I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.
More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.
I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.
Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.
Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?
Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.
And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.
If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.
Religious people are entited to vote in the ballot box or in parliament the same as atheists and entitled to have their religion influence their vote too if they wish
Of course they can.
The point is they are unbelievably selfish imposing what they personally want upon others.
The notion that politics should be divorced from ethics is an extremely silly one.
Non-religious people have personal beliefs of right and wrong, and if they are legislators, then of course these legislators will vote accordingly.
As a general point, yes. However there's a particular flavour here. Suicide (or attempted) is not illegal. What this does is allow a person to obtain via a doctor a painless chemical means of doing it. If you say 'No' to that on principle what is the ethical position you are staking out?
As I said last night I don't really see why she needed to resign. It was a relatively minor offence committed before she was elected as an MP for which she has already been sentenced in the magistrates court.
Plus we now have MPs who have served prison time and a President elect of the United States who is also a convicted criminal
We had an MP elected from prison in the past, although they changed the rules afterwards so it couldn’t happen again.
Bobby Sands of course.
Indeed, even Nelson Mandela spent time in prison, as did our Lord Jesus Christ.
Unless you count a short chunk of Holy Week between arrest and death, Jesus is not recorded as being imprisoned on any occasion. Unlike St John the Baptist and St Paul were certainly were.
I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.
More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.
I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.
Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.
Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?
Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.
And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.
If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.
Religious people are entited to vote in the ballot box or in parliament the same as atheists and entitled to have their religion influence their vote too if they wish
Of course they can.
The point is they are unbelievably selfish imposing what they personally want upon others.
Socialists have a right to their views, but they shouldn’t impose their views on the rest of us and are often unbelievably selfish about doing so.
The fact is, everyone tries to impose their views on others to a greater or lesser extent. It’s just that religion being less fashionable at the moment gets more criticism for it.
The point about assisted dying is there is no impact on anyone else.
If a socialist wants to tax me more there is a clear impact on others because that tax raised will improve public services.
Hmmm. That strikes me as naive. For a start, it may well have an effect on medical staff, families, the legal profession and social services.
I appreciate that not everybody will be a Dominic Cummings fan (I'm not one myself) but he does post some interesting analyses. This, which strikes me as pretty insightful, with much else, just arrived in the inbox...
"Poorer people who don’t watch much news are generally much more open-minded about politics than graduates living in big cities who consume a lot of news, who are much more ‘trapped in narrow information bubbles’ than the average GOP rural voter who pays little attention to politics. And pundits and academics are the most closed-minded of all while thinking of themselves as the opposite. They herd to a few acceptable opinions but think they’re the few able to step outside herding and observe objectively. Another golden rule of politics is that it’s the intelligentsia who are easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales…"
That’s rich coming from the individual who has shroud waved over the NHS in order to achieve every single one of his election victories. From the anti-mayoral campaigns that he cut his political teeth on to the great Brexit controversy it’s been his go-to strategy every time.
/Everybody/ can be fooled with simple moral propaganda tales if they appeal to their own self-image.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.
‘Reform have come from nowhere to 4th in the Wanksock North by election, YES! Change is coming, oppressed brothers and sisters of ethnically white UK.’
Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.
I don't want to go full on Regina George, but why is he so obsessed with us?
Possibly because the mother country is overrepresented in American media; possibly because some publicity-hungry MPs threatened to drag him in front of a select committee; possibly because no-one says no to the richest man in the world.
Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.
Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.
Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....
So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?
Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.
I don't want to go full on Regina George, but why is he so obsessed with us?
There could be many reasons. Farage's voice whispering in his ear recently; a newly-elected 'leftist' government here in the UK. Listening to Russian shills too much.
Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.
I don't want to go full on Regina George, but why is he so obsessed with us?
Seems plausible:
not seen it mentioned elsewhere so: my theory is that Elon has become obsessed with Britain because he's essentially stopped sleeping due to drugs and/or madness but for like six hours of his nights Americans are sleeping so Brits are the one English-speaking timezone awake and posting
Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.
I don't want to go full on Regina George, but why is he so obsessed with us?
Not sure. Seems to have a thing about trolling Starmer. Eg his stoking of the white race riots in the summer.
Also to go slightly 'conspiracy', Farage is in the Trump circle so could be saying, "hey, Great Man, please could you help me become the next UK PM. It'll be a blast."
Apart from the UK not being a "1000 year old democracy", which reminded me a bit of Kinnock's "first in 1000 generations to go to university" nonsense.
Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.
Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.
Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....
So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?
Our top biller used his mobile all the time for internal calls. (Since then, it has occurred to me that he might be related to a famous-ish historical figure, but it is 25 years too late to ask.)
Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.
Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.
Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....
So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?
OK... this could be a traumatic day, have you done Santa Claus yet?
Farage will regret it if Kemi gets to paint him as Trump’s creature. Would give her a chance to swallow a lot of the platform without being associated to Trump. I know 20-30% quite like him, but that’s very much the ceiling.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.
Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.
Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....
So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?
OK... this could be a traumatic day, have you done Santa Claus yet?
Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad
Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good
Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?
I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.
Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.
He is hurting this country.
How is he hurting this country?
He is telling his millions of 'followers' that this country is a terrible place.
It isn't.
Many of his followers hate EVs, think you are a man bun sporting, soy-latte drinking effete simp who can't get a girlfriend if you drive one. They conveniently forget their man Elon is literally the bloke who personifies electric cars.
Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.
I don't want to go full on Regina George, but why is he so obsessed with us?
Not sure. Seems to have a thing about trolling Starmer. Eg his stoking of the white race riots in the summer.
Also to go slightly 'conspiracy', Farage is in the Trump circle so could be saying, "hey, Great Man, please could you help me become the next UK PM. It'll be a blast."
Yeah all kinds of potential explanations. I've noticed that a lot of unhappy autocratic people seem to harbour an intensive hatred of the British that's out of proportion with our diminished status in the world, like Putin and the Iranian leadership. I think they look at us on our beautiful green island, with our unarmed policemen and our self-deprecating humour and all the incredible gifts we've given the world in the spheres of literature, sport, science and popular music, and they just feel enraged at their own impotent misery. Musk strikes me as a deeply unhappy person. In those dark wakeful hours before dawn, he will pick up a PG Wodehouse, or watch the Antiques Road Show or an episode of Morse, and he just won't be able to bear the fact that we even exist.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
Which was not what you were saying yesterday...
But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.
I appreciate that not everybody will be a Dominic Cummings fan (I'm not one myself) but he does post some interesting analyses. This, which strikes me as pretty insightful, with much else, just arrived in the inbox...
"Poorer people who don’t watch much news are generally much more open-minded about politics than graduates living in big cities who consume a lot of news, who are much more ‘trapped in narrow information bubbles’ than the average GOP rural voter who pays little attention to politics. And pundits and academics are the most closed-minded of all while thinking of themselves as the opposite. They herd to a few acceptable opinions but think they’re the few able to step outside herding and observe objectively. Another golden rule of politics is that it’s the intelligentsia who are easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales…"
That’s rich coming from the individual who has shroud waved over the NHS in order to achieve every single one of his election victories. From the anti-mayoral campaigns that he cut his political teeth on to the great Brexit controversy it’s been his go-to strategy every time.
/Everybody/ can be fooled with simple moral propaganda tales if they appeal to their own self-image.
Yeah, Cummings definitely being far from truthful there, he certainly wasn't targeting the intelligentsia with his propaganda campaigns, for a start, as he knows, there aren't enough of the intelligentsia to win a vote.
Anyone know who is putting bread on the Cummings' table at the moment? His start-up party agenda which reportedly includes "closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest" seems unlikely to attract funding.
On the Elon vs UK thing, the fascinating thing about the X "for you" tab is that I get bombarded with an endless barrage of conspiracy crap, laughably fact-free opinions and hard right hate.
Muskybaby thinks terrible things about the UK because he is also being served the same crap. Its like reading the Daily Mail and watching GBeebies as your only sources of news - of course you'd think everything is awful.
Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad
Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good
Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?
I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.
Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.
He is hurting this country.
How is he hurting this country?
He is telling his millions of 'followers' that this country is a terrible place.
It isn't.
May keep his US followers away. No bad thing…
You can never know if it was a bot, but a response to a retweet of one of Musk's anti-British tweet said something like. "I've always wanted to visit the UK. Not any more. It's a shithole."
Because that's the image Musk promotes.
And that one individual does not matter. But wait until Musky Baby starts whispering in the ears of other businessmen, who may want to invest in the UK.
Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.
Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.
Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....
So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?
OK... this could be a traumatic day, have you done Santa Claus yet?
What about him? Just writing my letter.
Don't sit on his knee, everybody knows but HR have closed down any complaints.
On the Elon vs UK thing, the fascinating thing about the X "for you" tab is that I get bombarded with an endless barrage of conspiracy crap, laughably fact-free opinions and hard right hate.
Muskybaby thinks terrible things about the UK because he is also being served the same crap. Its like reading the Daily Mail and watching GBeebies as your only sources of news - of course you'd think everything is awful.
My feed is the same. It's currently all Rotheschild baby eating craziness. Plus a bit of all the illuminati wear masks, because their not human. It's fascinating, and I spend far too much time down the rabbit hole, but also terrifying that millions of people get caught up in believing it.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
Which was not what you were saying yesterday...
But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.
No, men's role has traditionally been that of the wage earner and bread winner and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home.
Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home
Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.
Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.
Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....
So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?
OK... this could be a traumatic day, have you done Santa Claus yet?
What about him? Just writing my letter.
Don't sit on his knee, everybody knows but HR have closed down any complaints.
I always wondered whether bouncing on his lap was why I got the mega drive that one year….
On the Elon vs UK thing, the fascinating thing about the X "for you" tab is that I get bombarded with an endless barrage of conspiracy crap, laughably fact-free opinions and hard right hate.
Muskybaby thinks terrible things about the UK because he is also being served the same crap. Its like reading the Daily Mail and watching GBeebies as your only sources of news - of course you'd think everything is awful.
That's giving him an excuse. He's an intelligent chap (according to some, a genius...); he's been to the UK many times, and will know many British people. If what you're saying is true, then he's stupid. As much as I dislike him, I don't think he is stupid.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
Which was not what you were saying yesterday...
But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.
No, men's role has traditionally been that of the wage earner and bread winner and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home.
Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home
"... and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home."
Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.
I appreciate that not everybody will be a Dominic Cummings fan (I'm not one myself) but he does post some interesting analyses. This, which strikes me as pretty insightful, with much else, just arrived in the inbox...
"Poorer people who don’t watch much news are generally much more open-minded about politics than graduates living in big cities who consume a lot of news, who are much more ‘trapped in narrow information bubbles’ than the average GOP rural voter who pays little attention to politics. And pundits and academics are the most closed-minded of all while thinking of themselves as the opposite. They herd to a few acceptable opinions but think they’re the few able to step outside herding and observe objectively. Another golden rule of politics is that it’s the intelligentsia who are easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales…"
"golden rule of politics is that it’s the intelligentsia who are easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales…"
Are "intelligentsia" the easiest to fool with dog whistle anti-semitism and tropes about Goldman Sachs, Rothschilds & George Soros ?
As Cummings has himself has ranted about Goldman Sachs, then perhaps they are.
He has the ego the size of Musk but with about a millionth of the ability.
I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.
More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.
I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.
Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.
Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?
Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.
And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.
If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.
I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.
Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.
I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.
Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.
I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.
Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad
Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good
Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?
I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.
Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.
He is hurting this country.
How is he hurting this country?
He is telling his millions of 'followers' that this country is a terrible place.
It isn't.
He's telling people that it isn't what it was.
It isn't.
Do you agree with Musk that civil war is inevitable here in the UK, and if so do you think it would be terrible for the UK?
Who could be arsed to actually do the fighting? There'd be a huge number of onlookers with folded arms, whilst Tracy wades in with "Leave it Dean, it's not worf it..."
In 2013 an undercover investigation by the Daily Telegraph appeared to catch two doctors red-handed as they offered an abortion to a woman who told them she didn’t want to have a baby girl. Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is meant to be illegal – terminations are only to be offered when two doctors agree that continuing with a pregnancy would be injurious to the mother’s health. Yet Starmer declined to bring a prosecution, arguing that it would be impossible to prove that sex selection was the only reason for the abortion, so it wouldn’t be in the public interest for the Crown Prosecution Service to proceed. Again, he effectively decriminalised something without any intervention by parliament.
I was at the assisted dying demo in Parliament Square this morning. My MP knew I was there and phoned me and asked me to meet her in her office in Portcullis House to explain why she was voting against the bill. We spent an hour and found some common ground. She is for assisted dying in principle but objects to the process (too rushed) and would prefer a government sponsored bill. The problem is that might result in a 5-10 year delay.
I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.
More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.
I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.
Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.
Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?
Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.
And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.
If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.
I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.
Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.
I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.
Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.
I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.
In any society what governs you is people based systems. There are no others. Secularity, religion, paganism, liberalism, isms various and a variety of bonkersnesses make up the human condition, they make all sorts of claims but they are all human in delivery. Humans decide the mix in which we live at any time, always have and always will. Though the issue of which humans at any moment have most voice is always an open one. Including right now.
I just wonder if the for you page on Twitter has been broken because Elon sacked all of the people that maintained it or if he's actively made it be more hard right to try and make it more "balanced"?
I was at the assisted dying demo in Parliament Square this morning. My MP knew I was there and phoned me and asked me to meet her in her office in Portcullis House to explain why she was voting against the bill. We spent an hour and found some common ground. She is for assisted dying in principle but objects to the process (too rushed) and would prefer a government sponsored bill. The problem is that might result in a 5-10 year delay.
That’s an MP’s figleaf to avoid taking a decisive position.
As pointed out in the debate, if you are in favour in principle, you vote for the first reading and reserve your position later depending on the detail.
There will never be a “government sponsored bill” - because all parties in parliament accept that it’s a matter of conscience for individual MPs. So your MP is trying to pull a fast one, hoping you don’t understand the political realities.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
A deal of disestablishment plus a financial guarantee for the maintenance of, say, the best 5000-6000 churches, as religious or in due course community assets, with a bias to those in neglected areas would be OK with this middle of the road CoE member.
(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).
Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats, has given birth to a girl early this morning in Cork. RTÉ are reporting that she isn't going to make it back down to the constituency to vote, so I'll have to head out later and make sure I do my bit to help her get elected.
Would she be the first person elected to office on the same day they gave birth?
Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.
I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed
I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.
More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.
I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.
Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.
Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?
Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.
And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.
If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.
I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.
Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.
I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.
Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.
I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.
You could be fined for non attendance of a C of E church every Sunday here from 1558 until 1888 via the Act of Uniformity (albeit nonconformist worship was tolerated from 1689 and Roman Catholic worship from 1791)
Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats, has given birth to a girl early this morning in Cork. RTÉ are reporting that she isn't going to make it back down to the constituency to vote, so I'll have to head out later and make sure I do my bit to help her get elected.
Would she be the first person elected to office on the same day they gave birth?
Questions should be asked about this. She’s manufacturing her own voters!
Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.
I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed
On that basis there is no way we can renationalise the railways...
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
Which was not what you were saying yesterday...
But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.
No, men's role has traditionally been that of the wage earner and bread winner and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home.
Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home
"... and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home."
I wonder what you mean by that...
Well if you let children run riot in your home no surprise there
Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats, has given birth to a girl early this morning in Cork. RTÉ are reporting that she isn't going to make it back down to the constituency to vote, so I'll have to head out later and make sure I do my bit to help her get elected.
Would she be the first person elected to office on the same day they gave birth?
Questions should be asked about this. She’s manufacturing her own voters!
Practices from the North, being adopted in the South.
Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.
I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed
You need to wise up.
The state enables people to be killed, all the time.
Just not those condemned by illness to soon be dead, anyway.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
Only if the state takes on the funding and maintenance of grade listed C of E churches and cathedrals with taxpayers money as the French state does of historic RC cathedrals and churches there
Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.
I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed
You need to wise up.
The state enables people to be killed, all the time.
Just not those condemned by illness to soon be dead, anyway.
Only the likes of terrorists threatening to kill others immediately. It is interesting to see traditional Conservatives like me finding some common cause with some otherwise leftwing Labour MPs on this issue
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
Which was not what you were saying yesterday...
But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.
No, men's role has traditionally been that of the wage earner and bread winner and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home.
Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home
"... and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home."
I wonder what you mean by that...
Well if you let children run riot in your home no surprise there
I don't have children who 'run riot'. Far from. He's an untidy little blighter, but aside from that, I'm very happy in the young man he's slowly turning into. Perhaps that will change as teenage years and puberty strike; but then I hope the only 'discipline' needed will be words.
But I do wonder how many children you've abused in the name of 'discipline'.
I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.
More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.
I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.
Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.
Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?
Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.
And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.
If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.
I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.
Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.
I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.
Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.
I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.
You could be fined for non attendance of a C of E church every Sunday here from 1558 until 1888 via the Act of Uniformity (albeit nonconformist worship was tolerated from 1689 and Roman Catholic worship from 1791)
Times vary, but enforcement by human systems goes on. You can be fined for going on holiday in term time or failing to send your children to school now, but not then. The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. We will be the past one day.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
Plenty of redundant methodist chapels in very good state of repair, and being put to good use as homes or business premises. Let the market decide whether churches have useful function, or if they should be demolished to make way for a Lidl.
Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats, has given birth to a girl early this morning in Cork. RTÉ are reporting that she isn't going to make it back down to the constituency to vote, so I'll have to head out later and make sure I do my bit to help her get elected.
Would she be the first person elected to office on the same day they gave birth?
I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.
More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.
I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.
Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.
Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?
Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?
This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.
And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.
If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.
I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.
Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.
I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.
Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.
I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.
You could be fined for non attendance of a C of E church every Sunday here from 1558 until 1888 via the Act of Uniformity (albeit nonconformist worship was tolerated from 1689 and Roman Catholic worship from 1791)
In the American colonies, you were either whipped or starved.
Let’s be grateful that back in the home country, things weren’t quite so bad.
Nevertheless the course of history has been for sensible folk like the most of us, to secure freedoms to escape from the control-freakery of folks like you.
Taking the wider view, the surprise is that it took so long for ordinary folk to realise that so many bishops and priests were in reality child-controlling paedophiles.
Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent
A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.
Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame
So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.
Plenty of redundant methodist chapels in very good state of repair, and being put to good use as homes or business premises. Let the market decide whether churches have useful function, or if they should be demolished to make way for a Lidl.
The Methodists of course now perform full same sex marriages in their churches and chapels, unfortunately for them it seems it doesn't seem to be attracting too many worshippers mirroring the culture of much of 21st century Britain in their chapels.
Most Methodist chapels are 19th or early 20th century too, rather more difficult to convert medieval churches
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
Which was not what you were saying yesterday...
But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.
No, men's role has traditionally been that of the wage earner and bread winner and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home.
Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home
"... and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home."
I wonder what you mean by that...
Well if you let children run riot in your home no surprise there
Comments
Edit: And St Peter.
Presumably Elon will soon be commenting on UK council by elections.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1862363504587468902?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ
/Everybody/ can be fooled with simple moral propaganda tales if they appeal to their own self-image.
For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.
Change is coming, oppressed brothers and sisters of ethnically white UK.’
Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good
I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.
Take your pick.
not seen it mentioned elsewhere so: my theory is that Elon has become obsessed with Britain because he's essentially stopped sleeping due to drugs and/or madness but for like six hours of his nights Americans are sleeping so Brits are the one English-speaking timezone awake and posting
https://bsky.app/profile/youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com/post/3lc3bapq2dk2b
Also to go slightly 'conspiracy', Farage is in the Trump circle so could be saying, "hey, Great Man, please could you help me become the next UK PM. It'll be a blast."
He is hurting this country.
In Belgium and Holland, euthanasia for psychiatric conditions are allowed (coming to us soon, in stages) - 70-80% of them are women.
In Canada, prior to assisted dying, women only accounted for less than 25% of suicides. Now it's just under half. Buyers remorse is not possible.
In UK, 78% of mercy killings are of women. 88% of them are committed by men.
https://x.com/sheebadigeebies/status/1862451910998958577
Not allowed in any possible way under this Bill.
If a later parliament wants to change it to allow that then that is their right.
Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too
It isn't.
They conveniently forget their man Elon is literally the bloke who personifies electric cars.
But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.
Anyone know who is putting bread on the Cummings' table at the moment?
His start-up party agenda which reportedly includes "closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest" seems unlikely to attract funding.
Muskybaby thinks terrible things about the UK because he is also being served the same crap. Its like reading the Daily Mail and watching GBeebies as your only sources of news - of course you'd think everything is awful.
Because that's the image Musk promotes.
And that one individual does not matter. But wait until Musky Baby starts whispering in the ears of other businessmen, who may want to invest in the UK.
It isn't.
Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home
He's doing this for a reason, or reasons.
I wonder what you mean by that...
Are "intelligentsia" the easiest to fool with dog whistle anti-semitism and tropes about Goldman Sachs, Rothschilds & George Soros ?
As Cummings has himself has ranted about Goldman Sachs, then perhaps they are.
He has the ego the size of Musk but with about a millionth of the ability.
I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.
Syrian rebel forces have entered Aleppo. Assad’s troops barely putting up a fight.
No Russia to protect Assad either.
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1862490901748105588?s=61
In 2013 an undercover investigation by the Daily Telegraph appeared to catch two doctors red-handed as they offered an abortion to a woman who told them she didn’t want to have a baby girl. Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is meant to be illegal – terminations are only to be offered when two doctors agree that continuing with a pregnancy would be injurious to the mother’s health. Yet Starmer declined to bring a prosecution, arguing that it would be impossible to prove that sex selection was the only reason for the abortion, so it wouldn’t be in the public interest for the Crown Prosecution Service to proceed. Again, he effectively decriminalised something without any intervention by parliament.
My MP knew I was there and phoned me and asked me to meet her in her office in Portcullis House to explain why she was voting against the bill. We spent an hour and found some common ground. She is for assisted dying in principle but objects to the process (too rushed) and would prefer a government sponsored bill. The problem is that might result in a 5-10 year delay.
As pointed out in the debate, if you are in favour in principle, you vote for the first reading and reserve your position later depending on the detail.
There will never be a “government sponsored bill” - because all parties in parliament accept that it’s a matter of conscience for individual MPs. So your MP is trying to pull a fast one, hoping you don’t understand the political realities.
(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).
Would she be the first person elected to office on the same day they gave birth?
The state enables people to be killed, all the time.
Just not those condemned by illness to soon be dead, anyway.
But I do wonder how many children you've abused in the name of 'discipline'.
I will do several threads on this poll when they publish the results.
Let’s be grateful that back in the home country, things weren’t quite so bad.
Nevertheless the course of history has been for sensible folk like the most of us, to secure freedoms to escape from the control-freakery of folks like you.
Taking the wider view, the surprise is that it took so long for ordinary folk to realise that so many bishops and priests were in reality child-controlling paedophiles.
Most Methodist chapels are 19th or early 20th century too, rather more difficult to convert medieval churches