At the moment a lot of Democrat voters are pissed off with the Democrat party because they screwed up so badly allowing Trump to win. A feeling I share.
If the figures haven't changed in 6 months then they are in trouble.
I think that the Democrats are an institution. The people leading them, less so.
Given that Trump is making a spectacular mess, I get the impression that people are standing back, rather than wasting time trying to (futilely) stop him.
The Dem conference at the weekend looked like a parody of itself written by Republicans. It started with an apology to the First Nations for stealing their land, then went on a festival of wokeness and LGBTQIA++ that doubled down on all the reasons they lost the election in the first place.
I mean, you can’t complain that politicians do not have principles then also complain when they don’t throw away their principles at the first sign of electoral failure.
They need to decide if they’re going to spend the next 18 months appealing to the fringes of their activist base, or if they’re going to go out campaigning in the swing States in a way that appeals to ordinary Americans.
The Tories in the UK have the same problem at the moment.
To be quite frank if Trump’s tariffs lead to high inflation and few extra jobs the Democrats could do sod all for two years but speak to their activists and still win the midterms by a landslide as they have opposition all to themselves .
The Tories problem is that while the Labour government is deeply unpopular the opposition is divided with Reform and the LDs here
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
Buying a Tesla is now akin to getting a swastika tattoo, so even in France, where there are quite a lot of far-right nutters, you would expect sales to plummet.
Just checking with the Woke will destroy a brand guys, it's a two way street, right?
Leadbetter said on the radio and during the initial debate this -
"The concept of a slippery slope, I will dismiss that, because once this bill is passed... The bill cannot be changed."
This is untrue and she must have known this. It is untrue because laws can be changed. It is also untrue because her own Bill states within it that all sorts of matters will remain to be determined by Ministers without any further Parliamentary debate. She is asking MPs to vote on a law without knowing its details.
A couple of examples. It will be Ministers who will decide what drugs will be used to kill people. MPs won't have any say on this. How are such drugs to be tested to make sure they can actually give the peaceful death people say is possible? Who knows? Interestingly, the Committee did not obtain evidence from Switzerland on this. Why not?
The Bill gives Ministers Henry VIII powers to change any other legislation including, if necessary, the Health Secretary's "duty to protect life" from the 1946 National Health Service Act. (The precise wording is "The duty to improve the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales". That is if this service is to be provided by the NHS. Is it? This too is unclear. Or will it be a private service? All unclear.
There are plenty of other examples. Does Leadbetter even understand what is in her own Bill?
Clearly she doesn’t, hence the discussion the other day about who’s actually behind it. My money is still on Lord Alli of Wardrobe.
Using my photo quota for the day for a graphic on differing responses to the question 'does religion hurt or help society':
Stupid question as there are vastly different religions with different beliefs and different levels of belief even within those religions.
Pleased to see most of the world still thinks religion helps society overall though and 46% for religion helps even for the UK is more than I expected in what is largely a secular nation now
Leadbetter said on the radio and during the initial debate this -
"The concept of a slippery slope, I will dismiss that, because once this bill is passed... The bill cannot be changed."
This is untrue and she must have known this. It is untrue because laws can be changed. It is also untrue because her own Bill states within it that all sorts of matters will remain to be determined by Ministers without any further Parliamentary debate. She is asking MPs to vote on a law without knowing its details.
A couple of examples. It will be Ministers who will decide what drugs will be used to kill people. MPs won't have any say on this. How are such drugs to be tested to make sure they can actually give the peaceful death people say is possible? Who knows? Interestingly, the Committee did not obtain evidence from Switzerland on this. Why not?
The Bill gives Ministers Henry VIII powers to change any other legislation including, if necessary, the Health Secretary's "duty to protect life" from the 1946 National Health Service Act. (The precise wording is "The duty to improve the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales". That is if this service is to be provided by the NHS. Is it? This too is unclear. Or will it be a private service? All unclear.
There are plenty of other examples. Does Leadbetter even understand what is in her own Bill?
I will dismiss that, because once this bill is passed... The bill cannot be changed."
Extraordinary words, because in the narrowest possible sense it is true - being a tautology. Once the Bill is an Act then the Act is the Act. Only another Act can change or amend it. So it is sort of true, but completely meaningless. It is not impressive.
I was in an Assetto Corsa private lobby last night (racing IndyCars on the Charlotte roval, ya boi Dura was looking good for the W until he cooked his right front and ended up P3). The Canadian mod kicked two Americans for being American. Real July 1914 energy.
"Sports fans in Canada booed the American national anthem at pro sports events over the weekend.
"Fans at NHL games in Canada made their voices heard just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump followed through on his threats regarding import tariffs."
Someone posted it over the weekend, along with another one where Canadians had to sing their anthem because the Americans refused to play it (allegedly – there were so few spectators, I'd wonder if it was in America at all).
Leadbetter said on the radio and during the initial debate this -
"The concept of a slippery slope, I will dismiss that, because once this bill is passed... The bill cannot be changed."
This is untrue and she must have known this. It is untrue because laws can be changed. It is also untrue because her own Bill states within it that all sorts of matters will remain to be determined by Ministers without any further Parliamentary debate. She is asking MPs to vote on a law without knowing its details.
A couple of examples. It will be Ministers who will decide what drugs will be used to kill people. MPs won't have any say on this. How are such drugs to be tested to make sure they can actually give the peaceful death people say is possible? Who knows? Interestingly, the Committee did not obtain evidence from Switzerland on this. Why not?
The Bill gives Ministers Henry VIII powers to change any other legislation including, if necessary, the Health Secretary's "duty to protect life" from the 1946 National Health Service Act. (The precise wording is "The duty to improve the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales". That is if this service is to be provided by the NHS. Is it? This too is unclear. Or will it be a private service? All unclear.
There are plenty of other examples. Does Leadbetter even understand what is in her own Bill?
I will dismiss that, because once this bill is passed... The bill cannot be changed."
Extraordinary words, because in the narrowest possible sense it is true - being a tautology. Once the Bill is an Act then the Act is the Act. Only another Act can change or amend it. So it is sort of true, but completely meaningless. It is not impressive.
Its rubbish in the same way that no parliament can bind a future parliament.
I think this is going to be a classic example of “be careful what you wish for, it may come true”.
As for Trump’s approval ratings approving that’s not exactly surprising when he is clearly doing things. I mean granted what he’s doing seems to be utterly insane but your average American won’t see the insanity
I was in an Assetto Corsa private lobby last night (racing IndyCars on the Charlotte roval, ya boi Dura was looking good for the W until he cooked his right front and ended up P3). The Canadian mod kicked two Americans for being American. Real July 1914 energy.
"Sports fans in Canada booed the American national anthem at pro sports events over the weekend.
"Fans at NHL games in Canada made their voices heard just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump followed through on his threats regarding import tariffs."
Some way off topic, but not one I saw at the time - includes cricket.
The original Allison Pearson tweet the Essex Police got in touch with her about; the incident that caused here to crank up the outrage bus. Just a measure imo of her ingrowing gormlessness.
She accused police of 'smiling with the Jew haters', and tweeted it at the Met. It was actually GM Police at a demonstration in support of Imran Khan's political party.
Using my photo quota for the day for a graphic on differing responses to the question 'does religion hurt or help society':
Religion is very useful for some, according to Desmond Tutu
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
Utah was the last place to be mapped in the continental USA/lower 48 states
It was terra incognita until the late 19th century, which is quite amazing:
"The last blank spot on U.S. maps - specifically in the area of the Uinta Mountains and the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah - was finally filled in by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1879, concluding the first comprehensive mapping of the lower 48 states."
Even now it is VERY easy to get lost and meet a grisly end in the wilds of Utah. Nearly happened to me once, I went down a canyon, like I was going for a walk in Holland Park, then turned a few corners, then realised I was utterly lost. all the canyons look the same. Zero phone signal
People die doing that shit. I got lucky when I nearly stepped on a rattlesnake, reeled back in fear, and as I reeled back I recognised a bunch of unusual trees on a cliff, and I recognised my way out
True story
Go to Utah if you want a true sense of wild, frontier America, with lots of sun
There are quite a few stories of people getting lost and dying in the US outback.
But there is one lesser known one of a local wanderer (female) who was exploring the outback in... I think Oregon... and got lost. She did what you're supposed to do 'stay put' and made a journal. Rescuers missed her by a few miles and whilst she was eventually 'found', she's long died by then.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
The problem is, when the clipboard minded attempt to interact with reality and morality.
No we don't want a clipboard mentality on assisted dying, either in pushing it or preventing it.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
You could have said it would “weave” its way through the system for a subtle pun.
To be fair, it is quite refreshing to see someone elected promising to do something fairly radical and then actually doing it. Doesn’t mean it’s rational or not terrifying though.
At the moment a lot of Democrat voters are pissed off with the Democrat party because they screwed up so badly allowing Trump to win. A feeling I share.
If the figures haven't changed in 6 months then they are in trouble.
I think that the Democrats are an institution. The people leading them, less so.
Given that Trump is making a spectacular mess, I get the impression that people are standing back, rather than wasting time trying to (futilely) stop him.
The Dem conference at the weekend looked like a parody of itself written by Republicans. It started with an apology to the First Nations for stealing their land, then went on a festival of wokeness and LGBTQIA++ that doubled down on all the reasons they lost the election in the first place.
I mean, you can’t complain that politicians do not have principles then also complain when they don’t throw away their principles at the first sign of electoral failure.
They need to decide if they’re going to spend the next 18 months appealing to the fringes of their activist base, or if they’re going to go out campaigning in the swing States in a way that appeals to ordinary Americans.
The Tories in the UK have the same problem at the moment.
To be quite frank if Trump’s tariffs lead to high inflation and few extra jobs the Democrats could do sod all for two years but speak to their activists and still win the midterms by a landslide as they have opposition all to themselves .
The Tories problem is that while the Labour government is deeply unpopular the opposition is divided with Reform and the LDs here
How unsupplantable are the Dems, particularly in the House/Senate? Is there actually anything other than momentum retaining them as one of the big two? Or could a well funded, well organised upstart potentially smash through and replace them?
UK politics tends (via FPTP) to being a two party system. But the big two has changed in the past, and it may well change again - it's not clear yet if Reform is the right's Labour Party or SDP.
I can't see any obvious reason why the same couldn't be true in the USA.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
That's more Trump's America.
"Local shops for local people"
I thought right wingers hated 15 minute cities.
They do. You can't drive anywhere and you're under constant deep state surveillance. Truly sinister idea cooked up by the radical left.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
That's more Trump's America.
"Local shops for local people"
I thought right wingers hated 15 minute cities.
They do. You can't drive anywhere and you're under constant deep state surveillance. Truly sinister idea cooked up by the radical left.
How does making sure you have facilities nearby suddenly stop you from being able to travel and puts cameras absolutely everywhere?
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
The problem is, when the clipboard minded attempt to interact with reality and morality.
No we don't want a clipboard mentality on assisted dying, either in pushing it or preventing it.
If someone needs help in ending their lives for whatever reason, I wouldn't involve the state. Leave judges and the NHS out of it. Leave it as an optional extra service from undertakers. A bit like Dignitas.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
You could have said it would “weave” its way through the system for a subtle pun.
My comedy needs some work to be honest. Your irony generates hilarity throughout the day. Well done.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
You could have said it would “weave” its way through the system for a subtle pun.
My comedy needs some work to be honest. Your irony generates hilarity throughout the day. Well done.
I am happy to offer you some guidance on how to do subtle puns and subtlety in general.
To be fair, it is quite refreshing to see someone elected promising to do something fairly radical and then actually doing it. Doesn’t mean it’s rational or not terrifying though.
The online Trump fans are definitely of the opinion that this is what they voted for, they’re over the Moon and half way to Mars with how well the last two weeks has gone.
Their ire is being directed at the GOP Senators, most of whom are sponsored by Pfizer, holding up the Cabinet nominations of Kennedy, Patel, and Gabbard.
That said, there are a few starting to get worried about where a trade war with Canada fits into the plan.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
That's more Trump's America.
"Local shops for local people"
I thought right wingers hated 15 minute cities.
They do. You can't drive anywhere and you're under constant deep state surveillance. Truly sinister idea cooked up by the radical left.
Don't tell them that the majority of dash cammer reports come from people in cars - they'll do Hari-Kiri in their confusion !
To be fair, it is quite refreshing to see someone elected promising to do something fairly radical and then actually doing it. Doesn’t mean it’s rational or not terrifying though.
When was the last time a centre-left government did this? Difficult to remember.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
That's more Trump's America.
"Local shops for local people"
I thought right wingers hated 15 minute cities.
They do. You can't drive anywhere and you're under constant deep state surveillance. Truly sinister idea cooked up by the radical left.
How does making sure you have facilities nearby suddenly stop you from being able to travel and puts cameras absolutely everywhere?
I know. As if. I was doing my far right conspiracy nut impression there.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
Having anyone you want around you while you commit suicide is not without issues for those around you though, is it? And the act itself can be harder than you might think - hence those who choose the 'hit by a train' option. I know that you think you are fighting this bill on behalf of those who you think may be forced into assisted death, but you come across rather strong on those who would see assisted death as a legitimate release. I have huge issues with the way the bill is being introduced, but I am in favour of the concept. We euthanise sick pets to end their suffering.
Not a good example. We euthanise pets for all sorts of reasons - not just to end suffering. Pets have no say in the matter.
Is that how we want to treat humans?
Those in favour of AD have said that they do want people around them when they commit suicide.
I have personal experience of suicide in the family.
If suicide is harder than people like to think and this is what is behind this then let's stop all the cant about terminal illnesses. It's about making suicide easier. You may think the state making suicide easier a good thing. I don't. First because those who are in a state where suicide is what they are thinking of should be helped not encouraged to end their life. And second because - as all the evidence from other countries shows - it will inevitably end up with the vulnerable being bullied into suicide because as a society we cannot be bothered to care for them, especially if this will cost money.
Tony Nicklin was someone whose medical condition was such that he had a terrible existence but was unable to end his own life. People like him would not be helped by this Bill because it requires the person to ingest the drugs themselves (whether orally or through a syringe). I can well understand the case why people like him would want something to end their suffering. If there was a law which could only apply to people like him ....
But there isn't anywhere in the world. And this Bill certainly is not such a Bill.
Were what happened to him to happen to someone close to me and they wanted me to help them I might well do so but if I did I would then hand myself in and expect to be investigated. Why? Because I think the taboo against ending someone else's life is an important one which should be maintained. And because if people cross that taboo - even for reasons of love and mercy - they should expect to be held accountable. In practice, such prosecutions are rare - and convictions even rarer. The last such prosecution - leading to an acquittal - was in 2015.
Accountability is an important concept. It applies - or should apply - to everyone. Without it all you do is create a loophole which will be abused by bad actors. It is pretty selfish frankly to expect to break a vital taboo and be excused it in advance. A society which elevates "I want, I must get" as the highest moral value without any regard for the effect of this on the marginalised and vulnerable is a pretty selfish society frankly.
I think this is going to be a classic example of “be careful what you wish for, it may come true”.
As for Trump’s approval ratings approving that’s not exactly surprising when he is clearly doing things. I mean granted what he’s doing seems to be utterly insane but your average American won’t see the insanity
I was in an Assetto Corsa private lobby last night (racing IndyCars on the Charlotte roval, ya boi Dura was looking good for the W until he cooked his right front and ended up P3). The Canadian mod kicked two Americans for being American. Real July 1914 energy.
"Sports fans in Canada booed the American national anthem at pro sports events over the weekend.
"Fans at NHL games in Canada made their voices heard just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump followed through on his threats regarding import tariffs."
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
You could have said it would “weave” its way through the system for a subtle pun.
My comedy needs some work to be honest. Your irony generates hilarity throughout the day. Well done.
I am happy to offer you some guidance on how to do subtle puns and subtlety in general.
I am somewhat short on double entendres. I missed that module. Can you help?
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
I would encourage you to find work, possibly part time that suits your other aspirations. Anecdotally I have seen a couple of people of my acquaintance decline significantly after early retirement. There is a body of evidence that suggests not working for any reason is deleterious to mental health. I hope that won't happen to you.
In terms of your question, I would recommend a number of things that government could do, though you might not like them. Firstly I would disincentivise early retirement through the tax system and encourage significant tax breaks for individuals and employers to employ older workers. The pension schemes for public sector workers are obscene and require reform as they are inequitable. The latter will not happen as the politicians and civil servants benefit.
Additional to all this could be a good discussion along the lines in the article. I sincerely believe that our country (and others) have become obsessed with retirement, when it is not in society's greater interest. There are better and more affordable solutions than pensioning people off who are capable of working.
Oh, I have plenty of things to be doing, some voluntary, some not.
I suspect the main issue with giving up formal work is the loss of daily interactions and that's where you have to make the effort. My work interactions have been 99% online for a while so maybe that's less of a loss.
Admittedly the problem with voluntary things can be that being paid to do something kind of proves that it is valued, at least by someone, whereas if you do stuff for free it can be taken for granted.
But sitting at a desk all day does nobody any good.
One point to be aware of is that, once you have become embedded in a voluntary job, it can be quite hard to stop doing it. People come to rely on you and it isn't at all like resigning from a paid job.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
You could have said it would “weave” its way through the system for a subtle pun.
My comedy needs some work to be honest. Your irony generates hilarity throughout the day. Well done.
I am happy to offer you some guidance on how to do subtle puns and subtlety in general.
I am somewhat short on double entendres. I missed that module. Can you help?
As a colleague/friend once observed, 'he doesn't know how to do double entendres, a single entendre yes, but not double entendres.'
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
FT: Sustained higher tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico could reduce real US GDP growth this year by as much as 1.6 percentage points according to analysts at UBS. … Analysts at Morgan Stanley said the tariffs on the US’s three major trading partners could slash real growth by up to 1.1 percentage points.
Does Starmer realise what leverage he has over the EU, with fishing rights?
We have the whip-hand here, which makes a change. The EU is desperate for a good deal, maintaining their fleets in British waters, and they're not hiding it very well
We need to extract a hefty pound of trading flesh, in return
But we have also made promises to UK fishermen who are one of the most obvious gainers from Brexit with their quotas up and going further up. They will be seriously unhappy if that improvement is delayed, as will their bank managers.
FT: The Canadian province of Ontario has said it will cancel a $100mn contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink in retaliation for US tariffs.
“We’ll be ripping up the province’s contract with Starlink. Ontario won’t do business with people hell-bent on destroying our economy,” premier Doug Ford posted on X.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
Economics is hard because, like a perfect sphere there is no starting point as a way in; any one thing can fit an economic model, so long as you have all the other bits fitting.
The general problem with tariffs is that it fatally undermines the law of comparative advantage, which law increases global prosperity when applied. But of course it never can apply perfectly because of things like national and food security.
One of the things Trump's opponents will keep quiet about is their own use of tariffs and subsidies (which operate as hidden tariffs) and import bans, including such free market outfits as the EU and the UK.
I agree about taxing stuff. Reeves would have done loads better in the budget to increase VAT, widen its catch at a lower rate, and introduce high rates for luxuries. And also equalise the tax/NI rate as between workers and pensioners like me.
Does Starmer realise what leverage he has over the EU, with fishing rights?
We have the whip-hand here, which makes a change. The EU is desperate for a good deal, maintaining their fleets in British waters, and they're not hiding it very well
We need to extract a hefty pound of trading flesh, in return
But we have also made promises to UK fishermen who are one of the most obvious gainers from Brexit with their quotas up and going further up. They will be seriously unhappy if that improvement is delayed, as will their bank managers.
The UK needs to actually invest in his fishing capacity. It means nothing to the economy, but everything to a handful of depressed coastal towns.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
FT: Sustained higher tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico could reduce real US GDP growth this year by as much as 1.6 percentage points according to analysts at UBS. … Analysts at Morgan Stanley said the tariffs on the US’s three major trading partners could slash real growth by up to 1.1 percentage points.
This is before he gets started on Europe.
GDP is a flawed index that doesn’t measure quality.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
You could have said it would “weave” its way through the system for a subtle pun.
My comedy needs some work to be honest. Your irony generates hilarity throughout the day. Well done.
I am happy to offer you some guidance on how to do subtle puns and subtlety in general.
I am somewhat short on double entendres. I missed that module. Can you help?
As a colleague/friend once observed, 'he doesn't know how to do double entendres, a single entendre yes, but not double entendres.'
Why would you go for a single entendre, when a good solid double would do?
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
FT: Sustained higher tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico could reduce real US GDP growth this year by as much as 1.6 percentage points according to analysts at UBS. … Analysts at Morgan Stanley said the tariffs on the US’s three major trading partners could slash real growth by up to 1.1 percentage points.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
It's deeply regressive. Substituting tariffs for income tax means that someone earning $30k, taxed on $10k who spends $15k a year on 'stuff' suddenly finds that they are earning $30k a year, taxed nothing but now spends $30k a year on 'stuff' to leave no savings.
A Billionaire in the same boat, earning $30m a year has suddenly no income tax to pay, (so might be $10m per year better off) but has to spend $15k extra each year. I'm sure he'll manage.
To continue the government revenue on the same scale, the tariffs need to force poor people to be bankrupt, middle income people to be poor but the rich get richer. A lot richer.
Of course, if you also intend to reduce government expenditure as well, then the above will still happen (broadly) but any and all government programmes will be cut/cancelled. I know the US doesn't have free healthcare (though they spend a lot on it) but anything else that relies on government spending will decline. Especially if Trump decides he can't defund the army or police as he needs those. Everything else just gets binned. Rubbish collection? Do it yourself. Tarmac the roads? Nope. Street lighting? Nawh. Education for the kids - forget it.
FT: The Canadian province of Ontario has said it will cancel a $100mn contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink in retaliation for US tariffs.
“We’ll be ripping up the province’s contract with Starlink. Ontario won’t do business with people hell-bent on destroying our economy,” premier Doug Ford posted on X.
Surely that’s only going to upset the residents of Ontario?
Starlink is genuinely a revolution in remote areas of the world.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
FT: Sustained higher tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico could reduce real US GDP growth this year by as much as 1.6 percentage points according to analysts at UBS. … Analysts at Morgan Stanley said the tariffs on the US’s three major trading partners could slash real growth by up to 1.1 percentage points.
This is before he gets started on Europe.
GDP isn't everything though.
Of course it’s not. But neither is it nothing. It provides jobs, and pays for social security systems. The UK’s inability to deliver meaningful GDP growth explains much of the discontent that prevails now.
If Trump can create a Smoot-Hawley style Great Depression he cements his name into the history books, deserving of a face on Mount Rushmore.
The thing is, economies take a while to turn round (particularly for the better, but also for the worse) and he has inherited a booming economy. Its frustrating that he'll get credit for quite a while for Bidens economy.
I suspect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 2025 will work it's way through the system like a pint of syrup of figs.
You could have said it would “weave” its way through the system for a subtle pun.
My comedy needs some work to be honest. Your irony generates hilarity throughout the day. Well done.
I am happy to offer you some guidance on how to do subtle puns and subtlety in general.
I am somewhat short on double entendres. I missed that module. Can you help?
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
The problem is, when the clipboard minded attempt to interact with reality and morality.
No we don't want a clipboard mentality on assisted dying, either in pushing it or preventing it.
If someone needs help in ending their lives for whatever reason, I wouldn't involve the state. Leave judges and the NHS out of it. Leave it as an optional extra service from undertakers. A bit like Dignitas.
I wouldn't go that far but I do support AD and my concern is in both directions.
You need safeguards against error and misuse. That's obvious and I wouldn't add anything to what's been said by others. Also, maybe less obvious and therefore less commented on, you don't want to nitpick the proposal to oblivion with too many safeguards.
Eg of the latter, the high court judge step. It sounds OTT and impractical. Also the 6 months to live condition. That excludes a lot of people who don't have the sort of illness where you can certify that, even though their lives have become unbearable with no prospect of relief.
But as inadequate as this bill might be I'll take it over nothing. If it gets canned that's probably it for the foreseeable. If it passes the leap is taken and the precise rules around it can be amended over time.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
So you would be in favour of increasing VAT? Which seems to have the same effect, but without the disadvantage of losing the efficiency savings of comparative advantage, unlike imposing indiscriminate mutual tariffs.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
Biden inflation increase the input cost to farming by 20% incl particularly high prices on fertilizer. So I plead w President Trump to exempt potash from the tariff because family farmers get most of our potash from Canada
Remarkable damage from a road crash in Colchester over the weekend.
Four students killed themselves at 4:40am on Saturday morning in a Ford Focus (ie smallish), on the wrong side of road, going at (I assume) speed into a second hand shop called "Dusty's".
The thing that gets me is that without hitting it head on, they knocked a 1st half 20C 18" thick solid Flemish or English bond brick wall out of true. That's how they built viaducts and bridges back then.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
So you would be in favour of increasing VAT? Which seems to have the same effect, but without the disadvantage of losing the efficiency savings of comparative advantage, unlike imposing indiscriminate mutual tariffs.
In general, I feel that we should be taxing consumpion - especially environmnetally destructive consumption - more and labour less, while taking measures to mitigate the regressive nature of such taxation. One could, perhaps, impose tariffs proportional to the CO2 emissions per capita of a foreign country. It's not something I've properly thought through though. I'm just indulging in a bit of kite flying / devil's advocation realy.
To be fair, it is quite refreshing to see someone elected promising to do something fairly radical and then actually doing it. Doesn’t mean it’s rational or not terrifying though.
The online Trump fans are definitely of the opinion that this is what they voted for, they’re over the Moon and half way to Mars with how well the last two weeks has gone.
Their ire is being directed at the GOP Senators, most of whom are sponsored by Pfizer, holding up the Cabinet nominations of Kennedy, Patel, and Gabbard.
That said, there are a few starting to get worried about where a trade war with Canada fits into the plan.
Well it is what they voted for. Be careful what you wish for leaps to mind. I am not sure they fully understood the risks and I would love to know who is advising Trump that this is a good thing.
A couple of the large American banks are betting on the tariffs being short lived. Let's hope so.
Remarkable damage from a road crash in Colchester over the weekend.
Four students killed themselves at 4:40am on Saturday morning in a Ford Focus (ie smallish), on the wrong side of road, going at (I assume) speed into a second hand shop called "Dusty's".
The thing that gets me is that without hitting it head on, they knocked a 1st half 20C 18" thick solid Flemish or English bond brick wall out of true. That's how they built viaducts and bridges back then.
Biden inflation increase the input cost to farming by 20% incl particularly high prices on fertilizer. So I plead w President Trump to exempt potash from the tariff because family farmers get most of our potash from Canada
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
It will also have the effect of suppressing growth - or even sending it into reverse.
To be fair, it is quite refreshing to see someone elected promising to do something fairly radical and then actually doing it. Doesn’t mean it’s rational or not terrifying though.
The online Trump fans are definitely of the opinion that this is what they voted for, they’re over the Moon and half way to Mars with how well the last two weeks has gone.
Their ire is being directed at the GOP Senators, most of whom are sponsored by Pfizer, holding up the Cabinet nominations of Kennedy, Patel, and Gabbard.
That said, there are a few starting to get worried about where a trade war with Canada fits into the plan.
Well it is what they voted for. Be careful what you wish for leaps to mind. I am not sure they fully understood the risks and I would love to know who is advising Trump that this is a good thing.
A couple of the large American banks are betting on the tariffs being short lived. Let's hope so.
I’m thinking that the Canadian tariffs don’t last much past their election.
The Mexican tariffs have a different purpose though, which is leverage around smashing the cartels and dealing with the immigration issue, as much as the trade imbalance. It’s said that 87% of legitimate Mexican exports go to the US. I’m expecting a lot of high-level meetings with State and Defence in the coming weeks, with the intention of the US military going in all guns blazing to take out the cartels.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
Well the next administration might not be so different and in any case four years is a long time for destructive episodes to last. A lot of damage can be done in four years.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
So you would be in favour of increasing VAT? Which seems to have the same effect, but without the disadvantage of losing the efficiency savings of comparative advantage, unlike imposing indiscriminate mutual tariffs.
In general, I feel that we should be taxing consumpion - especially environmnetally destructive consumption - more and labour less, while taking measures to mitigate the regressive nature of such taxation. One could, perhaps, impose tariffs proportional to the CO2 emissions per capita of a foreign country. It's not something I've properly thought through though. I'm just indulging in a bit of kite flying / devil's advocation realy.
In principle imposing duties on imports that are made with more environmental damage, worse working conditions etc than would be allowed here makes sense to me, I guess. It's kind of equivalent to an unfair government subsidy.
FT: The Canadian province of Ontario has said it will cancel a $100mn contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink in retaliation for US tariffs.
“We’ll be ripping up the province’s contract with Starlink. Ontario won’t do business with people hell-bent on destroying our economy,” premier Doug Ford posted on X.
At the moment a lot of Democrat voters are pissed off with the Democrat party because they screwed up so badly allowing Trump to win. A feeling I share.
If the figures haven't changed in 6 months then they are in trouble.
I think that the Democrats are an institution. The people leading them, less so.
Given that Trump is making a spectacular mess, I get the impression that people are standing back, rather than wasting time trying to (futilely) stop him.
The Dem conference at the weekend looked like a parody of itself written by Republicans. It started with an apology to the First Nations for stealing their land, then went on a festival of wokeness and LGBTQIA++ that doubled down on all the reasons they lost the election in the first place.
I mean, you can’t complain that politicians do not have principles then also complain when they don’t throw away their principles at the first sign of electoral failure.
They need to decide if they’re going to spend the next 18 months appealing to the fringes of their activist base, or if they’re going to go out campaigning in the swing States in a way that appeals to ordinary Americans.
The Tories in the UK have the same problem at the moment.
To be quite frank if Trump’s tariffs lead to high inflation and few extra jobs the Democrats could do sod all for two years but speak to their activists and still win the midterms by a landslide as they have opposition all to themselves .
The Tories problem is that while the Labour government is deeply unpopular the opposition is divided with Reform and the LDs here
How unsupplantable are the Dems, particularly in the House/Senate? Is there actually anything other than momentum retaining them as one of the big two? Or could a well funded, well organised upstart potentially smash through and replace them?
UK politics tends (via FPTP) to being a two party system. But the big two has changed in the past, and it may well change again - it's not clear yet if Reform is the right's Labour Party or SDP.
I can't see any obvious reason why the same couldn't be true in the USA.
At the moment the US right is more likely to split between MAGA and establishment Republicans than the Democrats I expect though FPTP has yes kept it even more of a two party system than here
Remarkable damage from a road crash in Colchester over the weekend.
Four students killed themselves at 4:40am on Saturday morning in a Ford Focus (ie smallish), on the wrong side of road, going at (I assume) speed into a second hand shop called "Dusty's".
The thing that gets me is that without hitting it head on, they knocked a 1st half 20C 18" thick solid Flemish or English bond brick wall out of true. That's how they built viaducts and bridges back then.
This quote reminds me of the videos on twitter of cars hitting a brick wall at ascending speeds. I do wonder how fast the car was going. Very sad loss of life. Young life.
“Later in the day a lorry came along with a crane on the back.
“When the car was put onto that, I could see the car was a complete wreck to the extent I could not see what type of car it was.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
Well the next administration might not be so different and in any case four years is a long time for destructive episodes to last. A lot of damage can be done in four years.
If only the democrats had not picked a complete dummy we would have been spared all of this.
Tariffs was the one thing I was really concerned about with either of the main candidates. They could wreak global havoc and Colombia, with their pathetic response, has just emboldened Trump
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
Well the next administration might not be so different and in any case four years is a long time for destructive episodes to last. A lot of damage can be done in four years.
That's what really hit home to me over the weekend, the GOP is too far gone now, look at how J.D. Vance is defending this shit, and a few years ago he was rightly calling Trump 'America's Hitler'.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
So you would be in favour of increasing VAT? Which seems to have the same effect, but without the disadvantage of losing the efficiency savings of comparative advantage, unlike imposing indiscriminate mutual tariffs.
In general, I feel that we should be taxing consumpion - especially environmnetally destructive consumption - more and labour less, while taking measures to mitigate the regressive nature of such taxation. One could, perhaps, impose tariffs proportional to the CO2 emissions per capita of a foreign country. It's not something I've properly thought through though. I'm just indulging in a bit of kite flying / devil's advocation realy.
We have become conditioned to think that universal free trade is the be all. While globalisation has certainly improved economic efficiency and lifted aggregate output, there are plenty of data that indicate it’s been at the expense of western lower-middle classes. And certainly so strategic resilience. The global economic system (and hence society) just feels so fragile these days, with international JIT stock mgmt.
Whether trump is thinking about any of that who knows, he just likes tariffs probably.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
The US isn’t and will never be an adversary. There might be minor disagreements and changes of governments, but the Five Eyes and NATO are the Five Eyes and NATO, and any disruption to that won’t be in the UK’s favour.
China is and will always be up there with Russia and Iran as the most serious of adversaries, albeit one that the West has become too dependent on in the last couple of decades. The balance between trade and politics with China is the biggest story of the next few years.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
Well the next administration might not be so different and in any case four years is a long time for destructive episodes to last. A lot of damage can be done in four years.
That's what really hit home to me over the weekend, the GOP is too far gone now, look at how J.D. Vance is defending this shit, and a few years ago he was rightly calling Trump 'America's Hitler'.
It will be interesting to see whether Republicans at all branches of Government get sufficiently upset that their personal financial details have been given to a 19 year old intern with the LinkedIn profile "BigBalls" to actually start doing something about it
Remarkable damage from a road crash in Colchester over the weekend.
Four students killed themselves at 4:40am on Saturday morning in a Ford Focus (ie smallish), on the wrong side of road, going at (I assume) speed into a second hand shop called "Dusty's".
The thing that gets me is that without hitting it head on, they knocked a 1st half 20C 18" thick solid Flemish or English bond brick wall out of true. That's how they built viaducts and bridges back then.
The wall they went in through was only half brick I think (or possibly cavity), but the remarkable impact is on the front wall. There's a hell of a lot of energy in it to do something like that.
The US isn’t and will never be an adversary. There might be minor disagreements and changes of governments, but the Five Eyes and NATO are the Five Eyes and NATO, and any disruption to that won’t be in the UK’s favour.
Trump already wants to pull out of NATO
I wonder who would get the blame if 9/11 happened now and someone had intel that might have stopped it, but didn't share it.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
China now accounts for 25% of trade with South America, the US only 15%. Chinese aid and trade with South America seems to have had a more positive effect on democracy in the region than the previous US dominance had...
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
The US isn’t and will never be an adversary. There might be minor disagreements and changes of governments, but the Five Eyes and NATO are the Five Eyes and NATO, and any disruption to that won’t be in the UK’s favour.
China is and will always be up there with Russia and Iran as the most serious of adversaries, albeit one that the West has become too dependent on in the last couple of decades. The balance between trade and politics with China is the biggest story of the next few years.
Modern China is built on the ideology of racial supremacy and something akin to national socialism. I shudder at all the “be nice” crowd who cosy up to it.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
The US isn’t and will never be an adversary. There might be minor disagreements and changes of governments, but the Five Eyes and NATO are the Five Eyes and NATO, and any disruption to that won’t be in the UK’s favour.
China is and will always be up there with Russia and Iran as the most serious of adversaries, albeit one that the West has become too dependent on in the last couple of decades. The balance between trade and politics with China is the biggest story of the next few years.
Would you consider America to be an adversary if Trump invaded Canada or Greenland?
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
The US isn’t and will never be an adversary. There might be minor disagreements and changes of governments, but the Five Eyes and NATO are the Five Eyes and NATO, and any disruption to that won’t be in the UK’s favour.
China is and will always be up there with Russia and Iran as the most serious of adversaries, albeit one that the West has become too dependent on in the last couple of decades. The balance between trade and politics with China is the biggest story of the next few years.
NATO is all but dead. There is no way the US would now unconditionally come to the aid of a NATO member state attacked by Russia. As for Five Eyes, have you seen who Trump is proposing should run the US security services?
Comments
The Tories problem is that while the Labour government is deeply unpopular the opposition is divided with Reform and the LDs here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBHHFnUqo5o&t=135s
I'm actually very surprised there aren't majorities saying "neither" but maybe that wasn't an option.
Suspect countries with close to 100% saying religion helps society are countries with strict blasphemy laws.
Pleased to see most of the world still thinks religion helps society overall though and 46% for religion helps even for the UK is more than I expected in what is largely a secular nation now
Manchester United have lost 13 home games in the Premier League since the start of last season.
Liverpool have lost 13 home games in the Premier League since the start of the Klopp era in October 2015.
https://x.com/BassTunedToRed/status/1886382780096958724
Extraordinary words, because in the narrowest possible sense it is true - being a tautology. Once the Bill is an Act then the Act is the Act. Only another Act can change or amend it. So it is sort of true, but completely meaningless. It is not impressive.
The original Allison Pearson tweet the Essex Police got in touch with her about; the incident that caused here to crank up the outrage bus. Just a measure imo of her ingrowing gormlessness.
She accused police of 'smiling with the Jew haters', and tweeted it at the Met. It was actually GM Police at a demonstration in support of Imran Khan's political party.
Article: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/15/allison-pearson-jew-haters-tweet-is-at-centre-of-telegraphs-row-with-police
Compare Puerto Rico, only 5% English, 95% Spanish!
"Local shops for local people"
The Death Valley Germans is one: https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hunt-for-the-death-valley-germans/
But there is one lesser known one of a local wanderer (female) who was exploring the outback in... I think Oregon... and got lost. She did what you're supposed to do 'stay put' and made a journal. Rescuers missed her by a few miles and whilst she was eventually 'found', she's long died by then.
UK politics tends (via FPTP) to being a two party system. But the big two has changed in the past, and it may well change again - it's not clear yet if Reform is the right's Labour Party or SDP.
I can't see any obvious reason why the same couldn't be true in the USA.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
Or Seneca
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Explains a lot about Trump's approach to it.
Their ire is being directed at the GOP Senators, most of whom are sponsored by Pfizer, holding up the Cabinet nominations of Kennedy, Patel, and Gabbard.
That said, there are a few starting to get worried about where a trade war with Canada fits into the plan.
Is that how we want to treat humans?
Those in favour of AD have said that they do want people around them when they commit suicide.
I have personal experience of suicide in the family.
If suicide is harder than people like to think and this is what is behind this then let's stop all the cant about terminal illnesses. It's about making suicide easier. You may think the state making suicide easier a good thing. I don't. First because those who are in a state where suicide is what they are thinking of should be helped not encouraged to end their life. And second because - as all the evidence from other countries shows - it will inevitably end up with the vulnerable being bullied into suicide because as a society we cannot be bothered to care for them, especially if this will cost money.
Tony Nicklin was someone whose medical condition was such that he had a terrible existence but was unable to end his own life. People like him would not be helped by this Bill because it requires the person to ingest the drugs themselves (whether orally or through a syringe). I can well understand the case why people like him would want something to end their suffering. If there was a law which could only apply to people like him ....
But there isn't anywhere in the world. And this Bill certainly is not such a Bill.
Were what happened to him to happen to someone close to me and they wanted me to help them I might well do so but if I did I would then hand myself in and expect to be investigated. Why? Because I think the taboo against ending someone else's life is an important one which should be maintained. And because if people cross that taboo - even for reasons of love and mercy - they should expect to be held accountable. In practice, such prosecutions are rare - and convictions even rarer. The last such prosecution - leading to an acquittal - was in 2015.
Accountability is an important concept. It applies - or should apply - to everyone. Without it all you do is create a loophole which will be abused by bad actors. It is pretty selfish frankly to expect to break a vital taboo and be excused it in advance. A society which elevates "I want, I must get" as the highest moral value without any regard for the effect of this on the marginalised and vulnerable is a pretty selfish society frankly.
Sustained higher tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico could reduce real US GDP growth this year by as much as 1.6 percentage points according to analysts at UBS.
…
Analysts at Morgan Stanley said the tariffs on the US’s three major trading partners could slash real growth by up to 1.1 percentage points.
This is before he gets started on Europe.
The Canadian province of Ontario has said it will cancel a $100mn contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink in retaliation for US tariffs.
“We’ll be ripping up the province’s contract with Starlink. Ontario won’t do business with people hell-bent on destroying our economy,” premier Doug Ford posted on X.
The general problem with tariffs is that it fatally undermines the law of comparative advantage, which law increases global prosperity when applied. But of course it never can apply perfectly because of things like national and food security.
One of the things Trump's opponents will keep quiet about is their own use of tariffs and subsidies (which operate as hidden tariffs) and import bans, including such free market outfits as the EU and the UK.
I agree about taxing stuff. Reeves would have done loads better in the budget to increase VAT, widen its catch at a lower rate, and introduce high rates for luxuries. And also equalise the tax/NI rate as between workers and pensioners like me.
It means nothing to the economy, but everything to a handful of depressed coastal towns.
(Bonus point for anyone who gets the reference).
Bitcoin is having a bad week
Ontario just cancelled their contract with Starlink
The stuff Musk is doing in Washington might be illegal, with heavy fines.
There is a non-zero chance he torches his entire fortune
A Billionaire in the same boat, earning $30m a year has suddenly no income tax to pay, (so might be $10m per year better off) but has to spend $15k extra each year. I'm sure he'll manage.
To continue the government revenue on the same scale, the tariffs need to force poor people to be bankrupt, middle income people to be poor but the rich get richer. A lot richer.
Of course, if you also intend to reduce government expenditure as well, then the above will still happen (broadly) but any and all government programmes will be cut/cancelled. I know the US doesn't have free healthcare (though they spend a lot on it) but anything else that relies on government spending will decline. Especially if Trump decides he can't defund the army or police as he needs those. Everything else just gets binned. Rubbish collection? Do it yourself. Tarmac the roads? Nope. Street lighting? Nawh. Education for the kids - forget it.
Starlink is genuinely a revolution in remote areas of the world.
But neither is it nothing. It provides jobs, and pays for social security systems. The UK’s inability to deliver meaningful GDP growth explains much of the discontent that prevails now.
On the second, spot on.
You need safeguards against error and misuse. That's obvious and I wouldn't add anything to what's been said by others. Also, maybe less obvious and therefore less commented on, you don't want to nitpick the proposal to oblivion with too many safeguards.
Eg of the latter, the high court judge step. It sounds OTT and impractical. Also the 6 months to live condition. That excludes a lot of people who don't have the sort of illness where you can certify that, even though their lives have become unbearable with no prospect of relief.
But as inadequate as this bill might be I'll take it over nothing. If it gets canned that's probably it for the foreseeable. If it passes the leap is taken and the precise rules around it can be amended over time.
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
@ChuckGrassley
Biden inflation increase the input cost to farming by 20% incl particularly high prices on fertilizer. So I plead w President Trump to exempt potash from the tariff because family farmers get most of our potash from Canada
Four students killed themselves at 4:40am on Saturday morning in a Ford Focus (ie smallish), on the wrong side of road, going at (I assume) speed into a second hand shop called "Dusty's".
The thing that gets me is that without hitting it head on, they knocked a 1st half 20C 18" thick solid Flemish or English bond brick wall out of true. That's how they built viaducts and bridges back then.
Piccie here (my quota is used):
https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:6n5txih6p3ylv4bk6zdavbzn/bafkreibdld52rlz2j7gupiw3wnk2avzbx3nto3y5eb7qhrqfgqor2pahrq@jpeg
Streetview - it's straight in where the sign is: https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1DXr6rFtGDGoSqh6
Article: https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24903018.colchester-magdalen-street-crash-car-wreckage-unrecognisable/
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
A couple of the large American banks are betting on the tariffs being short lived. Let's hope so.
The Mexican tariffs have a different purpose though, which is leverage around smashing the cartels and dealing with the immigration issue, as much as the trade imbalance. It’s said that 87% of legitimate Mexican exports go to the US. I’m expecting a lot of high-level meetings with State and Defence in the coming weeks, with the intention of the US military going in all guns blazing to take out the cartels.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
@GoodwinMJ
Tony Blair says the antidote to populism is digital ID cards
Wrong.
The antidote to populism is ending the extreme policy of mass uncontrolled low-skill immigration and fixing our borders."
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1886363368375673333
“Later in the day a lorry came along with a crane on the back.
“When the car was put onto that, I could see the car was a complete wreck to the extent I could not see what type of car it was.
“It was absolutely unrecognisable.”
It would be unacceptable to say "limit immigration"
But ID cards and mandatory reporting for workers, cutting off the companies granting their own visas etc is acceptable.
Tariffs was the one thing I was really concerned about with either of the main candidates. They could wreak global havoc and Colombia, with their pathetic response, has just emboldened Trump
globalisation has certainly improved economic efficiency and lifted aggregate output, there are plenty of data that indicate it’s been at the expense of western lower-middle classes. And certainly so strategic resilience. The global economic system (and hence society) just feels so fragile these days, with international JIT stock mgmt.
Whether trump is thinking about any of that who knows, he just likes tariffs probably.
China is and will always be up there with Russia and Iran as the most serious of adversaries, albeit one that the West has become too dependent on in the last couple of decades. The balance between trade and politics with China is the biggest story of the next few years.
I wonder who would get the blame if 9/11 happened now and someone had intel that might have stopped it, but didn't share it.
Take Back Control!
I think you mean regulate their operation ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Putin must be so happy.
Walking back from the edge?