"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.
And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.
Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.
So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.
Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?
I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.
Lol! Do you find much need for an ATM in Barnes?
I pay my cleaner in cash and my grandchildren get cash presents.
Why?
They don't have card machines.
It’s a great idea to set them up with bank accounts. Really helps them encourage them to save and think about how to use their money. You’ll never look back.
It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.
FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.
You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.
Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?
Er, Anabob, it's quite something when I prefer Casino's arguments to yours. We get that you favour giving up cash, and think its use is silly. Some firms refuse to accept cash, and go without our custom some of the time. I don't think you favour making it illegal, and some of us find it sometimes convenient. Why not leave it there?
Because I oppose forcing businesses to accept cash, a policy some PBers are advocating. Is that not worthy of debate?
(You are right that I would not ban cash. It is indeed pointless, yet some people seem to like it, for reasons best known to themselves. Fair enough.)
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
What is equality or human rights legislation, or funding the armed forces, or criminal justice legislation, other than imposing one’s own moral values upon others who do not share them?
I'm talking about personal autonomy. Moral issues concerning just yourself and those close to you. I should have made that clearer.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
My personal view on abortion:
Every abortion is a sad event, and to be regretted. But forcing women to have babies they do not want is also sad, and a regretful act. Women generally are not forced to have abortions; it is a choice (and IME not one they easily choose). Without abortions, women are forced to have kids they do not want. And that is, IMV, a greater issue morally - especially as pregnancy and giving birth can have significant impact on a woman's health.
Since the anti-abortion argument is mainly a religious one, it is worth looking at how religions have treated women who have had unwanted children, often unmarried mothers. And it is not pretty.
I therefore hold the 'religious' moral arguments against abortion in contempt.
The above also has bearing on my views on assisted dying...
It looks a lot better now the trees etc have had time to grow.
I really must get around to visiting it one day. It looks and I hear it feels so much better than hideous modernist new towns and the huge 50% premium people pay to live there certainly imply that it does.
If other new housing developments looked like this I'm sure there'd be less opposition to new building.
Oh and the architects and building companies hate it as it doesn't allow them to cover everything in steel and concrete, which is a perfect sign that it's a spectacular success.
Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.
And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.
Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.
So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.
Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?
I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.
Lol! Do you find much need for an ATM in Barnes?
I pay my cleaner in cash and my grandchildren get cash presents.
Why?
They don't have card machines.
It’s a great idea to set them up with bank accounts. Really helps them encourage them to save and think about how to use their money. You’ll never look back.
A bank to bank transfer for a birthday present doesn't have the same impact as a birthday card stuffed with twenties. And the look on their faces. I'd miss all that.
It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.
FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.
You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.
Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?
Er, Anabob, it's quite something when I prefer Casino's arguments to yours. We get that you favour giving up cash, and think its use is silly. Some firms refuse to accept cash, and go without our custom some of the time. I don't think you favour making it illegal, and some of us find it sometimes convenient. Why not leave it there?
Because I oppose forcing businesses to accept cash, a policy some PBers are advocating. Is that not worthy of debate?
(You are right that I would not ban cash. It is indeed pointless, yet some people seem to like it, for reasons best known to themselves. Fair enough.)
Anabob, I try not to do this sort of thing, but you've really irked me this morning with your method of debate.
People, on many occasions, have given you reasons for preferring to use cash, or to have cash as an option. Reasons such as resilience in the face of temporary failure of electronic payment systems. For spending control when on a tight budget. Or for the tactile pleasure of using physical objects that are the result of millennia of developments in design.
You may not agree with such reasons, but they undoubtedly exist, and for you to affect that these reasons are a complete mystery, are perhaps non-existent, is incredibly rude. Is there any point in giving your view on this issue when you so airily dismiss contrary opinion?
It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.
FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.
You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.
Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?
Er, Anabob, it's quite something when I prefer Casino's arguments to yours. We get that you favour giving up cash, and think its use is silly. Some firms refuse to accept cash, and go without our custom some of the time. I don't think you favour making it illegal, and some of us find it sometimes convenient. Why not leave it there?
I couldn't agree more Nick
Everything about @Anabobazina and cash has been discussed ad infinitum and time to move on
The one aspect of tomorrow's vote that I think will be a major factor is that a vote to Support won't be anything other than taking the proposed Bill to the next stage.
A Vote against though kills the proposal for at least 10 years, very likely 15 years, based on past evidence.
If I were a genuine "don't know" I'd prefer the option to find out more and see more detail and amendments, than to kill the option stone dead.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.
FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.
You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.
Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?
Er, Anabob, it's quite something when I prefer Casino's arguments to yours. We get that you favour giving up cash, and think its use is silly. Some firms refuse to accept cash, and go without our custom some of the time. I don't think you favour making it illegal, and some of us find it sometimes convenient. Why not leave it there?
Because I oppose forcing businesses to accept cash, a policy some PBers are advocating. Is that not worthy of debate?
(You are right that I would not ban cash. It is indeed pointless, yet some people seem to like it, for reasons best known to themselves. Fair enough.)
It's a bit marginal in an otherwise free society. Businesses will stop accepting cash if the cost of doing so exceeds the benefits in terms of custom. I agree with you that they shouldn't be forced to accept it, or indeed forced to trade at all. Shrug.
I suspect it will pass too but be close. As the chart shows while most Tory MPs will vote against assisted dying (as will Farage and the DUP) and while most LD and Green MPs will vote for (as will the SDLP and PC) Labour MPs are pretty split.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
In my mind the key issue with moral concerns is whether we enforce our morals on other people.
I wouldn't want euthanasia for myself or my loved ones, but others clearly do, and not just a tiny minority. Should my moral concerns be imposed on them?
But what if their moral choices have an effect on others?
But you say, dying is a personal choice.
Such as system being abused can effect more people than just those who wish to die.
I suppose that the difference is how extensive support is. I would anticipate that less than 1% of the population would want murder legalised, but with "Assisted Dying" we see a much larger percentage of the population, indeed a majority in favour.
Incidentally this is not the state killing individuals (as I understand it health care professionals are not allowed to administer the fatal cocktail) but rather individuals killing themselves or their loved ones without the state stopping them. It is the opposite of state control.
I still have concerns about coercive and budding Dr Shipmans, but on balance in favour of permitting it.
On current terms, euthanasia for the mentally ill as in Canada or for everyone and the polls show then most of the public turn against it
I suspect it will pass too but be close. As the chart shows while most Tory MPs will vote against assisted dying (as will Farage and the DUP) and while most LD and Green MPs will vote for (as will the SDLP and PC) Labour MPs are pretty split.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
The irony is if it passes it is likely to be with the help of Scottish Labour mps voting on a bill that doesn't apply in Scotland
Personally I think it is right to give people a choice but there must be well thought through regulation
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
This distinction between "personal" and "social" morals is an interesting one, especially when we start to consider units of "personal" e.g. "things that affect only me", "things that affect me and my children", "things that affect me and my immediate family", "things that affect the public" and the changing nature of the relationship between the "civil" [crown/government] and the "moral" [church/media] authorities.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
It used to be seen as a good thing to be able to argue both sides of any given debate, indeed many debating societies used to run debates with people arguing against their usual side of a contentious issue.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.
This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.
If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.
It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.
The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.
Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.
Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.
Only on PB.
Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.
All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.
Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.
Considering problem drinking and gambling do have financial implications then it is right and proper that mortgage companies look at these.
They should look at how any spending on these fits the general shape of the finances of the applicant. Me putting a tenner on City or buying a box of wine at Majestic should not be a problem. Someone losing £1 000 a week in online casinos should.
Putting a tenner on City at the moment is a bit problematic TBF. It rather reveals a financial naivety any sensible lender would be wary of.
I didn't say whether my bet on City (Leicester City in my case) is to win or to lose!
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
This distinction between "personal" and "social" morals is an interesting one, especially when we start to consider units of "personal" e.g. "things that affect only me", "things that affect me and my children", "things that affect me and my immediate family", "things that affect the public" and the changing nature of the relationship between the "civil" [crown/government] and the "moral" [church/media] authorities.
There are whole shelves of philosophy on this subject. A worthy study for anyone, I think.
It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.
FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.
You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.
Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?
Er, Anabob, it's quite something when I prefer Casino's arguments to yours. We get that you favour giving up cash, and think its use is silly. Some firms refuse to accept cash, and go without our custom some of the time. I don't think you favour making it illegal, and some of us find it sometimes convenient. Why not leave it there?
Because I oppose forcing businesses to accept cash, a policy some PBers are advocating. Is that not worthy of debate?
(You are right that I would not ban cash. It is indeed pointless, yet some people seem to like it, for reasons best known to themselves. Fair enough.)
It's a bit marginal in an otherwise free society. Businesses will stop accepting cash if the cost of doing so exceeds the benefits in terms of custom. I agree with you that they shouldn't be forced to accept it, or indeed forced to trade at all. Shrug.
I have a hesitation concerning ordinary day to day transactions when out and about, especially if a bit of a distance from home territory. I just like to have with me at least two ways of paying for things: a digital one and also one which is not liable to to technology failure (either with the seller's or my end of the transaction). This is called cash. I always carry enough to get home at least.
It's my version of the tradition of buying a return ticket when going to the races so that (according to PG Wodehouse) you don't have to raffle your trousers to get home.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
It used to be seen as a good thing to be able to argue both sides of any given debate, indeed many debating societies used to run debates with people arguing against their usual side of a contentious issue.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
I think many people think they are giving both sides of the debate, when they actually only give one.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
What is equality or human rights legislation, or funding the armed forces, or criminal justice legislation, other than imposing one’s own moral values upon others who do not share them?
Another key aspect is whether your moral choices have adverse effects on others.
So for example religious clothing laws in Iran do, and legalised racial discrimination.
While both Assisted Dying and abortion only impact the immediate participants, so should be their choice.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
There isn't a law that prevents me having two or more partners. Marriage in church is a religious thing. Marriage is also a legal contract that has e.g. tax implications.
Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.
This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.
If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.
It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.
The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.
Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.
Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.
Only on PB.
Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.
All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.
Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.
Considering problem drinking and gambling do have financial implications then it is right and proper that mortgage companies look at these.
They should look at how any spending on these fits the general shape of the finances of the applicant. Me putting a tenner on City or buying a box of wine at Majestic should not be a problem. Someone losing £1 000 a week in online casinos should.
Putting a tenner on City at the moment is a bit problematic TBF. It rather reveals a financial naivety any sensible lender would be wary of.
Liverpool for the quadruple would be an interesting bet.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
It used to be seen as a good thing to be able to argue both sides of any given debate, indeed many debating societies used to run debates with people arguing against their usual side of a contentious issue.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
I think many people think they are giving both sides of the debate, when they actually only give one.
The two sides of the debate. We call them "the man" and "the straw man" for easy identification.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
It used to be seen as a good thing to be able to argue both sides of any given debate, indeed many debating societies used to run debates with people arguing against their usual side of a contentious issue.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
Aristotle: 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.'
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
It used to be seen as a good thing to be able to argue both sides of any given debate, indeed many debating societies used to run debates with people arguing against their usual side of a contentious issue.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
The standard method of medieval philosophy included careful and formal consideration of the objections to whatever you were arguing. This is a fantastic discipline. I have noticed for years that younger people are bad at this on the whole. It is one of the many features which renders Thomas Aquinas such entertaining and amusing light reading (not).
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
There isn't a law that prevents me having two or more partners. Marriage in church is a religious thing. Marriage is also a legal contract that has e.g. tax implications.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
Marriage between one man and one woman for life is clearly Biblical and clearly preached by Christ.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
There isn't a law that prevents me having two or more partners. Marriage in church is a religious thing. Marriage is also a legal contract that has e.g. tax implications.
Yes - it's that legal/tax side that happens to be framed in terms of "pairs of people", and that's a hang-over from the historic construction of marriage from the prevailing moral authority, and the deeply rooted assumption that there was no other meaningful way of constructing that kind of legal relationship.
When are the figures on Net Immigration published today?
Is the the first item where Starmer's Government actually delivering results, as opposed to jugging deckchairs on the Titanic and furious willy-waving like the previous Government, will make a difference? I can't recall other items - inflation, maybe?
AFAICS the Conservatives are aleady pivoting away from the normal line: "This Labour Government has not done in 3 months things that we did not achieve in X years".
to more along the lines of Kemi saying "The Government of which I was a part, and where Rob Jenrick was Immigration Minister, and where I have defended the policy, got it wrong.
(Whilst sloping shoulders on the personal responsibility bit.)
and presumably
Yes, it's working where we failed, but it's not good enough. Waaah!
So that's three parties all competing to see who can be the "hardest" on immigration - a crowded field (where is presumably where some would like all the illegal migrants to be sent).
The one aspect of tomorrow's vote that I think will be a major factor is that a vote to Support won't be anything other than taking the proposed Bill to the next stage.
A Vote against though kills the proposal for at least 10 years, very likely 15 years, based on past evidence.
If I were a genuine "don't know" I'd prefer the option to find out more and see more detail and amendments, than to kill the option stone dead.
As a supporter I wopuld vote in favour, but as it stands the bill does not go far enough. Dealing only with people who are thought to have less than 6 months to live leaves out the small number of truly hardest cases - those who live in unsupportable and abominable suffering etc which is not life term limiting as such. Another and overlapping group are those unable to self administer. Then absence of these groups (such cases hve been to the SC without success) from the recent debate is interesting.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
There isn't a law that prevents me having two or more partners. Marriage in church is a religious thing. Marriage is also a legal contract that has e.g. tax implications.
And your point is??
It was to answer your question "Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?"
The answer is no for the reasons I gave. Practical implications not moral ones.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
Marriage between one man and one woman for life is clearly Biblical and clearly preached by Christ.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
But not necessarily a monogamous one. However, the outlawing of polyandry in China and India in the 1950s, alongside the existing Western European position (and Japan's earlier change in that regard in the late C19th) make it seem to everyone born since the war that it is "universal".
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
Marriage between one man and one woman for life is clearly Biblical and clearly preached by Christ.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
But not necessarily a monogamous one. However, the outlawing of polyandry in China and India in the 1950s, alongside the existing Western European position (and Japan's earlier change in that regard in the late C19th) make it seem to everyone born since the war that it is "universal".
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
Marriage between one man and one woman for life is clearly Biblical and clearly preached by Christ.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
Don't get me wrong, I am marriage's greatest supporter, and of course the NT is unequivocally monogamous. The Old Testament is neither wholly monogamous nor supportive of 'marriage for life'. You will recall that Jesus didn't think much of it - the Mosaic provision for divorce - for that reason.
I suspect it will pass too but be close. As the chart shows while most Tory MPs will vote against assisted dying (as will Farage and the DUP) and while most LD and Green MPs will vote for (as will the SDLP and PC) Labour MPs are pretty split.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
The irony is if it passes it is likely to be with the help of Scottish Labour mps voting on a bill that doesn't apply in Scotland
Personally I think it is right to give people a choice but there must be well thought through regulation
I agree generally, especially with the last para, but also think it wrong that Scots MP's of ANY party vote on this. It's a devolved matter, there what goes on in Scotland is left to the Scots. And, what its sauce for the goose etc.
And Good Morning one and all; lovely Autumn morning here; crisp and cold. Could be Winter, as indeed it will be in a couple of days.
The one aspect of tomorrow's vote that I think will be a major factor is that a vote to Support won't be anything other than taking the proposed Bill to the next stage.
A Vote against though kills the proposal for at least 10 years, very likely 15 years, based on past evidence.
If I were a genuine "don't know" I'd prefer the option to find out more and see more detail and amendments, than to kill the option stone dead.
As a supporter I wopuld vote in favour, but as it stands the bill does not go far enough. Dealing only with people who are thought to have less than 6 months to live leaves out the small number of truly hardest cases - those who live in unsupportable and abominable suffering etc which is not life term limiting as such. Another and overlapping group are those unable to self administer. Then absence of these groups (such cases hve been to the SC without success) from the recent debate is interesting.
I suspect it will pass too but be close. As the chart shows while most Tory MPs will vote against assisted dying (as will Farage and the DUP) and while most LD and Green MPs will vote for (as will the SDLP and PC) Labour MPs are pretty split.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
The irony is if it passes it is likely to be with the help of Scottish Labour mps voting on a bill that doesn't apply in Scotland
Personally I think it is right to give people a choice but there must be well thought through regulation
I agree generally, especially with the last para, but also think it wrong that Scots MP's of ANY party vote on this. It's a devolved matter, there what goes on in Scotland is left to the Scots. And, what its sauce for the goose etc.
And Good Morning one and all; lovely Autumn morning here; crisp and cold. Could be Winter, as indeed it will be in a couple of days.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
It used to be seen as a good thing to be able to argue both sides of any given debate, indeed many debating societies used to run debates with people arguing against their usual side of a contentious issue.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
The standard method of medieval philosophy included careful and formal consideration of the objections to whatever you were arguing. This is a fantastic discipline. I have noticed for years that younger people are bad at this on the whole. It is one of the many features which renders Thomas Aquinas such entertaining and amusing light reading (not).
I agree, but I'm more worried by people opting out of argument altogether, and either skipping the whole political process or opting for a vaguely sympathetic camp - the US elections are a good example of both. To take an example, I'd prefer to vote for William Hague than George Galloway, as Hague seems reasonably open to argument while Galloway doesn't, even though in vague general terms I'm probably closer to Galloway. Increasingly, people seem inclined to skip the argument and go for the gut feeling, if at all - and that undermines a basic assumption of democracy (that people will try to reach a rational view).
Why? Because rational argument hasn't lately seemed to deliver workable prosperity, so people feel OK, let's skip the argument and just go for vague sympathy.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
Marriage between one man and one woman for life is clearly Biblical and clearly preached by Christ.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
Nonsense, many Biblical characters were polygamous, so were many characters in Hindu myth.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
I thought the Govt. spokesperson on BBC1 this morning was right to refuse to give a definite number. See what we need and go from there was her policy, whereas the interviewer was pressing her to give an absolute number.
I suspect it will pass too but be close. As the chart shows while most Tory MPs will vote against assisted dying (as will Farage and the DUP) and while most LD and Green MPs will vote for (as will the SDLP and PC) Labour MPs are pretty split.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
The irony is if it passes it is likely to be with the help of Scottish Labour mps voting on a bill that doesn't apply in Scotland
Personally I think it is right to give people a choice but there must be well thought through regulation
I agree generally, especially with the last para, but also think it wrong that Scots MP's of ANY party vote on this. It's a devolved matter, there what goes on in Scotland is left to the Scots. And, what its sauce for the goose etc.
And Good Morning one and all; lovely Autumn morning here; crisp and cold. Could be Winter, as indeed it will be in a couple of days.
Feeling like winter, I must say.
If 21st December is Mid-winter, then Winter must start in November!
I suspect it will pass too but be close. As the chart shows while most Tory MPs will vote against assisted dying (as will Farage and the DUP) and while most LD and Green MPs will vote for (as will the SDLP and PC) Labour MPs are pretty split.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
The irony is if it passes it is likely to be with the help of Scottish Labour mps voting on a bill that doesn't apply in Scotland
Personally I think it is right to give people a choice but there must be well thought through regulation
I agree generally, especially with the last para, but also think it wrong that Scots MP's of ANY party vote on this. It's a devolved matter, there what goes on in Scotland is left to the Scots. And, what its sauce for the goose etc.
And Good Morning one and all; lovely Autumn morning here; crisp and cold. Could be Winter, as indeed it will be in a couple of days.
Feeling like winter, I must say.
If 21st December is Mid-winter, then Winter must start in November!
Well the earth in our garden is hard as iron and the water in our feature is like a stone.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
Hmm. The initial estimate for YE June 2023 was 740,000 but this was then revised upwards to 906,000.
If you compare the initial estimates then the decrease is only 2%.
Is this a reasonable comparison? It depends on the reasons for the large revision in the earlier data, and whether it reflects a systematic bias in the initial estimate. But it's perhaps a sign that we can't have much confidence in the scale of the decrease.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
Marriage between one man and one woman for life is clearly Biblical and clearly preached by Christ.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
But not necessarily a monogamous one. However, the outlawing of polyandry in China and India in the 1950s, alongside the existing Western European position (and Japan's earlier change in that regard in the late C19th) make it seem to everyone born since the war that it is "universal".
In the New Testament clearly monogomous too
Yes - and comes directly from the changes in contemporary Roman law instituted by Augustus to reassert control over the amazingly chaotic legal status of marriage that had evolved by the late Republic.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
Already the comments are appearing calling for zero net migration and even for deportations of people already here.
It will be fascinating to see what Trump does after his Inauguration and the extent to which he is able to carry out his threats/promises of "mass deportations on day one" of his administration.
IF it is seen to be successful, it will be legitimised as a policy across most of the western world and will be rapidly taken on by all Governments and Oppositions. However, if it doesn't work or is seen not to be ineffective, it will kill the idea stone dead.
Badenoch, doing her "Salome" impression yesterday evening, at least in policy terms, tempts and teases with "it's time to talk about immigration" but I'm no fool and neither are the British people. She's got nothing in policy terms currently apart from Rwanda Mark 2 and even that wouldn't placate those for whom net zero migration is barely acceptable and mass deportations (of whom, where, when, how, by whom?) are seen as the "answer".
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
And deportation flights dried up too, leaving them with a very low base to improve on. Enforced returns 2009: 12,500. In 2022, 3,900.
(Lol, BBC news just pushed another notification showing the we actually had even bigger net migration in 2023. Just catastrophic politics from the Conservatives - if you're gonna talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk)
Today's migration and asylum figures may be interesting, but they tell us nothing whatsoever about the success, or failure, of the current government's policies. Actions taken (or not) since July won't show up in the data for at least another year, probably two.
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
Already the comments are appearing calling for zero net migration and even for deportations of people already here.
It will be fascinating to see what Trump does after his Inauguration and the extent to which he is able to carry out his threats/promises of "mass deportations on day one" of his administration.
IF it is seen to be successful, it will be legitimised as a policy across most of the western world and will be rapidly taken on by all Governments and Oppositions. However, if it doesn't work or is seen not to be ineffective, it will kill the idea stone dead.
Badenoch, doing her "Salome" impression yesterday evening, at least in policy terms, tempts and teases with "it's time to talk about immigration" but I'm no fool and neither are the British people. She's got nothing in policy terms currently apart from Rwanda Mark 2 and even that wouldn't placate those for whom net zero migration is barely acceptable and mass deportations (of whom, where, when, how, by whom?) are seen as the "answer".
It's impossible to placate. If you get it down to zero net migration, you'll have people calling for zero immigration at all. If you manage that, you'll have people gagging to deport everyone who has moved here since 1997.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
It used to be seen as a good thing to be able to argue both sides of any given debate, indeed many debating societies used to run debates with people arguing against their usual side of a contentious issue.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
The standard method of medieval philosophy included careful and formal consideration of the objections to whatever you were arguing. This is a fantastic discipline. I have noticed for years that younger people are bad at this on the whole. It is one of the many features which renders Thomas Aquinas such entertaining and amusing light reading (not).
I agree, but I'm more worried by people opting out of argument altogether, and either skipping the whole political process or opting for a vaguely sympathetic camp - the US elections are a good example of both. To take an example, I'd prefer to vote for William Hague than George Galloway, as Hague seems reasonably open to argument while Galloway doesn't, even though in vague general terms I'm probably closer to Galloway. Increasingly, people seem inclined to skip the argument and go for the gut feeling, if at all - and that undermines a basic assumption of democracy (that people will try to reach a rational view).
Why? Because rational argument hasn't lately seemed to deliver workable prosperity, so people feel OK, let's skip the argument and just go for vague sympathy.
Also arguing from logic and evidence is hard work. Hard work that is unfulfilling and wasted unless there's a critical mass of people from different viewpoints doing it.
On topic, if the motion is defeated tomorrow, it will be down to the god-squad, especially the Papists.
Shabana Mahmood is not a Papist...
But is part of the wider god-squad.
I'd have gone for the ambiguous 'greater' god-squad to see whether I could trigger any theological objections from our resident Christians and people of other non-Muslim faiths. But then, I'm a bad person!
While I still favour assisted dying becoming law, canada still worries me
4.1% of all canadian deaths a year being due to MAiD still seems huge
Also MAiD was extended to more people not by the canadian parliament but by law courts under the aegis of human rights....couldn't happen here? Unconvinced
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
As has been previously said approx 84,000 were asylum applications and the rest were genuine work visa entries and students
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
There isn't a law that prevents me having two or more partners. Marriage in church is a religious thing. Marriage is also a legal contract that has e.g. tax implications.
And your point is??
It was to answer your question "Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?"
The answer is no for the reasons I gave. Practical implications not moral ones.
I agree. There would, however, be moral objections (I'm sure) if proposals were raised to expand marriage (with careful consideration of tax, IHT etc implications, e.g. either nomination of a main partner or allowances being split between partners to end up the same overall). Civil partnerships covering more than one person would be less controversial.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
I recall from 2016 the argument that it wasn't the number that was problematic, but the lack of control. Well now we have control, the number has gone up, and people are still not happy. What a fucking surprise.
Chris Philp, shadow HS, is impressive: Even if net migration had fallen to 350k, that remains too high. What would be an acceptable number then? I'm not going to shoot from the hip.
Just had a blast of a dreadful song that the leader of the Lib Dems , Sir Ed Disney, is involved in. I feel there is a frustrated showman in the politician. Next stop “The Masked Singer.
The new series is already in the can. Filmed in the Summer, August IIRC. He may have been in it, you never know. Starts over Xmas.
Alan Johnson appeared in it, so their is precedent for a politician going on and Rudy Giuliani was on the one in the States.
Rudy is no great precedent. Are you suggesting Sir Ed is about to attract the attentions of law enforcement??
Chris Philp, shadow HS, is impressive: Even if net migration had fallen to 350k, that remains too high. What would be an acceptable number then? I'm not going to shoot from the hip.
There's nothing the right fear more than a reasonable consensus being reached on immigration.
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
Comments
(You are right that I would not ban cash. It is indeed pointless, yet some people seem to like it, for reasons best known to themselves. Fair enough.)
Every abortion is a sad event, and to be regretted. But forcing women to have babies they do not want is also sad, and a regretful act. Women generally are not forced to have abortions; it is a choice (and IME not one they easily choose). Without abortions, women are forced to have kids they do not want. And that is, IMV, a greater issue morally - especially as pregnancy and giving birth can have significant impact on a woman's health.
Since the anti-abortion argument is mainly a religious one, it is worth looking at how religions have treated women who have had unwanted children, often unmarried mothers. And it is not pretty.
I therefore hold the 'religious' moral arguments against abortion in contempt.
The above also has bearing on my views on assisted dying...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duHy_IbJvTc
It looks a lot better now the trees etc have had time to grow.
I really must get around to visiting it one day. It looks and I hear it feels so much better than hideous modernist new towns and the huge 50% premium people pay to live there certainly imply that it does.
If other new housing developments looked like this I'm sure there'd be less opposition to new building.
Oh and the architects and building companies hate it as it doesn't allow them to cover everything in steel and concrete, which is a perfect sign that it's a spectacular success.
People, on many occasions, have given you reasons for preferring to use cash, or to have cash as an option. Reasons such as resilience in the face of temporary failure of electronic payment systems. For spending control when on a tight budget. Or for the tactile pleasure of using physical objects that are the result of millennia of developments in design.
You may not agree with such reasons, but they undoubtedly exist, and for you to affect that these reasons are a complete mystery, are perhaps non-existent, is incredibly rude. Is there any point in giving your view on this issue when you so airily dismiss contrary opinion?
Everything about @Anabobazina and cash has been discussed ad infinitum and time to move on
It is frankly boring
A Vote against though kills the proposal for at least 10 years, very likely 15 years, based on past evidence.
If I were a genuine "don't know" I'd prefer the option to find out more and see more detail and amendments, than to kill the option stone dead.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
Personally I think it is right to give people a choice but there must be well thought through regulation
You use it every day.
Sadly, in these days of social media clips and of people wishing to avoid opinions with which they disagree, this appears to be a thing of the past.
It's my version of the tradition of buying a return ticket when going to the races so that (according to PG Wodehouse) you don't have to raffle your trousers to get home.
So for example religious clothing laws in Iran do, and legalised racial discrimination.
While both Assisted Dying and abortion only impact the immediate participants, so should be their choice.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
When are the figures on Net Immigration published today?
Is the the first item where Starmer's Government actually delivering results, as opposed to jugging deckchairs on the Titanic and furious willy-waving like the previous Government, will make a difference? I can't recall other items - inflation, maybe?
AFAICS the Conservatives are aleady pivoting away from the normal line:
"This Labour Government has not done in 3 months things that we did not achieve in X years".
to more along the lines of Kemi saying
"The Government of which I was a part, and where Rob Jenrick was Immigration Minister, and where I have defended the policy, got it wrong.
(Whilst sloping shoulders on the personal responsibility bit.)
and presumably
Yes, it's working where we failed, but it's not good enough. Waaah!
Interesting times
SKS is a very lucky general.
The answer is no for the reasons I gave. Practical implications not moral ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjdlmprepl5t
The public will see immigration going down. End of story.
Of course when the first figures solely under a Labour government come in we may well see a rise again
Reason is 23 figure was about 160,000 short
Another piece of crystal clear evidence why Sunak was desperate for May election
They'll spin it as 20% down when in reality 2023 was 17% understated.
From reading for Badenoch and Philip. Fully explains yesterday's emergency PR stunt in Tufton Street.
They will just be stunned by the absurdly high number. This is net migration of more than 1% of the entire UK population in just one year
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1862067605378359614?s=46
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
https://news.sky.com/story/net-migration-to-the-uk-falls-by-20-to-728000-over-last-year-13262158
It's a devolved matter, there what goes on in Scotland is left to the Scots. And, what its sauce for the goose etc.
And Good Morning one and all; lovely Autumn morning here; crisp and cold. Could be Winter, as indeed it will be in a couple of days.
Why? Because rational argument hasn't lately seemed to deliver workable prosperity, so people feel OK, let's skip the argument and just go for vague sympathy.
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
I expect an offshore asylum processing centre to be announced next year.
If you compare the initial estimates then the decrease is only 2%.
Is this a reasonable comparison? It depends on the reasons for the large revision in the earlier data, and whether it reflects a systematic bias in the initial estimate. But it's perhaps a sign that we can't have much confidence in the scale of the decrease.
It will be fascinating to see what Trump does after his Inauguration and the extent to which he is able to carry out his threats/promises of "mass deportations on day one" of his administration.
IF it is seen to be successful, it will be legitimised as a policy across most of the western world and will be rapidly taken on by all Governments and Oppositions. However, if it doesn't work or is seen not to be ineffective, it will kill the idea stone dead.
Badenoch, doing her "Salome" impression yesterday evening, at least in policy terms, tempts and teases with "it's time to talk about immigration" but I'm no fool and neither are the British people. She's got nothing in policy terms currently apart from Rwanda Mark 2 and even that wouldn't placate those for whom net zero migration is barely acceptable and mass deportations (of whom, where, when, how, by whom?) are seen as the "answer".
(Lol, BBC news just pushed another notification showing the we actually had even bigger net migration in 2023. Just catastrophic politics from the Conservatives - if you're gonna talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk)
Some positive moves on housebuilding but I lean one term government now.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
4.1% of all canadian deaths a year being due to MAiD still seems huge
Also MAiD was extended to more people not by the canadian parliament but by law courts under the aegis of human rights....couldn't happen here? Unconvinced
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
What a fucking surprise.
But, they lied to their voters that they were doing the opposite.
No wonder Reform polled so well.
Even if net migration had fallen to 350k, that remains too high.
What would be an acceptable number then?
I'm not going to shoot from the hip.
It would be possible to have high levels of immigration and low levels of net migration, but this might also upset some people.
Alan Johnson didn't do very well on it either.
The real question, which isn't answered, is how many 'asylum seekers' we should accept and the effect it has on our health and education requirements
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.