Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, repeatedly warned about tariffs during President Trump’s first term…Now, two days into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Dimon has called tariffs a valuable “economic weapon.”
“If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security — so be it,” Mr. Dimon told CNBC on Wednesday from the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. “Get over it,” he added.
"These are my principles - if you don't like them, I have others."
Most of the oligarchs are falling into line. Turns out they are greedy cowards. Though this guy's only worth 3 billion, does that count as an oligarchs, or just a wannabe?
Gangster oligarchy truly is a thing in Trumpism. This from TDS is both insightful and witty:
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
That might be your opinion but the header is very clearly about the process that is happening around the bill and is on the money,
David Steel's Abortion Act 1967 was brought in using a very similar process as a Private Member's Bill.
Because it is a matter of personal belief, it is very difficult for it to be a Government Bill.
In fact it would be inappropriate for it to be a Government Bill with whipping.
This was the only way to introduce it. The Committee will now examine it to improve it. I hope they take judges out of the process as they have no useful role.
Objections to the process mask objections to the principle.
The Abortion Act is almost the dictionary definition of the slippery slope.
A quarter of a million abortions in England and Wales in 2022, the last year for which statistics are available, up more than 25% in the last decade alone.
How is that a slippery slope? That's what the people behind the Act planned.
Which is why this Bill is so pernicious.
When the Abortion Act now results in 250k abortions vs 600k births, we can likely summise that this Bill might produce a similar result in deaths a few years down the line…
Those figures are incomplete. 600k births and 250k induced abortions implies maybe 900k spontaneous abortions/failures to implant. If God puts souls in at the moment of conception, God takes those souls back far more himself than any human intervention.
God takes us all back eventually, doesn’t mean than we don’t frown upon people killing each other.
Yeah, but no-one cares when 1 week old embryos die naturally, so what's the problem with aborting them?
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, repeatedly warned about tariffs during President Trump’s first term…Now, two days into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Dimon has called tariffs a valuable “economic weapon.”
“If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security — so be it,” Mr. Dimon told CNBC on Wednesday from the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. “Get over it,” he added.
"These are my principles - if you don't like them, I have others."
Not exactly great optics but there's a whole world hidden in that 'if' and 'but'.
On the other hand, it's yet another senior leader within an industry suppressing (or at the least, modifying greatly the expression of) their opinion in favour of the White House line.
Self-censorship is the most effective form of autocracy. Thou shalt not criticise the emperor.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
Sorry but that's just arrogance. Neither you nor I know what people in the future will think. And by the same logic why is it not okay to argue for sex with minors? After all, slavery, women's vote, gay rights were all considered wrong in the past. Isn't it about time we got past the age of consent taboo?
You're right. We don't know. I'm trying to take a helicopter view of cultural trends and pressures and forming a view of where it is leading. It's not a comfortable position to take, and I'm probably harming the cause, as people take an intake of breath. So I wouldn't say this at the Committee or to my MP. Bookmark this discussion and let's revisit it in twenty years time.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
“The decent thing to do” will be to end your life ten years early so you “aren’t a bed blocker” and you aren’t “wasting your kids inheritance” with all that breathing and living you do
The most eager proponents of this bill are its biggest enemies
The sometimes cavalier attitude towards societal, familial, or medical pressure in making a personal choice is one of my main worries, but it is almost refreshing if someone in fact acknowledges that risk and runs with it as a positive, hoping that becomes the case.
I don't like that, and don't think everyone supporting feels that way, but some do and best they be up front about it.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, repeatedly warned about tariffs during President Trump’s first term…Now, two days into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Dimon has called tariffs a valuable “economic weapon.”
“If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security — so be it,” Mr. Dimon told CNBC on Wednesday from the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. “Get over it,” he added.
"These are my principles - if you don't like them, I have others."
Most of the oligarchs are falling into line. Turns out they are greedy cowards. Though this guy's only worth 3 billion, does that count as an oligarchs, or just a wannabe?
I get having to do an about turn to some degree, but so many cannot salvage their dignity when they do because of how extreme they have to go to mollify Trump, and others just go super cringey.
Come on Rachel, do the right thing rather than the popular thing.
Come on Kemi, line every one of your MPs up in favour and let Rachel know she has your support.
Yes, the Tories can do themselves no harm at all in being clear and unequivocal about this. I heard someone on the radio this morning saying it would be another 10 years before the planning process could be completed. Sometimes I almost despair of this country. We have so stifled ourselves with red tape and rights we simply cannot get anything done anymore. Legislate for this and exempt it from the Human Rights Act. Get it done, now.
I am totally in favour of assisted dying, I am not in favour of this bill as the safeguards are not sufficient to prevent abuse and the way it is being handled is raising alarm bells frankly.
Possible but from what I see the risk is bigger the other way. The hoops are so onerous that only the well organised and wealthy can get through them. A bit like divorce in the 19th century.
If you are opposed in principle you probably don't mind this.
What I want is an assisted dying bill that absolutely allows people to choose assisted dying but that also protects people from being coerced into it or to enter into the process because they have a temporary insanity that they can work through.
I am all for it where none of those apply and I certainly wouldn't want the 6 months to death to apply...for example I get diagnosed with dementia...I don't want to live another 12 years if the last 6 means I dont recognise friends or family I would rather have a living will which says if I get to a certain level of cognitive disfunction let me go
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
Cultures don't have a natural progression toward some objective enlightenment. People now have to push for things, and much of that will be good, and some will not, I don't see that as being controversial - people complain about something in society they do not like all the time, it is not really any different.
We also hear about things like epidemics of personal loneliness or less family connections with smaller and more remote families, to name two potential cultural changes from the past which are probably less divisive, as things which may be negative to us.
So for one not every change is progress, things can go backwards, and for two, it is actually possible to resist or modulate potential changes if society wants, it is not inevitable that attitudes will change. Fair enough people have very different views on this particular subject and what they think is moral to try to change, but 'knowing' it will change, right side of history stuff, is problematic.
But I often reflect on what we regard as normal now which will in future be regarded with disgust or horror. It surely will not be nothing.
Just before I pop off to make tea: I do like your posts; they are almost always thoughtful and balanced. You are one of my favourite posters here
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
I think I'm glad that a) I'm not ill with a nasty head cold; and b) you aren't a relative of mine in a position to determine my immediate future.
A 28-year-old man from Afghanistan has been arrested following a knife attack in a park in the German city of Aschaffenburg on Wednesday in which two people were killed, including a toddler, police said.
28 years old, so Amazon.DE is in the clear, which seems to be the main factor according to our politicians.
I'm pleased to see an argument for assisted dying that mentions the financial gains it will bring to the public, and to families. Though I don't agree with it, I appreciate the honesty -- and will note that similar gains could come from shortening the lives of retirees, even if they aren't in pain.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
Cultures don't have a natural progression toward some objective enlightenment. People now have to push for things, and much of that will be good, and some will not, I don't see that as being controversial - people complain about something in society they do not like all the time, it is not really any different.
We also hear about things like epidemics of personal loneliness or less family connections with smaller and more remote families, to name two potential cultural changes from the past which are probably less divisive, as things which may be negative to us.
So for one not every change is progress, things can go backwards, and for two, it is actually possible to resist or modulate potential changes if society wants, it is not inevitable that attitudes will change. Fair enough people have very different views on this particular subject and what they think is moral to try to change, but 'knowing' it will change, right side of history stuff, is problematic. But I often reflect on what we regard as normal now which will in future be regarded with disgust or horror. It surely will not be nothing.
Indeed. I think about this whenever anybody now tries to hold previous generations to today's moral standards.
I quite like reading obituaries. Garth Hudson, late of The Band, has just passed away, aged 87.
This is the penultimate line of his obit (in The Guardian) which followed a brief description of his bankruptcies:
"In 2013 a landlord sold the contents of a loft space in upstate New York which had been used for storage and on which rent had not been paid for seven years; the items included handwritten sheet music and an uncashed royalty cheque for $26,000 dating from 1979."
Evidently a life well lived.
Obits can be great. My favourite was for the writer, William Donaldson. The print version of the Telegraph sub-headline was ‘Wykehamist pimp, crack-fiend and serial adulterer’, which my boss found amusing enough to cut out the obituary and have someone pop out and get it framed for my desk as a “lifestyle guide” for me.
There is a good article from the Knappers’ Gazette on obits.
Headline on page 8 of the Telegraph: "Starmer to redefine terror despite fear police".
Does anyone proof read these days? This doesn't make sense.
For the substantial numbers who don't take the Telegraph, the second half of the sentence ("will be overwhelmed") appears to be located on the adjacent page.
I quite like reading obituaries. Garth Hudson, late of The Band, has just passed away, aged 87.
This is the penultimate line of his obit (in The Guardian) which followed a brief description of his bankruptcies:
"In 2013 a landlord sold the contents of a loft space in upstate New York which had been used for storage and on which rent had not been paid for seven years; the items included handwritten sheet music and an uncashed royalty cheque for $26,000 dating from 1979."
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
There is a missing piece here about the purely principled opposition to assisted dying on the basis of Catholic social teaching and such. It would be fair when bringing ip procedural opposition to say whether, by the way, I would always oppose this.
religous areseholes should GTF and worry about themselves rather than pushing their mumbo jumbo onto intelligent people who can make up their own minds.
As a religious arsehole, I am happy to use my vote if given, to balance yours. We all have our views and beliefs. Allow us to have ours.
I'm pleased to see an argument for assisted dying that mentions the financial gains it will bring to the public, and to families. Though I don't agree with it, I appreciate the honesty -- and will note that similar gains could come from shortening the lives of retirees, even if they aren't in pain.
Otoh, forcing crumblies to live longer means more profit for Big Pharma, so it's swings and roundabouts.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, repeatedly warned about tariffs during President Trump’s first term…Now, two days into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Dimon has called tariffs a valuable “economic weapon.”
“If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security — so be it,” Mr. Dimon told CNBC on Wednesday from the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. “Get over it,” he added.
As I keep saying with regards to Trump: in the end, everybody kneels.
I'm pleased to see an argument for assisted dying that mentions the financial gains it will bring to the public, and to families. Though I don't agree with it, I appreciate the honesty -- and will note that similar gains could come from shortening the lives of retirees, even if they aren't in pain.
Otoh, forcing crumblies to live longer means more profit for Big Pharma, so it's swings and roundabouts.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
Sorry but that's just arrogance. Neither you nor I know what people in the future will think. And by the same logic why is it not okay to argue for sex with minors? After all, slavery, women's vote, gay rights were all considered wrong in the past. Isn't it about time we got past the age of consent taboo?
You're right. We don't know. I'm trying to take a helicopter view of cultural trends and pressures and forming a view of where it is leading. It's not a comfortable position to take, and I'm probably harming the cause, as people take an intake of breath. So I wouldn't say this at the Committee or to my MP. Bookmark this discussion and let's revisit it in twenty years time.
Occasionally cultural trends on these issues do go into reverse.
A prime example is eugenics, which was seen by many on both right and left as a way to improve the bloodstock of the nation. This led to abuses with compulsory sterilisation etc in a number of countries. We now consider this anathema and recognise the early focus on euthanasia for the institutionalised in mental asylums in Germany as the beginning of the Holocaust.
The only bit of eugenics that survives now is prenatal diagnosis and abortion, and it is questionable whether that has gone too far. For example there have been no babies with Downs syndrome born in Iceland in over a decade. Sally Phillips (who has a son with Downs) did an excellent programme on this some years back.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Going to be a tight day on power generation. Demand high, but wind remains at only 1%. Solar 4% and dropping. Even got the OCGT out for 1%. Gas very high still, as it has been for days/weeks. Same with burning trees.
Demand will be very high on the continent, with low winds, so any imported electricity will be very expensive and restrictive.
Will be interesting to see how close we get to keeping the lights and at what price.
Can't we always import electricity from other countries, even if we have to pay a lot for it?
The UK has a about 6.4GW of interconnectors: 1.4GW to Norway 1GW to the Netherlands 1GW to Ireland 3GW to France
So, no we can't buy all the electricity we need from abroad, although we can buy a fair amount.
That being said, this is about as bad as it gets for UK electricity supply. There's little wind, and we have the combination of short days and cloud cover affecting solar electricity production.
To add to this, we have four nuclear reactors either offline, or running significantly below boiler plate capacity:
Two reactors at Heysham 2 are offline, one where summer maintenance needed to be brought forward and the other completely unscheduled and offline. Heysham 1 is also currently being refuelled and is therefore offline. And finally, Hartlepool is offline due to a condensate leak.
Of these four outages, only one was planned to happen over the winter period: Heysham 1 fueling. (And candidly, they should have done it earlier so it didn't coincide with peak electricity and trough insolation.)
Without the nuclear issues, we'd be doing fine. Even with them, we're OK. But I wouldn't want to see another nuclear plant go offline.
Just to add: Heysham 1 refuelling is due to complete tomorrow, and that's a 1.1GW plant, so when it comes back online that will make a big difference.
How would the layman find this news, Is there an aggregator for UK energy chat?
Wind is obviously totally unreliable - exactly what you don't need for electricity supply.
Coal is looking more and more attractive - abundant globally, cheap, proven and reliable. We should stop rigging the market in favour of renewables, or unreliables as I call them, and see what energy sources it chooses, as we did in the 90s. My guess would be some combination of gas, coal and nuclear.
That's simply not true.
The coal price fluctuates just as much as the gas price; plants are much more maintenance heavy; and they are very slow to spin up and slow down.
There's a reason why - even in red states in the US - coal plants are being retired.
Plus even if you remove all government incentives around renewables, people are going to keep putting panels on their rooves. And the more solar there is in the system, the more power demand varies, and the less attractive coal becomes. Because more solar (and there will only ever be more solar in terms of grid supply) means more volatile electricity prices. And what do you do with that coal plant when the price of electricity is zero?
There's also the inconvenient fact that coal fired generation kills a lot of people from respiratory disease. Mitigating such particulate emissions is expensive.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
Cultures don't have a natural progression toward some objective enlightenment. People now have to push for things, and much of that will be good, and some will not, I don't see that as being controversial - people complain about something in society they do not like all the time, it is not really any different.
We also hear about things like epidemics of personal loneliness or less family connections with smaller and more remote families, to name two potential cultural changes from the past which are probably less divisive, as things which may be negative to us.
So for one not every change is progress, things can go backwards, and for two, it is actually possible to resist or modulate potential changes if society wants, it is not inevitable that attitudes will change. Fair enough people have very different views on this particular subject and what they think is moral to try to change, but 'knowing' it will change, right side of history stuff, is problematic.
But I often reflect on what we regard as normal now which will in future be regarded with disgust or horror. It surely will not be nothing.
Just before I pop off to make tea: I do like your posts; they are almost always thoughtful and balanced. You are one of my favourite posters here
What a coincidence, I'm one of my favourite posters too!
Come on Rachel, do the right thing rather than the popular thing.
Come on Kemi, line every one of your MPs up in favour and let Rachel know she has your support.
Yes, the Tories can do themselves no harm at all in being clear and unequivocal about this. I heard someone on the radio this morning saying it would be another 10 years before the planning process could be completed. Sometimes I almost despair of this country. We have so stifled ourselves with red tape and rights we simply cannot get anything done anymore. Legislate for this and exempt it from the Human Rights Act. Get it done, now.
If you want to drive growth, have Parliament pass National Infrastructure Bills and the bulldozers move in next week. Sorry if you’re in the way, we’ll pay you 150% of what your property is worth if you agree to move out rather than end up in court.
So many of the problems in the UK come from process and planning. Perhaps living somewhere with the right attitude gives me a distorted view of this, but I constantly refer to the Dubai Airport Terminal 3 being built and operational in the same time as the LHR T5 planning inquiry. Same scope of project, new buildings and access roads to an existing airfield, but one place realised they needed it to be open yesterday, and the other has already been talking about it for decades and done little in terms of legislation.
In Heathrow’s favour, the airport has been buying up any house for sale in the area and paying well for decades, which will save them a fortune in the long run.
I quite like reading obituaries. Garth Hudson, late of The Band, has just passed away, aged 87.
This is the penultimate line of his obit (in The Guardian) which followed a brief description of his bankruptcies:
"In 2013 a landlord sold the contents of a loft space in upstate New York which had been used for storage and on which rent had not been paid for seven years; the items included handwritten sheet music and an uncashed royalty cheque for $26,000 dating from 1979."
Evidently a life well lived.
Obits can be great. My favourite was for the writer, William Donaldson. The print version of the Telegraph sub-headline was ‘Wykehamist pimp, crack-fiend and serial adulterer’, which my boss found amusing enough to cut out the obituary and have someone pop out and get it framed for my desk as a “lifestyle guide” for me.
There is a good article from the Knappers’ Gazette on obits.
It's an art form. I've had to do it for a professional colleague, which was an interesting exercise for more than one reason, including the need to tailor it for different audiences (got published in extenso in one of the more intelligent and traditional local newspapers, as well as several professional journals).
(And of courser the funeral addresses for deceased parents and elderly rselatives are a variant). But I hope never to do it again, at least for a friend or relative.
A slightly different aspect to the debate as published in the BMJ some time ago, titled "The gift of death"
“I dreamed that I was dead last night. Then I woke up and found I was still here. It was such a disappointment.”
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
If the public are so overwhelmingly in favour then why does it need such subterfuge?
As Alistair Meeks used to put it, "to the pure, all things are pure."
Some people believe that their cause is so self-evidently righteous that it does not require scrutiny.
Anyone who disagrees with this are heretics. To save their souls…..
I know it's cusatomary with some on PB to use various mental, erm, characteristics as playground, sorry PB, abuse, but multiple personality disorder is a new one to me.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
It takes about a hour to walk 8km. You'd have to build a tube line between the two.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
And, perhaps more significantly, two motorways in between.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
They’re 6NM apart. It’s been proposed before to build an airside tunnel between them, but the Northolt residents don’t want more planes at their airfield. There’s no commercial traffic there at the moment, it’s all military and private aviation, plus government and royal VIP flights which would become more difficult if they had to stop traffic on a regular basis.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
And, perhaps more significantly, two motorways in between.
Excellent!
Simple enough to convert them to runways. Just need a few diversions.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
I’ve not heard that idea before but it has some intriguing logic to it. If you could link the 2 with a high speed underground link, with a sort of “B and C gates” set up in Northolt, then why not. Northolt is pretty underused. The RAF could still use it alongside the private jets.
I still think the right answer is Boris island though. His best idea. Or on land in Cliffe. Then LHR could be sold off for much needed property development.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
It takes about a hour to walk 8km. You'd have to build a tube line between the two.
Heathrow already has three tube stations. A fourth would hardly be innovative. Although why great numbers would need to move between different terminals is another question.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
They’re 6NM apart. It’s been proposed before to build an airside tunnel between them, but the Northolt residents don’t want more planes at their airfield. There’s no commercial traffic there at the moment, it’s all military and private aviation, plus government and royal VIP flights which would become more difficult if they had to stop traffic on a regular basis.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
They’re 6NM apart. It’s been proposed before to build an airside tunnel between them, but the Northolt residents don’t want more planes at their airfield. There’s no commercial traffic there at the moment, it’s all military and private aviation, plus government and royal VIP flights which would become more difficult if they had to stop traffic on a regular basis.
This is for cars/trains not taxiing planes, right?
Ha yes, I think the original plan was an airside road tunnel for buses and baggage vans between the two airports - although rather annoyingly the HS2 tunnel out of London is now known as the Northolt Tunnel, so any search gets screwed up.
I am totally in favour of assisted dying, I am not in favour of this bill as the safeguards are not sufficient to prevent abuse and the way it is being handled is raising alarm bells frankly.
Possible but from what I see the risk is bigger the other way. The hoops are so onerous that only the well organised and wealthy can get through them. A bit like divorce in the 19th century.
If you are opposed in principle you probably don't mind this.
What I want is an assisted dying bill that absolutely allows people to choose assisted dying but that also protects people from being coerced into it or to enter into the process because they have a temporary insanity that they can work through.
I am all for it where none of those apply and I certainly wouldn't want the 6 months to death to apply...for example I get diagnosed with dementia...I don't want to live another 12 years if the last 6 means I dont recognise friends or family I would rather have a living will which says if I get to a certain level of cognitive disfunction let me go
Lots of onus on the coordinating doctor in the draft bill. They need to get I think four signed agreements at various stages from the patient, organise another independent doctor, turn up at the High Court to be questioned as well as administer the actual drug. I suspect most won't be prepared to do this, except for the wealthy.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
It takes about a hour to walk 8km. You'd have to build a tube line between the two.
That's more like a gentle jog than a walk, just under 5mph. Not with a suitcase or a child in tow.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, repeatedly warned about tariffs during President Trump’s first term…Now, two days into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Dimon has called tariffs a valuable “economic weapon.”
“If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security — so be it,” Mr. Dimon told CNBC on Wednesday from the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. “Get over it,” he added.
"These are my principles - if you don't like them, I have others."
Most of the oligarchs are falling into line. Turns out they are greedy cowards. Though this guy's only worth 3 billion, does that count as an oligarchs, or just a wannabe?
I get having to do an about turn to some degree, but so many cannot salvage their dignity when they do because of how extreme they have to go to mollify Trump, and others just go super cringey.
God knows why (some) people admire very rich people for just having an obscene amount of money. In the future (if there's a decent one) I guess accumulating far beyond what you can ever possibly spend will be seen as a sign of a particularly malign mental illness.
Which is to say, what dignity did they have to start with? It's very hard to be a billionaire and retain any dignity.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
It takes about a hour to walk 8km. You'd have to build a tube line between the two.
I walk (and run) a lot. 6km per hour is brisk walking on flat paved areas.
For the majority of people it would take an hour and a half to walk 8km
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
I'm surprised to read this.
We will end up with Logan’s Run being reality.
I dont mind assisted dying just as long as I can nominate who to assist
I am totally in favour of assisted dying, I am not in favour of this bill as the safeguards are not sufficient to prevent abuse and the way it is being handled is raising alarm bells frankly.
Possible but from what I see the risk is bigger the other way. The hoops are so onerous that only the well organised and wealthy can get through them. A bit like divorce in the 19th century.
If you are opposed in principle you probably don't mind this.
What I want is an assisted dying bill that absolutely allows people to choose assisted dying but that also protects people from being coerced into it or to enter into the process because they have a temporary insanity that they can work through.
I am all for it where none of those apply and I certainly wouldn't want the 6 months to death to apply...for example I get diagnosed with dementia...I don't want to live another 12 years if the last 6 means I dont recognise friends or family I would rather have a living will which says if I get to a certain level of cognitive disfunction let me go
Lots of onus on the coordinating doctor in the draft bill. They need to get I think four signed agreements at various stages from the patient, organise another independent doctor, turn up at the High Court to be questioned as well as administer the actual drug. I suspect most won't be prepared to do this, except for the wealthy.
See to me doctors should actually have no say in this except for willingness to do the deed...they can fuck off frankly
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, repeatedly warned about tariffs during President Trump’s first term…Now, two days into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Dimon has called tariffs a valuable “economic weapon.”
“If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security — so be it,” Mr. Dimon told CNBC on Wednesday from the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. “Get over it,” he added.
"These are my principles - if you don't like them, I have others."
Most of the oligarchs are falling into line. Turns out they are greedy cowards. Though this guy's only worth 3 billion, does that count as an oligarchs, or just a wannabe?
I get having to do an about turn to some degree, but so many cannot salvage their dignity when they do because of how extreme they have to go to mollify Trump, and others just go super cringey.
God knows why (some) people admire very rich people for just having an obscene amount of money. In the future (if there's a decent one) I guess accumulating far beyond what you can ever possibly spend will be seen as a sign of a particularly malign mental illness.
Which is to say, what dignity did they have to start with? It's very hard to be a billionaire and retain any dignity.
I'd think being a billionaire would make their paying homage easier as they can just bung Trump some cash, and not have to bend the knee quite so publicly.
But I suspect for Trump he enjoys the displays even more than he likes money.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
And, perhaps more significantly, two motorways in between.
Easily fixed, people on here are constantly banging on about having bridges to sell.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
It takes about a hour to walk 8km. You'd have to build a tube line between the two.
Heathrow already has three tube stations. A fourth would hardly be innovative. Although why great numbers would need to move between different terminals is another question.
If you can't move between terminals, it's not a single airport. Northolt and Heathrow aren't even on the same tube line (Central and Piccadilly respectively)
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Well said Barnesian.
Cyclefree is wrong to suggest that Canada is an example of it being "expanded". What happened in Canada is that new legislation was passed, as can happen in this nation, no Parliament can bind its successors. The new legislation that was passed in Canada passed all the checks, balances and hoops of democratic procedures that any other would have, it was not simply an expansion of prior legislation.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
It takes about a hour to walk 8km. You'd have to build a tube line between the two.
Heathrow already has three tube stations. A fourth would hardly be innovative. Although why great numbers would need to move between different terminals is another question.
If you can't move between terminals, it's not a single airport. Northolt and Heathrow aren't even on the same tube line (Central and Piccadilly respectively)
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
I’m not sure that encouraging people to die for the sake of one’s own financial gain quite matches the anti -slavery cause.
I quite like reading obituaries. Garth Hudson, late of The Band, has just passed away, aged 87.
This is the penultimate line of his obit (in The Guardian) which followed a brief description of his bankruptcies:
"In 2013 a landlord sold the contents of a loft space in upstate New York which had been used for storage and on which rent had not been paid for seven years; the items included handwritten sheet music and an uncashed royalty cheque for $26,000 dating from 1979."
Evidently a life well lived.
Obits can be great. My favourite was for the writer, William Donaldson. The print version of the Telegraph sub-headline was ‘Wykehamist pimp, crack-fiend and serial adulterer’, which my boss found amusing enough to cut out the obituary and have someone pop out and get it framed for my desk as a “lifestyle guide” for me.
There is a good article from the Knappers’ Gazette on obits.
It's an art form. I've had to do it for a professional colleague, which was an interesting exercise for more than one reason, including the need to tailor it for different audiences (got published in extenso in one of the more intelligent and traditional local newspapers, as well as several professional journals).
(And of courser the funeral addresses for deceased parents and elderly rselatives are a variant). But I hope never to do it again, at least for a friend or relative.
An Obit of genius, a life of... well you be the judge
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
I think I'm glad that a) I'm not ill with a nasty head cold; and b) you aren't a relative of mine in a position to determine my immediate future.
“Life that is unworthy of life” is the expression.
Going to be a tight day on power generation. Demand high, but wind remains at only 1%. Solar 4% and dropping. Even got the OCGT out for 1%. Gas very high still, as it has been for days/weeks. Same with burning trees.
Demand will be very high on the continent, with low winds, so any imported electricity will be very expensive and restrictive.
Will be interesting to see how close we get to keeping the lights and at what price.
Can't we always import electricity from other countries, even if we have to pay a lot for it?
The UK has a about 6.4GW of interconnectors: 1.4GW to Norway 1GW to the Netherlands 1GW to Ireland 3GW to France
So, no we can't buy all the electricity we need from abroad, although we can buy a fair amount.
That being said, this is about as bad as it gets for UK electricity supply. There's little wind, and we have the combination of short days and cloud cover affecting solar electricity production.
To add to this, we have four nuclear reactors either offline, or running significantly below boiler plate capacity:
Two reactors at Heysham 2 are offline, one where summer maintenance needed to be brought forward and the other completely unscheduled and offline. Heysham 1 is also currently being refuelled and is therefore offline. And finally, Hartlepool is offline due to a condensate leak.
Of these four outages, only one was planned to happen over the winter period: Heysham 1 fueling. (And candidly, they should have done it earlier so it didn't coincide with peak electricity and trough insolation.)
Without the nuclear issues, we'd be doing fine. Even with them, we're OK. But I wouldn't want to see another nuclear plant go offline.
Just to add: Heysham 1 refuelling is due to complete tomorrow, and that's a 1.1GW plant, so when it comes back online that will make a big difference.
How would the layman find this news, Is there an aggregator for UK energy chat?
Wind is obviously totally unreliable - exactly what you don't need for electricity supply.
Coal is looking more and more attractive - abundant globally, cheap, proven and reliable. We should stop rigging the market in favour of renewables, or unreliables as I call them, and see what energy sources it chooses, as we did in the 90s. My guess would be some combination of gas, coal and nuclear.
That's simply not true.
The coal price fluctuates just as much as the gas price; plants are much more maintenance heavy; and they are very slow to spin up and slow down.
There's a reason why - even in red states in the US - coal plants are being retired.
You carefully omit mentioning that the Chinese are building around 200. Of course they are also building some unreliables - we might want to do the former without the latter.
I'm not saying that coal is necessarily 'the' answer, just that we should let the market decide and stop tilting the balance in favour of unreliables which have given us the most expensive energy in the world and brought us to a position, unthinkable in the 90s, where blackouts aren't just a remote, theoretical possibility.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
It takes about a hour to walk 8km. You'd have to build a tube line between the two.
I walk (and run) a lot. 6km per hour is brisk walking on flat paved areas.
For the majority of people it would take an hour and a half to walk 8km
What a bizarre debate. Just put a train between them? Luton Dart is 2km and takes about 3 minutes; 12 minutes is less than the time it takes to walk to gate 364 at some airports.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
They’re 6NM apart. It’s been proposed before to build an airside tunnel between them, but the Northolt residents don’t want more planes at their airfield. There’s no commercial traffic there at the moment, it’s all military and private aviation, plus government and royal VIP flights which would become more difficult if they had to stop traffic on a regular basis.
A rather more important factor is runway length. Northolt's is only ~1,700 metres long; Heathrow's are 3,700m and 3,900m. A 747 requires 3,200m. An A350 2,200m. A 737Max 2,500m.
Going to be a tight day on power generation. Demand high, but wind remains at only 1%. Solar 4% and dropping. Even got the OCGT out for 1%. Gas very high still, as it has been for days/weeks. Same with burning trees.
Demand will be very high on the continent, with low winds, so any imported electricity will be very expensive and restrictive.
Will be interesting to see how close we get to keeping the lights and at what price.
Can't we always import electricity from other countries, even if we have to pay a lot for it?
The UK has a about 6.4GW of interconnectors: 1.4GW to Norway 1GW to the Netherlands 1GW to Ireland 3GW to France
So, no we can't buy all the electricity we need from abroad, although we can buy a fair amount.
That being said, this is about as bad as it gets for UK electricity supply. There's little wind, and we have the combination of short days and cloud cover affecting solar electricity production.
To add to this, we have four nuclear reactors either offline, or running significantly below boiler plate capacity:
Two reactors at Heysham 2 are offline, one where summer maintenance needed to be brought forward and the other completely unscheduled and offline. Heysham 1 is also currently being refuelled and is therefore offline. And finally, Hartlepool is offline due to a condensate leak.
Of these four outages, only one was planned to happen over the winter period: Heysham 1 fueling. (And candidly, they should have done it earlier so it didn't coincide with peak electricity and trough insolation.)
Without the nuclear issues, we'd be doing fine. Even with them, we're OK. But I wouldn't want to see another nuclear plant go offline.
Just to add: Heysham 1 refuelling is due to complete tomorrow, and that's a 1.1GW plant, so when it comes back online that will make a big difference.
How would the layman find this news, Is there an aggregator for UK energy chat?
Wind is obviously totally unreliable - exactly what you don't need for electricity supply.
Coal is looking more and more attractive - abundant globally, cheap, proven and reliable. We should stop rigging the market in favour of renewables, or unreliables as I call them, and see what energy sources it chooses, as we did in the 90s. My guess would be some combination of gas, coal and nuclear.
Why don't we need unreliable?
Wind may not be "reliable" but it is cheap which is far more important, especially as we move to a more battery-operated age.
As we transition we can currently supplement cheaper wind with gas (more expensive, but on-demand and reliable) to fill in any gaps where there's a wind deficit.
As we transition further, less and less gas should be needed.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Well said Barnesian.
Cyclefree is wrong to suggest that Canada is an example of it being "expanded". What happened in Canada is that new legislation was passed, as can happen in this nation, no Parliament can bind its successors. The new legislation that was passed in Canada passed all the checks, balances and hoops of democratic procedures that any other would have, it was not simply an expansion of prior legislation.
It was an expansion on who had the right to die and now they have people in their 20's with depression choosing it. Depression can be treated. People with untreatable stuff is one thing...people with treatable shit not so sure....bizarre example maybe but had bad covid in 2020 when it was first a thing.....at times I just wanted it over with and at that time didn't know how bad it was after 2 weeks of it I could imagine saying just let me go.....you think that a good reason to supply assisted dying?
I quite like reading obituaries. Garth Hudson, late of The Band, has just passed away, aged 87.
This is the penultimate line of his obit (in The Guardian) which followed a brief description of his bankruptcies:
"In 2013 a landlord sold the contents of a loft space in upstate New York which had been used for storage and on which rent had not been paid for seven years; the items included handwritten sheet music and an uncashed royalty cheque for $26,000 dating from 1979."
Evidently a life well lived.
Obits can be great. My favourite was for the writer, William Donaldson. The print version of the Telegraph sub-headline was ‘Wykehamist pimp, crack-fiend and serial adulterer’, which my boss found amusing enough to cut out the obituary and have someone pop out and get it framed for my desk as a “lifestyle guide” for me.
There is a good article from the Knappers’ Gazette on obits.
It's an art form. I've had to do it for a professional colleague, which was an interesting exercise for more than one reason, including the need to tailor it for different audiences (got published in extenso in one of the more intelligent and traditional local newspapers, as well as several professional journals).
(And of courser the funeral addresses for deceased parents and elderly rselatives are a variant). But I hope never to do it again, at least for a friend or relative.
An Obit of genius, a life of... well you be the judge
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Well said Barnesian.
Cyclefree is wrong to suggest that Canada is an example of it being "expanded". What happened in Canada is that new legislation was passed, as can happen in this nation, no Parliament can bind its successors. The new legislation that was passed in Canada passed all the checks, balances and hoops of democratic procedures that any other would have, it was not simply an expansion of prior legislation.
It's naive to think that expansion doesn't proceed according to its own logic. People turn cases into causes celebres and use them to argue that it's not fair that person A is denied the rights of person B. You might also get an activist Director of Public Prosecutions deciding to ignore the law in an attempt to force the hand of parliament.
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
They’re 6NM apart. It’s been proposed before to build an airside tunnel between them, but the Northolt residents don’t want more planes at their airfield. There’s no commercial traffic there at the moment, it’s all military and private aviation, plus government and royal VIP flights which would become more difficult if they had to stop traffic on a regular basis.
A rather more important factor is runway length. Northolt's is only ~1,700 metres long; Heathrow's are 3,700m and 3,900m. A 747 requires 3,200m. An A350 2,200m. A 737Max 2,500m.
But the smaller ATRs, Dash 8s etc that currently take up valuable and expensive LHR slots could be moved out.
I’m sure you’ve heard of this one, the 1960 Boeing 707 landing at the wrong airport, which required the interior to be stripped out of the plane and a somewhat illegal amound of fuel on board, to allow it to fly to where it was supposed to be - with the same crew as had messed up in the first place! https://simpleflying.com/pan-am-707-raf-northolt/
Some positive news from Trump at least with his threat of extra tariffs on Russia unless Putin does a deal with Ukraine
So 3 years of 90% reduced trade between US and Russia has had little impact with it being replaced by trade with China, India and Turkey. How many iotas do you think Putin gives about a tariff on the remaining sliver?
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
What next? Euthanasia for the disabled or mentally ill like Canada under the Liberals has been on the slippery slope to.
Your comments are why some who support euthanasia but only for the terminally ill in severe pain have severe concerns about what next
Some positive news from Trump at least with his threat of extra tariffs on Russia unless Putin does a deal with Ukraine
So 3 years of 90% reduced trade between US and Russia has had little impact with it being replaced by trade with China, India and Turkey. How many iotas do you think Putin gives about a tariff on the remaining sliver?
Nonetheless with expanded sanctions it shows Trump is not as firmly in the Putin column as was suggested
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
What next? Euthanasia for the disabled or mentally ill like Canada under the Liberals has been on the slippery slope too.
Your comments are why some who support euthanasia but only for the terminally ill in severe pain have severe concerns about what next
An assisted dying bill needs to pass...just not this one
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
I’m not sure that encouraging people to die for the sake of one’s own financial gain quite matches the anti -slavery cause.
I'm personally finding the coercion is in the opposite direction. I've discussed this with my children and they are adamant that I shouldn't take this route. They don't want to lose me, bless them. But it's selfish of them. I feel coerced. NB Although I'm nearly 82 I'm very healthy and happy and nowhere near having to make a decision like this (fingers crossed).
Expand Heathrow by selling it RAF Northolt which is across the road. The government gets a big cheque, and there is no net increase in the number of runways.
"across the road" is somewhat of an understatement here...
Indeed. They are 8km apart.
Heathrow and RAF Northolt are both in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Across the road might have been an exaggeration but in airport terms, a slight one.
They’re 6NM apart. It’s been proposed before to build an airside tunnel between them, but the Northolt residents don’t want more planes at their airfield. There’s no commercial traffic there at the moment, it’s all military and private aviation, plus government and royal VIP flights which would become more difficult if they had to stop traffic on a regular basis.
A rather more important factor is runway length. Northolt's is only ~1,700 metres long; Heathrow's are 3,700m and 3,900m. A 747 requires 3,200m. An A350 2,200m. A 737Max 2,500m.
But the smaller ATRs, Dash 8s etc that currently take up valuable and expensive LHR slots could be moved out.
I’m sure you’ve heard of this one, the 1960 Boeing 707 landing at the wrong airport, which required the interior to be stripped out of the plane and a somewhat illegal amound of fuel on board, to allow it to fly to where it was supposed to be - with the same crew as had messed up in the first place! https://simpleflying.com/pan-am-707-raf-northolt/
Smaller planes could use the shorter runway, but it makes connections *much* more inconvenient and the whole airport less flexible.
Incidentally, Cambridge Airport used to get 747's coming in for maintenance at Marshalls, but the runway is only 2km long. To get them in, they had to fly to Stansted, have a load of stuff removed, then fly on minimal fuel to Cambridge. To get out of Cambridge airport was even more inconvenient.
I worked a very short distance down the road, and I never got to see one come in or leave.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
I’m not sure that encouraging people to die for the sake of one’s own financial gain quite matches the anti -slavery cause.
I'm personally finding the coercion is in the opposite direction. I've discussed this with my children and they are adamant that I shouldn't take this route. They don't want to lose me, bless them. But it's selfish of them. I feel coerced. NB Although I'm nearly 82 I'm very healthy and happy and nowhere near having to make a decision like this (fingers crossed).
Anecdote though, personally I would prefer my father took that route, he isn't there anymore anyway. However if a doctor said want me to give him the needle I would say no because he never expressed the wish. How many families however would if they see there inheritance diminishing at the 6k a month my fathers home costs....(for the sake of confession) my father is not costing me any inheritance by being in care as all he had was debts
@Cyclefree has written many brilliant articles on this website over a long period of time. In these articles a common theme has been the need for complete transparency.
So I'm very concerned about something. @Cyclefree was asked a very simple question very early in the comments to this thread - ie does she oppose this Bill in principle or would there be circumstances where she would support it given the right safeguards?
From my reading of the comments, she does not appear to have answered this very simple question. Why not?
I guess she might say it's irrelevant and we must just deal with the points she has made in isolation. But in my view that's not reasonable.
If someone opposes something in principle but instead raises a whole pile of practical objections that suggests to me that they know their opposition in principle is not something the public will support - so instead they raise a whole pile of other objections in the hope of confusing the issue and scaring people off.
So can we have an honest answer to the very simple question raised:
Does she oppose this Bill in principle or would there be circumstances where she would support it given the right safeguards?
Some positive news from Trump at least with his threat of extra tariffs on Russia unless Putin does a deal with Ukraine
So 3 years of 90% reduced trade between US and Russia has had little impact with it being replaced by trade with China, India and Turkey. How many iotas do you think Putin gives about a tariff on the remaining sliver?
Nonetheless with expanded sanctions it shows Trump is not as firmly in the Putin column as was suggested
No, it simply shows he is pretending to take action against Putin to fool the gullible, sorry.
This assisted Dying Bill is going to get much more debate and attention that a typical Government Bill that is whipped through.
It has to go through a long Committee stage with dozens of expert witnesses of all types. Then 3rd Reading and then on to the Lords. There is a lot of emotion on both sides. MPs are really engaged unlike most Government Bills.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 3h But Russia already prevented from selling anything in U.S. So this threat of “Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions” seems empty.
If Trump wants to put pressure on Putin, he needs to ramp up support for Ukraine. Otherwise it’s just weak rhetoric from Trump which Putin will ignore.
Good PPB then from the Conservatives, an interview with Kemi in her kitchen setting out her history and values
Much as I understand the appeal, I don't want to know about Kemi Badenoch the person, I want to know about her plan. What are the problems the UK faces and how does she plan to deal with them? Are there SMART metrics which I can use to judge success? Does she have a timeframe in mind or are these just aspirations? I heartily dislike Trump but I acknowledge that he has identified problems, has a plan to overcome them, and is executing it. They're not the problems I would have picked, but that's not the point.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
I’m not sure that encouraging people to die for the sake of one’s own financial gain quite matches the anti -slavery cause.
Seems to me there's an argument for putting the children's inheritance into circulation for everyone's benefit rather than all that money going to the privileged few.
This assisted Dying Bill is going to get much more debate and attention that a typical Government Bill that is whipped through.
It has to go through a long Committee stage with dozens of expert witnesses of all types. Then 3rd Reading and then on to the Lords. There is a lot of emotion on both sides. MPs are really engaged unlike most Government Bills.
To say that it will lack scrutiny is ridiculous.
The committee stage has as has been noted stacked with supporters
Those who are strongly opposed to assisted dying as a matter of principle will always find reasons why any legislation to enable it isn't fit for purpose. This would be the case however watertight the legislation was.
Although I'm personally in favour of it, I'm reasonably content to let our 650 MPs decide, in the end, if the final legislation is fit for purpose or not. That's democracy in action.
@Cyclefree has written many brilliant articles on this website over a long period of time. In these articles a common theme has been the need for complete transparency.
So I'm very concerned about something. @Cyclefree was asked a very simple question very early in the comments to this thread - ie does she oppose this Bill in principle or would there be circumstances where she would support it given the right safeguards?
From my reading of the comments, she does not appear to have answered this very simple question. Why not?
I guess she might say it's irrelevant and we must just deal with the points she has made in isolation. But in my view that's not reasonable.
If someone opposes something in principle but instead raises a whole pile of practical objections that suggests to me that they know their opposition in principle is not something the public will support - so instead they raise a whole pile of other objections in the hope of confusing the issue and scaring people off.
So can we have an honest answer to the very simple question raised:
Does she oppose this Bill in principle or would there be circumstances where she would support it given the right safeguards?
The two issues are separate. The process and the decision. I'm not going to change my mind that I am in favour of such a bill passing (not necessarily this one) but still think the process should be fair.
It would be good to hear from the other side to Cyclefree about the process to see if there are any justifications for what on the face of it, as described, seems quite wrong.
Those who are strongly opposed to assisted dying as a matter of principle will always find reasons why any legislation to enable it isn't fit for purpose. This would be the case however watertight the legislation was.
Although I'm personally in favour of it, I'm reasonably content to let our 650 MPs decide, in the end, if the final legislation is fit for purpose or not. That's democracy in action.
Do you trust 650 mp's to actually read the legislation.....damn sure I don't
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Cyclefree is no part of any campaign, she is expressing her sincerely held views.
I am more than happy to consider pieces from yourself or anyone else who is in favour of this bill for publication on PB.
It is clear that Cyclefree is against assisted dying full stop for her own personal reasons. I suspect she would be against it, whatever the process. It's her own campaign.
A large majority of the population, of all ages and parties, are in favour of assisted dying.
"Three-quarters (75%) of UK adults supported making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying, while only 14% actively opposed such a change." Opinium.
Several posters on here, myself included, have said we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but we have huge concerns about the approach being taken by Kim Leadbetter, that’s what you should be focussing on.
In my career the best way I have won people over is by showing my workings to them, not doing things hidden in the shadows.
See my post at 3.14pm.
How would you change the approach to bring in this proposed law?
By having a vigorous debate.
My concern is that people will go for assisted dying for financial reasons or that they are pressured into it.
Assisted dying should be safe, legal, and rare, with Kim Leadbetter’s approach it won’t be the third adjective.
Why should it be rare? In years to come, I hope it will be the norm. When you have no quality of life, blocking a bed, using up your kids inheritance, it will be natural, but not compulsory, to end your life.
And, there we have it.
Correct. It will be the decent thing to do. It will take quite a few years to become the norm, but it will be progress. It's hard to see it from this end of history's telescope.
I think we have very different notions of decency and progress.
Cultures change over time. Look back at attitudes to slavery, women's vote, gay rights.
I know I'm ahead of the curve. I'm surprised Leon isn't with me on this.
I’m not sure that encouraging people to die for the sake of one’s own financial gain quite matches the anti -slavery cause.
Seems to me there's an argument for putting the children's inheritance into circulation for everyone's benefit rather than all that money going to the privileged few.
Good evening, everybody.
Yes, and interesting precondition would be that IHT is higher, perhaps even 100%, in cases of Euthanasia
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Well said Barnesian.
Cyclefree is wrong to suggest that Canada is an example of it being "expanded". What happened in Canada is that new legislation was passed, as can happen in this nation, no Parliament can bind its successors. The new legislation that was passed in Canada passed all the checks, balances and hoops of democratic procedures that any other would have, it was not simply an expansion of prior legislation.
It was an expansion on who had the right to die and now they have people in their 20's with depression choosing it. Depression can be treated....
Not always. Life is difficult and can be unbearable. I would find it difficult to condemn somebody who decided death is better than life for themselves, although I would try hard to change their mind. Ultimately people are, or should be, the masters of their own fate.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 3h But Russia already prevented from selling anything in U.S. So this threat of “Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions” seems empty.
If Trump wants to put pressure on Putin, he needs to ramp up support for Ukraine. Otherwise it’s just weak rhetoric from Trump which Putin will ignore.
I agree, but much more could be done to tighten up existing sanctions; there's another different type of battle going on in the war: the west putting sanctions on Russia, then Russia subverting those sanctions, so those loopholes are addressed. And on, and on...
But even if the Russians subvert the sanctions, it still costs them more. And the more loopholes that are closed, the greater the cost to Russia. A recent change has made it harder for Russia's black fleet of tankers to discharge their loads.
Surely the point about the Committee Stage is that they are now looking at the detail of HOW to put the Bill into practice - the principle of the Bill having been agreed at Second Reading.
So is it appropriate to have people who are 100% opposed to the thing in principle just raising every possible objection under the sun to try to block it? That's not what the Committee Stage is about.
Now of course MPs can still vote it down at Third Reading if they are unhappy with how the BIll emerges from the Committee.
But Committee Stage is not meant to be about dealing with endless objections which are only being raised with the intention of trying to block the whole thing.
That thread is replete with deranged conspiracy theories. It was Biden who removed sanctions from Nord Stream 2 and Trump who famously criticised Germany for it.
OK so Cyclefree is against assisted dying and is part of the campaign to kick it into the long grass and kill it.
I have been to meet with my MP, who is on the Committee and is against the Bill, to change her mind.
I don't think the Bill goes far enough and is far too restrictive. Hopefully, once it is passed, its scope can be further expanded by further legislation in the years to come. A progressive ladder not a slippery slope.
In a generation of so, people will look back in amazement that it took so long to give people the right to manage their own death. Just as we now look back in amazement at the time it took to give women the right to vote or gays the righ to marry.
Fingers crossed this bill will pass.
Well said Barnesian.
Cyclefree is wrong to suggest that Canada is an example of it being "expanded". What happened in Canada is that new legislation was passed, as can happen in this nation, no Parliament can bind its successors. The new legislation that was passed in Canada passed all the checks, balances and hoops of democratic procedures that any other would have, it was not simply an expansion of prior legislation.
It was an expansion on who had the right to die and now they have people in their 20's with depression choosing it. Depression can be treated....
Not always. Life is difficult and can be unbearable. I would find it difficult to condemn somebody who decided death is better than life for themselves, although I would try hard to change their mind. Ultimately people are, or should be, the masters of their own fate.
Not saying it can always be ameliorated but for example one of my south african sisters tried to commit suicide for the 5th time a couple of years ago...spent a lot of time talking to her about what was the issue...mostly medical in a lot of pain and also her life seemed hopeless....cant fix the pain but taught her stuff now she is still in pain but working a good job and life feels better for her and she is glad she failed
Those who are strongly opposed to assisted dying as a matter of principle will always find reasons why any legislation to enable it isn't fit for purpose. This would be the case however watertight the legislation was.
Although I'm personally in favour of it, I'm reasonably content to let our 650 MPs decide, in the end, if the final legislation is fit for purpose or not. That's democracy in action.
Do you trust 650 mp's to actually read the legislation.....damn sure I don't
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvCmBOenfsQ
On the other hand, it's yet another senior leader within an industry suppressing (or at the least, modifying greatly the expression of) their opinion in favour of the White House line.
Self-censorship is the most effective form of autocracy. Thou shalt not criticise the emperor.
I'm trying to take a helicopter view of cultural trends and pressures and forming a view of where it is leading.
It's not a comfortable position to take, and I'm probably harming the cause, as people take an intake of breath. So I wouldn't say this at the Committee or to my MP.
Bookmark this discussion and let's revisit it in twenty years time.
I don't like that, and don't think everyone supporting feels that way, but some do and best they be up front about it.
Come on Kemi, line every one of your MPs up in favour and let Rachel know she has your support.
I am all for it where none of those apply and I certainly wouldn't want the 6 months to death to apply...for example I get diagnosed with dementia...I don't want to live another 12 years if the last 6 means I dont recognise friends or family I would rather have a living will which says if I get to a certain level of cognitive disfunction let me go
There is a good article from the Knappers’ Gazette on obits.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bringing-obituaries-to-life/
A prime example is eugenics, which was seen by many on both right and left as a way to improve the bloodstock of the nation. This led to abuses with compulsory sterilisation etc in a number of countries. We now consider this anathema and recognise the early focus on euthanasia for the institutionalised in mental asylums in Germany as the beginning of the Holocaust.
The only bit of eugenics that survives now is prenatal diagnosis and abortion, and it is questionable whether that has gone too far. For example there have been no babies with Downs syndrome born in Iceland in over a decade. Sally Phillips (who has a son with Downs) did an excellent programme on this some years back.
https://youtu.be/x16wGajCHIw?feature=shared
Mitigating such particulate emissions is expensive.
(Which reminds me of this comparison, which I have found useful: Stalin was responsible for about as many deaths as WW I, Mao about as many as WW II.)
But seriously, very kind.
So many of the problems in the UK come from process and planning. Perhaps living somewhere with the right attitude gives me a distorted view of this, but I constantly refer to the Dubai Airport Terminal 3 being built and operational in the same time as the LHR T5 planning inquiry. Same scope of project, new buildings and access roads to an existing airfield, but one place realised they needed it to be open yesterday, and the other has already been talking about it for decades and done little in terms of legislation.
In Heathrow’s favour, the airport has been buying up any house for sale in the area and paying well for decades, which will save them a fortune in the long run.
(And of courser the funeral addresses for deceased parents and elderly rselatives are a variant). But I hope never to do it again, at least for a friend or relative.
My 98 year old mother surprised us with this comment, for she rarely talked about dying and death during her decline from advanced frailty, although she repeatedly said, “I never thought it would go on so long.”
Her final months were harrowing to witness. But how much harder must they have been to bear? It's left me wondering if she, and we, her children, could have made any different decisions.
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o393
Simple enough to convert them to runways. Just need a few diversions.
I still think the right answer is Boris island though. His best idea. Or on land in Cliffe. Then LHR could be sold off for much needed property development.
FFS get on with it.
Which is to say, what dignity did they have to start with? It's very hard to be a billionaire and retain any dignity.
6km per hour is brisk walking on flat paved areas.
For the majority of people it would take an hour and a half to walk 8km
But I suspect for Trump he enjoys the displays even more than he likes money.
Cyclefree is wrong to suggest that Canada is an example of it being "expanded". What happened in Canada is that new legislation was passed, as can happen in this nation, no Parliament can bind its successors. The new legislation that was passed in Canada passed all the checks, balances and hoops of democratic procedures that any other would have, it was not simply an expansion of prior legislation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1395628/The-Earl-of-Kimberley.html
I laughed for weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/el7QbpgrG0A
I'm not saying that coal is necessarily 'the' answer, just that we should let the market decide and stop tilting the balance in favour of unreliables which have given us the most expensive energy in the world and brought us to a position, unthinkable in the 90s, where blackouts aren't just a remote, theoretical possibility.
"Trump urges Putin to end ‘ridiculous’ Ukraine war or face new sanctions"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn0y51z7wedt
Wind may not be "reliable" but it is cheap which is far more important, especially as we move to a more battery-operated age.
As we transition we can currently supplement cheaper wind with gas (more expensive, but on-demand and reliable) to fill in any gaps where there's a wind deficit.
As we transition further, less and less gas should be needed.
What's wrong with that.
I’m sure you’ve heard of this one, the 1960 Boeing 707 landing at the wrong airport, which required the interior to be stripped out of the plane and a somewhat illegal amound of fuel on board, to allow it to fly to where it was supposed to be - with the same crew as had messed up in the first place!
https://simpleflying.com/pan-am-707-raf-northolt/
Your comments are why some who support euthanasia but only for the terminally ill in severe pain have severe concerns about what next
I've discussed this with my children and they are adamant that I shouldn't take this route. They don't want to lose me, bless them. But it's selfish of them. I feel coerced.
NB Although I'm nearly 82 I'm very healthy and happy and nowhere near having to make a decision like this (fingers crossed).
Incidentally, Cambridge Airport used to get 747's coming in for maintenance at Marshalls, but the runway is only 2km long. To get them in, they had to fly to Stansted, have a load of stuff removed, then fly on minimal fuel to Cambridge. To get out of Cambridge airport was even more inconvenient.
I worked a very short distance down the road, and I never got to see one come in or leave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI-E-j1Arpg
https://bsky.app/profile/ruthdeyermond.bsky.social/post/3lgdv65pkgc2n
So I'm very concerned about something. @Cyclefree was asked a very simple question very early in the comments to this thread - ie does she oppose this Bill in principle or would there be circumstances where she would support it given the right safeguards?
From my reading of the comments, she does not appear to have answered this very simple question. Why not?
I guess she might say it's irrelevant and we must just deal with the points she has made in isolation. But in my view that's not reasonable.
If someone opposes something in principle but instead raises a whole pile of practical objections that suggests to me that they know their opposition in principle is not something the public will support - so instead they raise a whole pile of other objections in the hope of confusing the issue and scaring people off.
So can we have an honest answer to the very simple question raised:
Does she oppose this Bill in principle or would there be circumstances where she would support it given the right safeguards?
It has to go through a long Committee stage with dozens of expert witnesses of all types. Then 3rd Reading and then on to the Lords.
There is a lot of emotion on both sides. MPs are really engaged unlike most Government Bills.
To say that it will lack scrutiny is ridiculous.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
3h
But Russia already prevented from selling anything in U.S. So this threat of “Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions” seems empty.
If Trump wants to put pressure on Putin, he needs to ramp up support for Ukraine. Otherwise it’s just weak rhetoric from Trump which Putin will ignore.
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1882099352094826709
Good evening, everybody.
Although I'm personally in favour of it, I'm reasonably content to let our 650 MPs decide, in the end, if the final legislation is fit for purpose or not. That's democracy in action.
It would be good to hear from the other side to Cyclefree about the process to see if there are any justifications for what on the face of it, as described, seems quite wrong.
The problems of assisted dying (other phrases are available) are more complex, as I pointed out in my article https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/29/hell/
But even if the Russians subvert the sanctions, it still costs them more. And the more loopholes that are closed, the greater the cost to Russia. A recent change has made it harder for Russia's black fleet of tankers to discharge their loads.
So is it appropriate to have people who are 100% opposed to the thing in principle just raising every possible objection under the sun to try to block it? That's not what the Committee Stage is about.
Now of course MPs can still vote it down at Third Reading if they are unhappy with how the BIll emerges from the Committee.
But Committee Stage is not meant to be about dealing with endless objections which are only being raised with the intention of trying to block the whole thing.