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.
Indeed but much of the past remained in place because it was a good thing, some may even call them 'the good old days'
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
"traditionally"
I'm sad that Conservativism has (apparently) become stuck in unthinking appeals to "tradition" rather than responding to the changing needs of the times. It feels more akin to the pre-Disraeli Party that seemed solely to exist to defend the landed aristocracy. It's not at all like the party that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918, or championed free-market economics in the 1980s.
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
"traditionally"
I'm sad that Conservativism has (apparently) become stuck in unthinking appeals to "tradition" rather than responding to the changing needs of the times. It feels more akin to the pre-Disraeli Party that seemed solely to exist to defend the landed aristocracy. It's not at all like the party that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918, or championed free-market economics in the 1980s.
@HYUFD's might but he doesn't represent my views nor many conservatives
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.
Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.
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).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
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.
Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.
Is it "more law, less social pressure"? Though I think it is probably "more law, and more/different social pressure".
The travel abroad part is probably an orthogonal domain.
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.
Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.
Not being whipped or starved for failing to turn up in church twice daily is a good starting point.
I'm still hope to see improved drafting as the bill progresses, but I agree. This is being done in a thoughtful, non-partisan and generally responsible fashion.
I'm still hope to see improved drafting as the bill progresses, but I agree. This is being done in a thoughtful, non-partisan and generally responsible fashion.
I thought it showed the best of our Parliament.
I am so glad this has been brought forward. I just wish my elderly relatives had been still alive to see it.
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).
It's going to need a good deal of background work to come up with something practical.
Stats are that there are 12,500 listed Church England Buildings, and approximately 4,200 of them are Grade I listed. That is, just under half of the Grade I listed buildings in England.
There have been occasional major reports looking at the question.
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).
It's going to need a good deal of background work to come up with something practical.
Stats are that there are 12,500 listed Church England Buildings, and approximately 4,200 of them are Grade I listed. That is, just under half of the Grade I listed buildings in England.
There have been occasional major reports looking at the question.
Maintenance of churches in France is a government matter - they own the buildings. They spend big on the major ones, but churches in rural France often look a lot rattier than those in England.
Thoughts and prayers for Morgan McSweeney, who I think I have read was very keen to get the public debate off the dying bill and onto other matters like cost of living.
The anti-campaigners are going to be flooding the media for next few weeks/months as they rage against what looks like the end of the game for them.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't think there are moral arguments against the death penalty - they are scruples, not arguments. If they were genuine arguments then Putin would not be killing his opponents left, right and centre.
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).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
Jenkins is OK as far as he goes, but he's quite selective and has a very particular viewpoint.
It's like giving a list of 30 market towns to visit before you die, when there are actually more like 200.
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).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
I agree he is good, but the best 1000 are all quite well known. There is huge interest to be found in the next few thousand down the list of excellence - these are mostly found in Betjeman, and the 2 vol edition from the 1950s is still the best thing around for these - none of the updates really improve on it.
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).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
I agree he is good, but the best 1000 are all quite well known. There is huge interest to be found in the next few thousand down the list of excellence - these are mostly found in Betjeman, and the 2 vol edition from the 1950s is still the best thing around for these - none of the updates really improve on it.
If you visited a different church every Sunday it would take you nearly 20 years to visit 1,000 churches. It's a monumental task to judge the merits of 000's of church buildings.
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 not a problem for someone who thinks it "too rushed". They probably prefer 10.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
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
"traditionally"
I'm sad that Conservativism has (apparently) become stuck in unthinking appeals to "tradition" rather than responding to the changing needs of the times. It feels more akin to the pre-Disraeli Party that seemed solely to exist to defend the landed aristocracy. It's not at all like the party that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918, or championed free-market economics in the 1980s.
Thatcher was arguably as much of a free market liberal as a conservative though even she leaned conservative on social issues.
Of course many of those enfranchised in 1918 were working class voters more socially conservative than many of the middle or upper classes ie the type of cultural conservatives that voted for Brexit and are now backing Farage's Reform or Badenoch's Tories which combined far outpoll the LDs or Starmer Labour you now support
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 not a problem for someone who thinks it "too rushed". They probably prefer 10.
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.
Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.
One of my favourite quotes and a sign of how much we have lost as individuals and a country in the last century.
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).
Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.
I agree he is good, but the best 1000 are all quite well known. There is huge interest to be found in the next few thousand down the list of excellence - these are mostly found in Betjeman, and the 2 vol edition from the 1950s is still the best thing around for these - none of the updates really improve on it.
Also the Pevsners, of course.
The new versions are complete as of 2023, a project ongoing since 1983. Most are available on Amazon for about £45 (RRP £60), or you can get 30% off, i.e £31 to £42 depending on the volume from Yale University press with code "PEV24" until 1st February. Also gets you free UK delivery.
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).
It's going to need a good deal of background work to come up with something practical.
Stats are that there are 12,500 listed Church England Buildings, and approximately 4,200 of them are Grade I listed. That is, just under half of the Grade I listed buildings in England.
There have been occasional major reports looking at the question.
Grade I Listing tends to reflect how old and how intact a structure is, not necessarily how important it is. The lists tend to reflect the whims of the lister chosen for a particular parish and are rarely consistant. I have thought for some time it would be better for planning to be based upon a date-based system for the main part. Such as any structure from before 1914 will be assumed to have some significance worthy of consideration by the planning process.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
I've been hearing a lot that palliative is only partially funded currently. What are people meaning by this? My recently died mother had excellent palliative, albeit for only a short time.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
Are these the good rebels that we should be cheering on, or the bad rebels we should be condemning as terrorists?
Pretty much anyone would be an improvement on Assad.
Apart from ISIS. But Assad is almost as bad.
Some of you might not know why I post about W Aleppo a lot (now that this offensive is happening), and much of it is because so many war crimes committed by Assad and friends were done from these very areas, and if these areas are retaken > meaningful decrease in CIVCAS. https://x.com/CalibreObscura/status/1862427745650704637
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.
Same in Scotland with all the splits and mergers in the Kirks. Of the three nearest me one is now houses, and the other is a business, some sort of training/consultancy. The former was a positive improvement as the kirk had been badly extended in its later demotion to church hall and all the extraneous additions were removed and replaced with a much cleaner looking timber extension to the stone core.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
Well. I'm for assisted dying but against the death penalty. (Having said that I would not be against lifers having a facilitated option to end their own lives.)
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?
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).
It's going to need a good deal of background work to come up with something practical.
Stats are that there are 12,500 listed Church England Buildings, and approximately 4,200 of them are Grade I listed. That is, just under half of the Grade I listed buildings in England.
There have been occasional major reports looking at the question.
Maintenance of churches in France is a government matter - they own the buildings. They spend big on the major ones, but churches in rural France often look a lot rattier than those in England.
It's also the last place you want to have control of them. See, for example, what local Councils and other public bodies did to all the distinguished houses they were responsible for in the 3 decades after the war. As soon as they became a taxpayer responsibility, voluntary donations would pretty much vanish. Congregations currently put in £100 million plus per annum for maintenance and repairs. That would be lost.
National Trust would be a better guardian, as they do not act precipitately or would spirit the money away for other projects, but they would require an endowment running into a number of billions (no idea how many billions).
It's as it is because no one has found a better arrangement. There are always wibblers like the National Secular Society wibbling away in the wibbling gallery, but they have a tiny number of members (1500? Numbers are never published) - and could be compared to say the Friends of the Hampstead Heath Bathing Ponds or the Leicester Choral Society.
As you say, the experience in France is an excellent demonstration of why we should not do it like the French. Here's a brief account of how it works. https://archive.ph/I5DX4 There was a report to the French Senate in about 2015.
I looked up repairs to Notre Dame the other day, and it was around 750 million Euro, which came mainly from tycoons.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
Mistakes analogous to miscarriages of justice are inevtiable.
People often get given a terminal prognosis and then go on to live for many years with good quality. Some people will feel pressured into it. You won't be able to bring any of these people back after the fact.
330 MPs voted in favour, 275 against - a majority of 55.
It wasn't something I was going to bet on, but I always felt the majority of those keeping quiet about their opinions would vote in favour.
Balance of incentives/intensity of belief.
Those who oppose this, and do so for honourable reasons, mainly do so out of something intense. It's understandable that they went public. Whereas most of the support isn't because this is an intrinsically good thing, but a necessary least-bad thing.
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.
Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.
And yet in 1914 some Englishmen and all Englishwomen couldn't vote. And any Englishman having the temerity to fall in love with another Englishman would have become acquainted with the state pretty fucking quickly. While across the world, from India to Ireland, millions of people were subject to a British state they never asked for. Meanwhile, I have definitely bought teaspoons without providing photo ID.
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)
There were certainly no fines for non-attendance at church after 1689. In truth I don't know of any after 1662. Obviously there were fines for fornication which resulted in pregnancy and the white sheet treatment. The fines, imprisonment etc of Quakers and Unitarians etc etc were for non-payment of tithes. In theory Roman Catholics had to pay double land tax after 1716 but in 30 years of studying the records in obsessive detail I have never found an instance of that actually happening - or the land tax halving when the estate was bought by a C of E new owner.
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?
Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.
Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all
Many more LibDems than Tories voted for the bill. Only 7 LibDems against compared with 70+Tories against.
Well no surprise they are LIBERALs. Pleased to see most Tories actually acted as conservatives this time though with a majority of Tory MPs voting against assisted dying
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)
There were certainly no fines for non-attendance at church after 1689. In truth I don't know of any after 1662. Obviously there were fines for fornication which resulted in pregnancy and the white sheet treatment. The fines, imprisonment etc of Quakers and Unitarians etc etc were for non-payment of tithes. In theory Roman Catholics had to pay double land tax after 1716 but in 30 years of studying the records in obsessive detail I have never found an instance of that actually happening - or the land tax halving when the estate was bought by a C of E new owner.
Of course I should have included the fines there were between 1662 and 1689 were for the positive act of being at a Conventicle or unlawful religious meeting, not for absenting yourself from church.
Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.
Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all
Many more LibDems than Tories voted for the bill. Only 7 LibDems against compared with 70+Tories against.
Well no surprise they are LIBERALs. Pleased to see most Tories actually acted as conservatives this time though with a majority of Tory MPs voting against assisted dying
I would have voted yes but with proper debate and consideration to the issues raised today
I would just add an arbitrary 6 month date is not something that can always be determined by the medics
Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.
As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.
Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.
If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?
Should not kill the innocent is the point
Pretty sure an awful lot of German, Japanese and Italian soldiers and civilians would count as innocent.
It's illiberal to deny people the legal right to end their own lives with help. It's the same as denying women to legal right to have an abortion with help. David Steel 1967 Abortion Act.
It's not a surprise that most LibDem MPs supported the bill. I'm surprised at those who didn't including Ed Davey, though Tim Farron being anti didn't surprise me.
Comments
He's being put out with the cat by the Chump Government, it seems.
And Twitter has lost 1/3 of its users in the UK over a year.
I'm sad that Conservativism has (apparently) become stuck in unthinking appeals to "tradition" rather than responding to the changing needs of the times. It feels more akin to the pre-Disraeli Party that seemed solely to exist to defend the landed aristocracy. It's not at all like the party that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918, or championed free-market economics in the 1980s.
I think there are concerns for Badenoch, I get a whiff of unseriousness/student politics about her. Raising that petition was stupid.
dumdumdumdumdumdumdumdum
CASH!
Noes 275
The travel abroad part is probably an orthogonal domain.
Well done Labour.
Let’s hope the bill now gets a following wind.
But I'm more pleased by the adult way parliament debated this difficult issue.
I am so glad this has been brought forward. I just wish my elderly relatives had been still alive to see it.
Stats are that there are 12,500 listed Church England Buildings, and approximately 4,200 of them are Grade I listed. That is, just under half of the Grade I listed buildings in England.
There have been occasional major reports looking at the question.
Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all
·
1m
Measure quite likely to make it to the statute book with a majority of that size
The anti-campaigners are going to be flooding the media for next few weeks/months as they rage against what looks like the end of the game for them.
This is not in the spirit of today when Parliament as a whole voted democratically and not on partisan lines
It's like giving a list of 30 market towns to visit before you die, when there are actually more like 200.
They probably prefer 10.
John Rentoul @rentouljohn.bsky.social
·
2m
Here is a visual reprersentation of how the parties divided votes.parliament.uk/votes/common...
https://bsky.app/profile/rentouljohn.bsky.social/post/3lc3sh6xp7s2q
Of course many of those enfranchised in 1918 were working class voters more socially conservative than many of the middle or upper classes ie the type of cultural conservatives that voted for Brexit and are now backing Farage's Reform or Badenoch's Tories which combined far outpoll the LDs or Starmer Labour you now support
The new versions are complete as of 2023, a project ongoing since 1983. Most are available on Amazon for about £45 (RRP £60), or you can get 30% off, i.e £31 to £42 depending on the volume from Yale University press with code "PEV24" until 1st February. Also gets you free UK delivery.
But Assad is almost as bad.
330 MPs voted in favour, 275 against - a majority of 55.
Elon, who will soon be working as an unelected bureaucrat, criticizes unelected EU bureaucrats.
https://x.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1862196559275782528
For 61
Against 11
No to Euthanasia 275
https://x.com/CalibreObscura/status/1862427745650704637
National Trust would be a better guardian, as they do not act precipitately or would spirit the money away for other projects, but they would require an endowment running into a number of billions (no idea how many billions).
It's as it is because no one has found a better arrangement. There are always wibblers like the National Secular Society wibbling away in the wibbling gallery, but they have a tiny number of members (1500? Numbers are never published) - and could be compared to say the Friends of the Hampstead Heath Bathing Ponds or the Leicester Choral Society.
As you say, the experience in France is an excellent demonstration of why we should not do it like the French. Here's a brief account of how it works. https://archive.ph/I5DX4
There was a report to the French Senate in about 2015.
I looked up repairs to Notre Dame the other day, and it was around 750 million Euro, which came mainly from tycoons.
For England, I think the last heritage type report I am familiar with was the Taylor Review of 2017.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a829d3840f0b62305b93708/Taylor_Review_Final.pdf
People often get given a terminal prognosis and then go on to live for many years with good quality. Some people will feel pressured into it. You won't be able to bring any of these people back after the fact.
Those who oppose this, and do so for honourable reasons, mainly do so out of something intense. It's understandable that they went public. Whereas most of the support isn't because this is an intrinsically good thing, but a necessary least-bad thing.
It was a vote of individual consiousness and created a lot of very deep thinking across parties
I would just add an arbitrary 6 month date is not something that can always be determined by the medics
It's the same as denying women to legal right to have an abortion with help. David Steel 1967 Abortion Act.
It's not a surprise that most LibDem MPs supported the bill. I'm surprised at those who didn't including Ed Davey, though Tim Farron being anti didn't surprise me.