewRoberts' comments.
1. The comparison with animals is facile. Animals do not ask us to kill them. We are not fulfilling their wishes. We make the decision to kill them for all sorts of reasons.
2. Suicide is often a cry for help. Yes it is. So is a demand by a disabled person for a ramp at home to help them live more comfortably. But the response to just such a request in Canada was to suggest assisted dying instead. People who are lonely, depressed, worried about being a burden or their finances or whether they will get proper social care may well seek to end their lives because there is no alternative. But the reality is that they are asking for help and because we don't want to spend money on social care or palliative care or proper care for the disabled or proper mental health care and support or any of the things that would help improve the lives of those who need and want our help we're going to offer them an early death instead.
There is something deeply chilling and selfish about such a society. Until we have properly invested in palliative care, in mental health care, in care for the disabled, in social care, we should not be talking - as this Bill does - about imposing a legal duty on a health care system to offer death as a service.
I disagree. The suicide framing is disingenuous. They are very different things.
1). The animal comparison is not facile. It is about relieving suffering: and that is something that is not being considered enough in humans. Suffering. In the eyes of many, animals cannot be allowed to suffer. In the eyes of some, people must suffer until they die 'naturally' - whatever that means with modern medicine, which can unnaturally extend the end.
2). We are not talking about Canada; we are talking about the law as it is proposed here. We can allow Canada to inform the debate, but the laws are different. Palliative care is good for those who want it, and should get more investment, but it is not a solution for those who do not. And it is disingenuous to suggest that everyone would want palliative care as an alternative.
The deeply selfish thing is allowing people to suffer who do not want to suffer just because others selfishly value 'life' as a concept.
Prolonging unwanted suffering is deeply wrong.
As I've said before; this bill might not be the correct bill for this. But something needs to be done to allow people who are nearing the end of their lives a more compassionate and pain-free way out.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
There's a touch of Johnson/Cummings about it.
Absolutely. My one confident prediction of the Trump presidency is that Musk and Trump will fall out, bigly. But I think that Trump will ultimately prevail.
I don’t agree. Although Musk may be a genius in some spheres, in others he might be very naive, even a simpleton. Musk might genuinely believe in some daft political and macro economic positions and think it might work.
The whole US concept of businessmen may be better to elect to power than politicians is IMO naive and simpleton - businessmen can be far too transactional and short termist - exactly what US people and their allies just don’t need right now if ever - career politicians stronger for caring about legacy and their place in history.
It's also a different dynamic. In business, the owner ultimately gets their way, even if that way is obviously predictably headed for disaster. That's what ownership is, after all.
In politics, everyone has a bit of their own mandate. They won in their district, their state. Even Trump isn't going to be able to ignore that completely, though he will try and succeed a lot.
Not just businessmen who fall into that trap. There's also the Duke of Wellington's readout after his first Cabinet meeting.
“An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them."
We agree for once. You must be turning into a Conservative. If I had added a further sentence, it would have been your post. Yes - politicians will respect sensible limits of their bailiwick, not setting interest rates from oval office for example, and the US people better off for this respect of the counter balances on power, they won’t get it from the vampire squid businessmen they have put into power.
"Dogecoin" is a cryptocurrency (market abbr DOGE) on whose Board Musk sits The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is the putative govt department to which Musk will be put in command.
I haven't touched crypto and see no reason to change that PoV now.
Cos Boris said - change the points system to open the floodgates cos I want to make friends with the FT. *LITERAL QUOTE*
I am always very wary of Big Dom quotes, he is rather expert at not giving any context and letting the media run with it, often well aware that the context was Boris either being stroppy and going f##k you all, i hope everybody dies, screw you guys i'm going home...or he wasn't being serious and joking around.
Then again, look at the immigration figures that resulted.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Cos Boris said - change the points system to open the floodgates cos I want to make friends with the FT. *LITERAL QUOTE*
I am always very wary of Big Dom quotes, he is rather expert at not giving any context and letting the media run with it, often well aware that the context was Boris either being stroppy and going f##k you all, i hope everybody dies, screw you guys i'm going home...or he wasn't being serious and joking around.
Then again, look at the immigration figures that resulted.
Given Boris incompetence, it is not a logical given that one follows the other.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Mental incapacity is not a binary state in most cases. There are gradations. So it's rather like the Yes Prime Minister argument about first use of nuclear weapons. At which point have your mental faculties deteriorated so much that you would rather die? I would find it very hard to draw a line.
I suspect that, as long as I was fit to make a judgement, I would be fit enough that life would be still worth living. So then someone else would have to decide. At which point I am unsure about giving someone else the power to decide over my life, and, if they get the judgement wrong, well, I'll be dead so who could prove that they did?
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
It's quite an exercise writing one of those. One really needs two; one for Financial Affairs and one for Medical. We've set up, and registered both for both of us; we claim to be of sound mind at the moment, but who knows what the future holds. I never thought, when I was considering them that I'd be in the state I am now.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
When we did those for mum several years before she died, it was about £800 to have it done by the family solicitor.
Why is disposing of the ashes a problem (seriously)?
You can even scatter yourselves should you wish. We put both parent's ashes in a columbarium under a joint plaque - the first in 2009, and added the second in 2019.
It was entirely handled by the undertaker, who's office and house is next door to the churchyard which itself is 2 fields away from where they used to live for 33 years.
That may be a more localised arrangement than usual, but I think there are a wide range of services are out there. Including long barrows if you are an historically imaginative pagan, as most of them tend to be.
You can get a draft LPOA on the Government website and complete it yourself; no need for a solicitor.
As far as disposal of the ashes is concerned the 'problem' is an agreed decision; my grandparents' were left at the crematorium, as were my fathers. My sister scattered our mothers off a cliff where my mother had liked to sit and watch the waves. Our churchyard has an 'allocated area' for urns and ashes.
Good header. I certainly have reservations about assisted suicide. While suicide is now legal allowing another to help you take your own life risks undue pressure being put on the patient. While the safeguard of a terminal illness in severe pain is meant to be there, in Canada now they now have even those with mental illness pressured to end their lives. Hence Conservative Opposition Leader Poilievre has promised to cut back on access to assisted suicide in Canada if elected PM next year
On undue pressure being put on the patient - the importance of this is being exaggerated. I doubt whether family coercion would happen given the patient has less that six months to live anyway. Forgive me but I suspect your objection is religious - only God should take life.
This is the thing.
There is overwhelming public support for assisted dying. It seems pretty obvious that people who object for moral reasons are throwing up all kinds of objections as deep down they know the public don't support their moral reasons.
It seems quite extraordinary that everybody should be prevented from doing something just because a far smaller number of people MIGHT be pressured to do something against their will.
We wouldn't stop everyone driving a car because a small number of people might be killed (or indeed we know some people will be killed). How about stopping bank transfers of money - after all someone might be pressured to give someone money against their will?
Of course life is much more important than a bank transfer. But then you come to the point - can it really be right that everyone has control over everything they do in life except the one most important thing - whether to continue living.
Wherever assisted dying has been brought in, it's been a popular change to the law. No countries are repealing such laws after they have been introduced. Where the scope has been extended that's a positive sign - it shows the law is popular and more peoole want to use it.
The public simply does not support being prevented from doing what they want because it goes against other people's morals or religion - we need to cut through the objections and get this done.
It's very similar to abortion and gay marriage where all kinds of objections were raised. It's very simple - if you don't want an abortion or a gay marriage then don't have one. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
If you don't like assisted dying, don't do it. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
Indeed. There are undoubtedly concerns with parts of the law but they're a result of the abject failure of the establishment - over decades - at the cost of enormous suffering to get this thing sorted. We need to stop dilly dallying and get on with it. We can sort the legislation later, or perhaps learn to live with the fudge (see also the crazy letter of the law re abortion which in practice tends to work quite well).
I wouldn't take this view normally - I agree we should get legislation right first time if at all possible. But in these circumstances of perverse obstructionism the perfect is very much the enemy of the good.
Cos Boris said - change the points system to open the floodgates cos I want to make friends with the FT. *LITERAL QUOTE*
I am always very wary of Big Dom quotes, he is rather expert at not giving any context and letting the media run with it, often well aware that the context was Boris either being stroppy and going f##k you all, i hope everybody dies, screw you guys i'm going home...or he wasn't being serious and joking around.
Then again, look at the immigration figures that resulted.
Given Boris incompetence, it is not a logical given that one follows the other.
No, it is not.
But someone made a decision to set the income hurdle very low. Then let it run at that level.
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
Just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
My daughter wouldn't qualify for a credit card. Just needs a debit card which we could pre-load.
Chase offers much the same rates and is the consumer arm of a major bank - JP Morgan.
Chase allows £1500 of cash withdrawals a month abroad - that's way more than Metro / Starling / Revolut...
George Will provides a succinct summary of Musk's problem: "Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent, and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-federal-spending/
Veterans Affairs is also sacrosanct.
So 30% of the budget from the 35% that isn't sacrosanct so roughly 85% of everything else...
Surely it’s the service provided that’s sacrosanct, rather than the budget? The challenge is to deliver the same service for less money, with one example given of renegotiating prices paid for drugs.
That is the goal.
The problem is that some large elements of the budget - notably Social Security and Interest - are not areas where there are efficiency gains to be had. People were promised something (retirement income or interest on debt), and they expect to receive it.
And the area where there is the biggest opportunity to save money - healthcare - is also the hardest to solve, because it's not like the government owns the hospitals or the drug companies. (Who all are large donors to Congressmen and Senators of all political hues.)
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
I’ve always wondered what would happen in the NHS, if they managed to recruit enough to eliminate agency work.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Mental incapacity is not a binary state in most cases. There are gradations. So it's rather like the Yes Prime Minister argument about first use of nuclear weapons. At which point have your mental faculties deteriorated so much that you would rather die? I would find it very hard to draw a line.
I suspect that, as long as I was fit to make a judgement, I would be fit enough that life would be still worth living. So then someone else would have to decide. At which point I am unsure about giving someone else the power to decide over my life, and, if they get the judgement wrong, well, I'll be dead so who could prove that they did?
You make good points.
But mental decline is also generally one-directional; you rarely improve. You can say I am happy at the moment, but if I decline further, then I'll find life intolerably miserable, particularly if I get much worse.
Quota, from the Twitter, on changing voter coalitions:
It would be fascinating to see similar for the Cons and Lab here. My feeling is that it probably would be quite a similar story. Probably easy enough to do with the BES and a bit of time...
Similar yes but the Tories and Labour vote is actually closer together in class and income terms now.
As we have more than 2 parties unlike the USA the divide between Reform and LD voters is closer to the Trumpian GOP and Democrat divide now than the Cons and Labour divide
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
It's quite an exercise writing one of those. One really needs two; one for Financial Affairs and one for Medical. We've set up, and registered both for both of us; we claim to be of sound mind at the moment, but who knows what the future holds. I never thought, when I was considering them that I'd be in the state I am now.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
When we did those for mum several years before she died, it was about £800 to have it done by the family solicitor.
Why is disposing of the ashes a problem (seriously)?
You can even scatter yourselves should you wish. We put both parent's ashes in a columbarium under a joint plaque - the first in 2009, and added the second in 2019.
It was entirely handled by the undertaker, who's office and house is next door to the churchyard which itself is 2 fields away from where they used to live for 33 years.
That may be a more localised arrangement than usual, but I think there are a wide range of services are out there. Including long barrows if you are an historically imaginative pagan, as most of them tend to be.
You can get a draft LPOA on the Government website and complete it yourself; no need for a solicitor.
As far as disposal of the ashes is concerned the 'problem' is an agreed decision; my grandparents' were left at the crematorium, as were my fathers. My sister scattered our mothers off a cliff where my mother had liked to sit and watch the waves. Our churchyard has an 'allocated area' for urns and ashes.
I completed both the health and property LPOAs for both my wife and I online last year and they cost 4 x £82
It was relatively straightforward and I did not use a solicitor
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
There are so many examples of democracy failing us, that it isn’t surprising that people are increasingly wondering whether a benign dictatorship might work for us so much better.
The two problems being, firstly, once installed, it can be very difficult to ensure that a dictatorship remains benign. Power corrupts, and it is a rare dictator that remains sane and benign as the years in office chalk up.
IIRC the Romans had a Dictator insurance policy of a one year term limit for Dictators.
Marius, Sulla and Julius Caesar have entered the chat.
It was more enlightened than the modern version:
The reasons for which someone might be appointed dictator were varied. The purpose of the dictatorship was to return Rome to the status quo before some threat emerged. The dictatorship existed "to eliminate whatever had arisen that was out of bounds and then eliminate themselves so that normal operation of the ordinary government" could resume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
Comments
I would. Except I’m frightened if it went wrong she would shout and yell and throw things at me. 😕
Lots of Labour governments are famous for people yelling at and being nasty to each other and their ministry officials, and there is zero need for that childish behaviour tbh.
An insight into quite how thin-skinned and intolerant of dissent some of those on the American Right really are. These are really angry people, and reflexively authoritarian.
But given Congress has already voted through similar measures (albeit not across the board) under Biden, and there's significant Democratic support for such policies, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as Robert suggests to get them to pass a coherent bill.
Musk might need to chat with his cost cutting partner in crime Ramaswany, whose fortune was founded in biotech.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/11/13/turkey-secured-40-eurofighter-typhoons-with-germanys-approval/
(Germany are blocking Eurofighter sales to places which are Britain's ally but not so much Germany's, but they finally agreed the planes could go to a NATO ally, even if it's Turkey.)
About as obvious a straw man argument you could make.
As to Congress - they have passed small nibbles at the edges. A wholesale smashing of price protection on pharmaceuticals would be a Battle Royale. 10s of billions (at the very least) at stake. For every year. The Pharmaceutical industry funds Congress massively. For a reason.
They may judge that they will garner more income from donations, then they lose from foregone clickthroughs from twitter.
If Trump is really determined about pushing it through, and strongarms GOP members, there are very probably enough Democrats to help get a bill through. It would be pushing at an open door.
Of course one way of sabotaging it would be to include measures the Democrats couldn't countenance.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I do like the idea of generations of families being buried together - although I have no faith in an afterlife, I do find the concept of a final resting place next to one's loved ones strangely comforting (and I'd much rather be buried than cremated - being decomposed and feeding a tree for example is much more appealing than being rapidly oxidised)
But it’s a small risk. UK is founded on strong shared values. Even if some MPs like the idea of state assisting people to die on what could be a passing whim, most of those will recognise the infrastructure is just not in place to allow such policy to work as advertised anyway.
Social care is absolute abject mess for decades - regardless whose in power and claims of sorting it - it’s not even in place for decent ending up for those who don’t even want to or even deserve to die, so adding something like this right now if for the birds.
Let’s be cynical, Yes Minister fashion. The timing of Labour bringing this forth now, is to assist the bill (and momentum of campaign behind it) to die.
Trump is going to keep Biden waiting to meet him
It's not (in a lot of cases) a matter of negotiating directly with the manufacturers, and changing that is resisted by the management companies, not the manufacturers.
"Price protection" isn't the best description of the price gouging that goes on.
And patent protection is something else again. Messing with that might threaten the entire US Pharma (and certainly the biotech) industry, which is probably not the best idea.
(The GOP, of course, is ideologically opposed to "national healthcare".)
This needs fixing. This bill may or many not be the way forward, but the current situation cannot be left as it is.
The whole US concept of businessmen may be better to elect to power than politicians is IMO naive and simpleton - businessmen can be far too transactional and short termist - exactly what US people and their allies just don’t need right now if ever - career politicians stronger for caring about legacy and their place in history.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
We have a 35%+ workshare on those iirc. So worth ~£1.5 billion unless I missed something.
(I'm thinking that - given Trump - we may be in for getting some more of these when the Govt get around to the need to strengthen the RAF.)
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is the putative govt department to which Musk will be put in command.
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-federal-spending/
In politics, everyone has a bit of their own mandate. They won in their district, their state. Even Trump isn't going to be able to ignore that completely, though he will try and succeed a lot.
Not just businessmen who fall into that trap. There's also the Duke of Wellington's readout after his first Cabinet meeting.
“An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them."
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
It was good enough for George V, good enough for my grandparents, and it's good enough for the rest of us.
What we don't need is the increased involvement of politicians, lawyers and attention-seeking 'activists'.
The two problems being, firstly, once installed, it can be very difficult to ensure that a dictatorship remains benign. Power corrupts, and it is a rare dictator that remains sane and benign as the years in office chalk up. And secondly, assuming that this does, when the benign dictator dies, or loses power, it’s so easy for everything to fall apart in the battle for the succession, and there’s no guarantee that the successor who emerges will be in the least bit benign.
We have lived through a period where the benefits of democracy, in the round, have trumped the various authoritarians, oligarchs and fanatics that the rest of the world has thrown against us. Much of which is the attitudinal tail bequeathed to us from our fathers and grandfathers who fought the wars of the twentieth century. As these generations pass, it isn’t obvious how we will be able to bulwark our way of life from the threats presented by the modern world.
The "Never Trump" Republicans and anti-Boris Conservatives can be understood as people who want good government for the people.
Something neither Trump nor Boris were capable of delivering.
His transition team have refused to use secure phones under security service control (which I think they are required to do by law - but hey, who needs to obey the law), because they think if they do Jo Biden's team will listen in or hack them.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/technology-main/2024/11/trump-team-vulnerable-to-cyber-threats-by-not-signing-transition-memos-experts-warn/
(He did this with his personal iPhone back in 2018.)
https://upolitics.com/news/donald-trump-refuses-to-use-secure-smartphone-for-his-tweeting/
It's probably less of a threat than him showing the top secret documents he stole to random friends at Mar-a-Lago, TBF.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
It is being presented dishonestly. The underlying premise is wrong because people are able now to end their life at a time and in a way of their own choosing. This Bill makes no change to that at all. It does not give someone the right to actively end the life of another person because that would be euthanasia - rather than assisted suicide. Though I strongly suspect that that is where the proponents of this Bill want to go.
I will also pick up on some other of your and @BartholomewRoberts' comments.
1. The comparison with animals is facile. Animals do not ask us to kill them. We are not fulfilling their wishes. We make the decision to kill them for all sorts of reasons.
2. Suicide is often a cry for help. Yes it is. So is a demand by a disabled person for a ramp at home to help them live more comfortably. But the response to just such a request in Canada was to suggest assisted dying instead. People who are lonely, depressed, worried about being a burden or their finances or whether they will get proper social care may well seek to end their lives because there is no alternative. But the reality is that they are asking for help and because we don't want to spend money on social care or palliative care or proper care for the disabled or proper mental health care and support or any of the things that would help improve the lives of those who need and want our help we're going to offer them an early death instead.
There is something deeply chilling and selfish about such a society. Until we have properly invested in palliative care, in mental health care, in care for the disabled, in social care, we should not be talking - as this Bill does - about imposing a legal duty on a health care system to offer death as a service.
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
Faith in Huge Manatee restored. 🤗
I always liked his idea that the way to deal with the Cato Street conspirators was to have the Cabinet (supplemented by Bow Street Runners) set an ambush for them. A brace of pistols each…
My daughter wouldn't qualify for a credit card. Just needs a debit card which we could pre-load.
So the medical professional could only hand the syringe to a person who is terminally ill with less than 6 months life expectancy?
https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1856715160825508003
Cos Boris said - change the points system to open the floodgates cos I want to make friends with the FT. *LITERAL QUOTE*
https://x.com/sciguyspace/status/1856522880143745133?s=46&t=BXfRXqZ4RcCOdvlSgUjZSg
Orion on Vulcan/F9H/New Glenn
And nothing of value was lost.
Why is disposing of the ashes a problem (seriously)?
You can even scatter yourselves should you wish. We put both parent's ashes in a columbarium under a joint plaque - the first in 2009, and added the second in 2019.
It was entirely handled by the undertaker, who's office and house is next door to the churchyard which itself is 2 fields away from where they used to live for 33 years.
That may be a more localised arrangement than usual, but I think there are a wide range of services are out there. Including long barrows if you are an historically imaginative pagan, as most of them tend to be.
All the silly fools (so many gathered on PB like muons caught in a mine) socialised into British values, but claim they are not remotely Christian or religious at all, oh no, so sadly oblivious to where their values and philosophy actually came from!
I can tell you. Christian thinkers on shoulders of other Christian thinkers, century after century going way back, all the way back.
Come to Sunday School and I can put you right on even more!
Towards the end of my father in laws life, we took him into our home and looked after what had become the shell of the wonderful man
We did have assistance from nurses and social care workers, and when I thanked them for their care for my father in law they said their main concern was for our family, including our 3 children who were 18, 13 and 10 at the time, as it can cause increased stress in the family and the children
He finally passed away with us holding his hands, and he had no idea who we were, but to us he was the same wonderful father and papa as he had always been
And I didn't say a credit card for herself - it was get a card for yourself and make her an additional card holder. That way she has a backup plan if she needs things in a hurry.
@Morris_Dancer will advise.
1). The animal comparison is not facile. It is about relieving suffering: and that is something that is not being considered enough in humans. Suffering. In the eyes of many, animals cannot be allowed to suffer. In the eyes of some, people must suffer until they die 'naturally' - whatever that means with modern medicine, which can unnaturally extend the end.
2). We are not talking about Canada; we are talking about the law as it is proposed here. We can allow Canada to inform the debate, but the laws are different. Palliative care is good for those who want it, and should get more investment, but it is not a solution for those who do not. And it is disingenuous to suggest that everyone would want palliative care as an alternative.
The deeply selfish thing is allowing people to suffer who do not want to suffer just because others selfishly value 'life' as a concept.
Prolonging unwanted suffering is deeply wrong.
As I've said before; this bill might not be the correct bill for this. But something needs to be done to allow people who are nearing the end of their lives a more compassionate and pain-free way out.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
I suspect that, as long as I was fit to make a judgement, I would be fit enough that life would be still worth living. So then someone else would have to decide. At which point I am unsure about giving someone else the power to decide over my life, and, if they get the judgement wrong, well, I'll be dead so who could prove that they did?
As far as disposal of the ashes is concerned the 'problem' is an agreed decision; my grandparents' were left at the crematorium, as were my fathers. My sister scattered our mothers off a cliff where my mother had liked to sit and watch the waves. Our churchyard has an 'allocated area' for urns and ashes.
I wouldn't take this view normally - I agree we should get legislation right first time if at all possible. But in these circumstances of perverse obstructionism the perfect is very much the enemy of the good.
But someone made a decision to set the income hurdle very low. Then let it run at that level.
The problem is that some large elements of the budget - notably Social Security and Interest - are not areas where there are efficiency gains to be had. People were promised something (retirement income or interest on debt), and they expect to receive it.
And the area where there is the biggest opportunity to save money - healthcare - is also the hardest to solve, because it's not like the government owns the hospitals or the drug companies. (Who all are large donors to Congressmen and Senators of all political hues.)
My guess would be strikes over pay.
But mental decline is also generally one-directional; you rarely improve. You can say I am happy at the moment, but if I decline further, then I'll find life intolerably miserable, particularly if I get much worse.
As we have more than 2 parties unlike the USA the divide between Reform and LD voters is closer to the Trumpian GOP and Democrat divide now than the Cons and Labour divide
It was relatively straightforward and I did not use a solicitor
The reasons for which someone might be appointed dictator were varied. The purpose of the dictatorship was to return Rome to the status quo before some threat emerged. The dictatorship existed "to eliminate whatever had arisen that was out of bounds and then eliminate themselves so that normal operation of the ordinary government" could resume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator