That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not short of catfood; we are short of viable organs for transplant.
The end justifies the means, eh?
Often, yes. But it doesn't mean always, there's a balance. We're just arguing over where the line is.
Actually, we're not arguing that. Some of us - Casino and myself, for example - think that there is no balance, that there is an absolute principle at stake
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts, but no 'balance' to be struck between the horror of a lingering, painful, undignified and certain death, and the well-known reasons for making assisted dying a criminal offence.
Or in practical terms, you would rather that people die than a dead body be deprived of something for which it has no further use.
Might as well mince up the dead and use them as catfood, then. That would be a carbon-efficient recycling for those chunks of organic compounds which the former owner no longer needs.
That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not short of catfood; we are short of viable organs for transplant.
The end justifies the means, eh?
Often, yes. But it doesn't mean always, there's a balance. We're just arguing over where the line is.
Actually, we're not arguing that. Some of us - Casino and myself, for example - think that there is no balance, that there is an absolute principle at stake
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts, but no 'balance' to be struck between the horror of a lingering, painful, undignified and certain death, and the well-known reasons for making assisted dying a criminal offence.
If those in need (e.g. people in renal failure) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (kidney of dead person), why should not people in need (homeless people) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (empty second home), and why should not people in need (the poor) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (money sitting in richer people's bank accounts), etc...? Even if you're not at all spiritual, it is a very slippery slope.
For anyone who believes that their is a dignity in both life and death, it is not, as Mr Nabavi says, an issue of balance. It is simply a line that should not be crossed.
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts...
How is an opt-in system any less regarding your body as a source of spare parts?
That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not short of catfood; we are short of viable organs for transplant.
The end justifies the means, eh?
Often, yes. But it doesn't mean always, there's a balance. We're just arguing over where the line is.
Actually, we're not arguing that. Some of us - Casino and myself, for example - think that there is no balance, that there is an absolute principle at stake
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts, but no 'balance' to be struck between the horror of a lingering, painful, undignified and certain death, and the well-known reasons for making assisted dying a criminal offence.
If those in need (e.g. people in renal failure) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (kidney of dead person), why should not people in need (homeless people) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (empty second home), and why should not people in need (the poor) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (money sitting in richer people's bank accounts), etc...? Even if you're not at all spiritual, it is a very slippery slope.
For anyone who believes that their is a dignity in both life and death, it is not, as Mr Nabavi says, an issue of balance. It is simply a line that should not be crossed.
Sorry, did "opt-out" get redefined to mean "mandatory" while I wasn't looking?
"The only question being asked that matters in British - nay European - politics tonight: does Mrs May survive?"
No wonder the Europeans get pissed of with us from time to time. Does Mr Neil not consider that "WTF is going to happen in Catalonia that we'll be forced to take a position on sooner or later even though we really really wish it would just go away?" might matter a bit more to Europeans other than those living on these sceptered isles?
Indeed.Not to mention Macron confronting strikers, Germans having no govt. till next year, etc.
That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not short of catfood; we are short of viable organs for transplant.
The end justifies the means, eh?
Often, yes. But it doesn't mean always, there's a balance. We're just arguing over where the line is.
Actually, we're not arguing that. Some of us - Casino and myself, for example - think that there is no balance, that there is an absolute principle at stake
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts, but no 'balance' to be struck between the horror of a lingering, painful, undignified and certain death, and the well-known reasons for making assisted dying a criminal offence.
Nice whataboutery!
I hope you never need a transplant. At least if you do, someone with a different attitude might have helped you, and you can live safe in the knowledge that you will never do the same.
Everyone still has that choice, even with this reform.
"The only question being asked that matters in British - nay European - politics tonight: does Mrs May survive?"
No wonder the Europeans get pissed of with us from time to time. Does Mr Neil not consider that "WTF is going to happen in Catalonia that we'll be forced to take a position on sooner or later even though we really really wish it would just go away?" might matter a bit more to Europeans other than those living on these sceptered isles?
Yes, because mainland europeans never take an insular view of things, or engage in hyperbolistic reporting of domestic events, it is such a uniquely British trait.
Hmm, top political story in Le Monde is about Macron merging three departments with the greater paris metroplis if google translate is anything to go by. Another one is about French MEPs and some controvesy over the european flag. The top political on de spiegal seems to be about Merkel's challenge in forming a coalition.
No no, that cannot be - if a mere commentator in Britain is unusual to take a british centric view, the continent's papers online sites surely would only lead with the real lead stories.
I'm certain Philip and Tezza will reach the decision together. Don't think there will be any need for blood-letting to try and get her out... She'll stand down and that'll be it.
The blood-letting will be in the contest that follows.
How is an opt-in system any less regarding your body as a source of spare parts?
Because there's a massive distinction between you donating your body as a source of spare parts, and the state grabbing your body, without your consent, as a source of spare parts. I wouldn't have thought that this distinction would be hard to appreciate.
That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not short of catfood; we are short of viable organs for transplant.
The end justifies the means, eh?
Often, yes. But it doesn't mean always, there's a balance. We're just arguing over where the line is.
Actually, we're not arguing that. Some of us - Casino and myself, for example - think that there is no balance, that there is an absolute principle at stake
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts, but no 'balance' to be struck between the horror of a lingering, painful, undignified and certain death, and the well-known reasons for making assisted dying a criminal offence.
If those in need (e.g. people in renal failure) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (kidney of dead person), why should not people in need (homeless people) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (empty second home), and why should not people in need (the poor) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (money sitting in richer people's bank accounts), etc...? Even if you're not at all spiritual, it is a very slippery slope.
For anyone who believes that their is a dignity in both life and death, it is not, as Mr Nabavi says, an issue of balance. It is simply a line that should not be crossed.
Sorry, did "opt-out" get redefined to mean "mandatory" while I wasn't looking?
How soon before the government opts out of the opt out?
Charity is something that is given, not appropriated unless opted out of.
I'm certain Philip and Tezza will reach the decision together. Don't think there will be any need for blood-letting to try and get her out... She'll stand down and that'll be it.
The blood-letting will be in the contest that follows.
That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not short of catfood; we are short of viable organs for transplant.
The end justifies the means, eh?
Often, yes. But it doesn't mean always, there's a balance. We're just arguing over where the line is.
Actually, we're not arguing that. Some of us - Casino and myself, for example - think that there is no balance, that there is an absolute principle at stake .
Actually we are arguing that. The balance to which i was referring was the balance of determining whether the end justifies the means. All of us have something we support which others regard as an absolute principle which must not be crossed, but we consider the ends achieved to justify the means it took. Your line does not cross this issue, but something you believe in will be too much for somebody else, even if it is perhaps a belief that we should not be doing something which others regard as a moral imperative and they would judge you for thinking it is optional.
That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not short of catfood; we are short of viable organs for transplant.
The end justifies the means, eh?
Often, yes. But it doesn't mean always, there's a balance. We're just arguing over where the line is.
Actually, we're not arguing that. Some of us - Casino and myself, for example - think that there is no balance, that there is an absolute principle at stake
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts, but no 'balance' to be struck between the horror of a lingering, painful, undignified and certain death, and the well-known reasons for making assisted dying a criminal offence.
If those in need (e.g. people in renal failure) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (kidney of dead person), why should not people in need (homeless people) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (empty second home), and why should not people in need (the poor) have the right to appropriate what's not being used (money sitting in richer people's bank accounts), etc...? Even if you're not at all spiritual, it is a very slippery slope.
For anyone who believes that their is a dignity in both life and death, it is not, as Mr Nabavi says, an issue of balance. It is simply a line that should not be crossed.
Sorry, did "opt-out" get redefined to mean "mandatory" while I wasn't looking?
How soon before the government opts out of the opt out?
Charity is something that is given, not appropriated unless opted out of.
Evidence please. How many countries don't let you opt out?
I hope you never need a transplant. At least if you do, someone with a different attitude might have helped you, and you can live safe in the knowledge that you will never do the same..
In that circumstance I'd be very grateful if someone had consciously decided to help me. I'd be very queasy indeed to discover that, actually, the person hadn't wanted to help me, but my agents had helped themselves on my behalf all the same.
Is Labour under Corbyn gaining traction? The Tories regularly get 40% in polls and the Labour lead is tiny -only 1% in the latest Yougov.
Prime ministers fall for many reasons. Asquith and Chamberlain went because they were not good war leaders. Eden went because of Suez. Thatcher went because of the Poll Tax.
Is May going to be deposed now (the election was four months ago) because she had a cough, security at the party conference allowed a comedian to approach her, and some letters dropped off a wall?
The Tories had better choose wisely because they might get an even worse leader. None of the cabinet would be any good.
Hope springs eternal - it looks increasingly as if there might be agreement between both parties in Congress - not to mention the NRA - to make bump stocks illegal.
Ownership of fully automatic weapons is illegal, with few exceptions. Use of a bump stock on a semi-automatic weapon makes it effectively an automatic weapon. They are legal currently because they do not physically modify the weapon.
I have shot a weapon with a bump stock on a range. To say it's exhilarating is a severe understatement.
Actually we are arguing that. The balance to which i was referring was the balance of determining whether the end justifies the means. All of us have something we support which others regard as an absolute principle which must not be crossed, but we consider the ends achieved to justify the means it took. Your line does not cross this issue, but something you believe in will be too much for somebody else, even if it is perhaps a belief that we should not be doing something which others regard as a moral imperative and they would judge you for thinking it is optional.
Is Labour under Corbyn gaining traction? The Tories regularly get 40% in polls and the Labour lead is tiny -only 1% in the latest Yougov.
Prime ministers fall for many reasons. Asquith and Chamberlain went because they were not good war leaders. Eden went because of Suez. Thatcher went because of the Poll Tax.
Is May going to be deposed now (the election was four months ago) because she had a cough, security at the party conference allowed a comedian to approach her, and some letters dropped off a wall?
The Tories had better choose wisely because they might get an even worse leader. None of the cabinet would be any good.
I hope you never need a transplant. At least if you do, someone with a different attitude might have helped you, and you can live safe in the knowledge that you will never do the same..
In that circumstance I'd be very grateful if someone had consciously decided to help me. I'd be very queasy indeed to discover that, actually, the person hadn't wanted to help me, but my agents had helped themselves on my behalf all the same.
But that person has the freedom not to help you, and still does with the reform!
The integrity of your future corpse is obviously important to you. Fine. We are (or should be) a free country, and you should have the absolute unquestioned right to insist on it. However, I don't see why your preference should guide government policy.
Nobody is prevented from doing what they want by this change, and more people will live longer and healthier lives. I count that as a win.
Thank you! I have only ever come across it in PG Wodehouse.
Always willing to help on matters of word derivation, accents, turn of phrase, etc. Spend far more time than is considered normal by anyone at all on that site.
Realise it is not the usual PB practicality of legal, financial and technology advice. But it keeps me out of bother...
I think the value may be in 2018 Q1, allowing for the time needed for a contest.
Sure - I should have been clearer - IMO, evens she'll have announced her resignation within 3 mths and be gone within 6.
A delayed resignation is probable (although that makes "health grounds" as her justification, problematic).
Be careful betting on exit dates.
If it doesn't come to a head now, it's likely to come with the budget.
The accounts look horrible. Are the tories really going to end austerity for non-tory voters? I struggle to see how the books balance with the ideological coalition that is keeping her in power.
Hope springs eternal - it looks increasingly as if there might be agreement between both parties in Congress - not to mention the NRA - to make bump stocks illegal.
Ownership of fully automatic weapons is illegal, with few exceptions. Use of a bump stock on a semi-automatic weapon makes it effectively an automatic weapon. They are legal currently because they do not physically modify the weapon.
I have shot a weapon with a bump stock on a range. To say it's exhilarating is a severe understatement.
But that person has the freedom not to help you, and still does with the reform!
The integrity of your future corpse is obviously important to you. Fine. We are (or should be) a free country, and you should have the absolute unquestioned right to insist on it. However, I don't see why your preference should guide government policy.
Nobody is prevented from doing what they want by this change, and more people will live longer and healthier lives. I count that as a win.
The integrity of my future corpse isn't actually important to me, although I'd like there to be an identifiable location for the bulk of it. I'd happily spare a few bits if they would be of use, although at my age I think they wouldn't.
What is important to me is the principle of consent.
Is Labour under Corbyn gaining traction? The Tories regularly get 40% in polls and the Labour lead is tiny -only 1% in the latest Yougov.
Prime ministers fall for many reasons. Asquith and Chamberlain went because they were not good war leaders. Eden went because of Suez. Thatcher went because of the Poll Tax.
Is May going to be deposed now (the election was four months ago) because she had a cough, security at the party conference allowed a comedian to approach her, and some letters dropped off a wall?
The Tories had better choose wisely because they might get an even worse leader. None of the cabinet would be any good.
Hope springs eternal - it looks increasingly as if there might be agreement between both parties in Congress - not to mention the NRA - to make bump stocks illegal.
Ownership of fully automatic weapons is illegal, with few exceptions. Use of a bump stock on a semi-automatic weapon makes it effectively an automatic weapon. They are legal currently because they do not physically modify the weapon.
I have shot a weapon with a bump stock on a range. To say it's exhilarating is a severe understatement.
Is Labour under Corbyn gaining traction? The Tories regularly get 40% in polls and the Labour lead is tiny -only 1% in the latest Yougov.
Prime ministers fall for many reasons. Asquith and Chamberlain went because they were not good war leaders. Eden went because of Suez. Thatcher went because of the Poll Tax.
Is May going to be deposed now (the election was four months ago) because she had a cough, security at the party conference allowed a comedian to approach her, and some letters dropped off a wall?
The Tories had better choose wisely because they might get an even worse leader. None of the cabinet would be any good.
She will be deposed for her lack of direction and inability to control her cabinet.
The speech was just the point where it all came to a head.
At least tonight has seen a lively debate on organ donation and opt outs.
And yet here in Wales it has been in place since December 2015 and more organs have been donated and more lives saved. To those who object ask how they would feel if an organ donation could save their nearest and dearest.
How is an opt-in system any less regarding your body as a source of spare parts?
Because there's a massive distinction between you donating your body as a source of spare parts, and the state grabbing your body, without your consent, as a source of spare parts. I wouldn't have thought that this distinction would be hard to appreciate.
It's not hard to appreciate, but as I said, your previous posts weren't talking about that distinction. The one I quoted, and the catfood one, only made sense if the idea of the government regarding you as spare parts was what worried you. They had absolutely nothing to do with consent. So I was just trying to understand whether there was any kind of coherent thread to your complaints.
Those who are backing Rudd in the next Tory leader market need to re-evaluate and listen to Eddie Mair ripping her to shreds just like he did Boris Johnson.
But that person has the freedom not to help you, and still does with the reform!
The integrity of your future corpse is obviously important to you snip
Nobody is prevented from doing what they want by this change, and more people will live longer and healthier lives. I count that as a win.
The integrity of my future corpse isn't actually important to me, although I'd like there to be an identifiable location for the bulk of it. I'd happily spare a few bits if they would be of use, although at my age I think they wouldn't.
What is important to me is the principle of consent.
It's a pity your fine brain couldn't be reused
I understand your stance; let's agree to disagree. Thanks for the argument!
Or in practical terms, you would rather that people die than a dead body be deprived of something for which it has no further use.
Might as well mince up the dead and use them as catfood, then. That would be a carbon-efficient recycling for those chunks of organic compounds which the former owner no longer needs.
Think we have a philosophical argument here. I would be happy to be cat food. I would have a sky burial. I see my body as a complex series of organic compounds I temporarily utilise. I realise others may differ.
Yep, same here. I'm basically indifferent to what happens to my body when I'm dead, but if it can be used for someone, that's great. The balance of interest seems to lie with people who need organs, so long as those who object have the right to forbid it: people who can't be bothered to record a view can reasonably be assumed not to have acquired a view after death.
I tried to introduce this when I was in Parliament, and the Government is right on this one, in my opinion. In fact recent Government moves on several issues seem pleasantly social democratic, as though TM had appointed EdM to advise.
How is an opt-in system any less regarding your body as a source of spare parts?
Because there's a massive distinction between you donating your body as a source of spare parts, and the state grabbing your body, without your consent, as a source of spare parts. I wouldn't have thought that this distinction would be hard to appreciate.
It's not hard to appreciate, but as I said, your previous posts weren't talking about that distinction. The one I quoted, and the catfood one, only made sense if the idea of the government regarding you as spare parts was what worried you. They had absolutely nothing to do with consent. So I was just trying to understand whether there was any kind of coherent thread to your complaints.
There is a third possibility, if you neither donate your body, nor the state grabs it -
How is an opt-in system any less regarding your body as a source of spare parts?
Because there's a massive distinction between you donating your body as a source of spare parts, and the state grabbing your body, without your consent, as a source of spare parts. I wouldn't have thought that this distinction would be hard to appreciate.
It's not hard to appreciate, but as I said, your previous posts weren't talking about that distinction. The one I quoted, and the catfood one, only made sense if the idea of the government regarding you as spare parts was what worried you. They had absolutely nothing to do with consent. So I was just trying to understand whether there was any kind of coherent thread to your complaints.
Not so. The catfood argument was an answer to the point that the bits of the body might be useful and save lives. Yes, of course I know that, but it's not an answer to the principled objection about consent.
But that person has the freedom not to help you, and still does with the reform!
The integrity of your future corpse is obviously important to you. Fine. We are (or should be) a free country, and you should have the absolute unquestioned right to insist on it. However, I don't see why your preference should guide government policy.
Nobody is prevented from doing what they want by this change, and more people will live longer and healthier lives. I count that as a win.
The integrity of my future corpse isn't actually important to me, although I'd like there to be an identifiable location for the bulk of it. I'd happily spare a few bits if they would be of use, although at my age I think they wouldn't.
What is important to me is the principle of consent.
Earlier today I signed my Will, and got the forms to donate my remains to the Oxford University Pathology people. it's an incredibly complicated process. Let's put it this way, like most beautiful women, they are not exactly desperate to get their hands on my body.....
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I'm not a libertarian, although I have a certain admiration for those rare individuals who can consistently apply the principles. However, you raise a point that I meant to raise with you earlier. The Atlanticist, Thatcherite, low-tax, rational economics, small-government, free-trade principles that you generally espouse don't really have a home in the modern Conservative party. It's got Christian Democrats at one end, interfering busybodies (with the best of motives, naturally) who like spending your money for the greater good, and National Conservative small-towners who are suspicious of outsiders at the other end. We've had seven years of this now, the debt isn't going down, the pound isn't going up, taxes are still referred to as "investment", Help-To-Buy still exists, and now your body isn't your own.
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
Earlier today I signed my Will, and got the forms to donate my remains to the Oxford University Pathology people. it's an incredibly complicated process. Let's put it this way, like most beautiful women, they are not exactly desperate to get their hands on my body.....
In fact recent Government moves on several issues seem pleasantly social democratic, as though TM had appointed EdM to advise.
Indeed so. That's why it's really odd that people accuse Theresa May of shifting the party to the right, of moving away from the centre. As I've said before, overall she's somewhat to the left of Cameron - even more so than Boris is.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I'm not a libertarian, although I have a certain admiration for those rare individuals who can consistently apply the principles. However, you raise a point that I meant to raise with you earlier. The Atlanticist, Thatcherite, low-tax, rational economics, small-government, free-trade principles that you generally espouse don't really have a home in the modern Conservative party. It's got Christian Democrats at one end, interfering busybodies (with the best of motives, naturally) who like spending your money for the greater good, and National Conservative small-towners who are suspicious of outsiders at the other end. We've had seven years of this now, the debt isn't going down, the pound isn't going up, taxes are still referred to as "investment", Help-To-Buy still exists, and now your body isn't your own.
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
The Conservative Party has always been a coalition. We are held together by belief in the Crown and the Union, the Empire now being moot.
At least tonight has seen a lively debate on organ donation and opt outs.
And yet here in Wales it has been in place since December 2015 and more organs have been donated and more lives saved. To those who object ask how they would feel if an organ donation could save their nearest and dearest.
Always much more fun when familiar posters form unusual coalitions. Makes one think!
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I'm not a libertarian, although I have a certain admiration for those rare individuals who can consistently apply the principles. However, you raise a point that I meant to raise with you earlier. The Atlanticist, Thatcherite, low-tax, rational economics, small-government, free-trade principles that you generally espouse don't really have a home in the modern Conservative party. It's got Christian Democrats at one end, interfering busybodies (with the best of motives, naturally) who like spending your money for the greater good, and National Conservative small-towners who are suspicious of outsiders at the other end. We've had seven years of this now, the debt isn't going down, the pound isn't going up, taxes are still referred to as "investment", Help-To-Buy still exists, and now your body isn't your own.
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
The Conservative Party has always been a coalition. We are held together by belief in the Crown and the Union, the Empire now being moot.
We can argue about the rest.
Ah our beloved Hanoverian royal family. So not all things German are bad
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I'm not a libertarian, although I have a certain admiration for those rare individuals who can consistently apply the principles. However, you raise a point that I meant to raise with you earlier. The Atlanticist, Thatcherite, low-tax, rational economics, small-government, free-trade principles that you generally espouse don't really have a home in the modern Conservative party. It's got Christian Democrats at one end, interfering busybodies (with the best of motives, naturally) who like spending your money for the greater good, and National Conservative small-towners who are suspicious of outsiders at the other end. We've had seven years of this now, the debt isn't going down, the pound isn't going up, taxes are still referred to as "investment", Help-To-Buy still exists, and now your body isn't your own.
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
Brexit is more likely to result in a fortress socialism than free markets, and the carriers come at the cost of losing our amphibious ships and one of the Royal Marine Commandos. The carriers care real white elephants.
My suggestion is that the organ donation decision should be part of the registration for your GP. You are under no obligation to agree but you will be asked the question. My issue is more a practical one than moral. Getting clear consent removes uncertainty
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I'm not a libertarian, although I have a certain admiration for those rare individuals who can consistently apply the principles. However, you raise a point that I meant to raise with you earlier. The Atlanticist, Thatcherite, low-tax, rational economics, small-government, free-trade principles that you generally espouse don't really have a home in the modern Conservative party. It's got Christian Democrats at one end, interfering busybodies (with the best of motives, naturally) who like spending your money for the greater good, and National Conservative small-towners who are suspicious of outsiders at the other end. We've had seven years of this now, the debt isn't going down, the pound isn't going up, taxes are still referred to as "investment", Help-To-Buy still exists, and now your body isn't your own.
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
The Conservative Party has always been a coalition. We are held together by belief in the Crown and the Union, the Empire now being moot.
We can argue about the rest.
Ah our beloved Hanoverian royal family. So not all things German are bad
The Royal Family are a model of integration and assimilation, although it certainly wasn’t instant.
At least tonight has seen a lively debate on organ donation and opt outs.
And yet here in Wales it has been in place since December 2015 and more organs have been donated and more lives saved. To those who object ask how they would feel if an organ donation could save their nearest and dearest.
Always much more fun when familiar posters form unusual coalitions. Makes one think!
Seems to be getting more common and good for the level of debate
At least tonight has seen a lively debate on organ donation and opt outs.
And yet here in Wales it has been in place since December 2015 and more organs have been donated and more lives saved. To those who object ask how they would feel if an organ donation could save their nearest and dearest.
Always much more fun when familiar posters form unusual coalitions. Makes one think!
Seems to be getting more common and good for the level of debate
I agree with Richard Nbavi on organ donation and TSE on Bladerunner.
At least tonight has seen a lively debate on organ donation and opt outs.
And yet here in Wales it has been in place since December 2015 and more organs have been donated and more lives saved. To those who object ask how they would feel if an organ donation could save their nearest and dearest.
Always much more fun when familiar posters form unusual coalitions. Makes one think!
Seems to be getting more common and good for the level of debate
My suggestion is that the organ donation decision should be part of the registration for your GP. You are under no obligation to agree but you will be asked the question. My issue is more a practical one than moral. Getting clear consent removes uncertainty
What is the polling to which the thread header refers? Glancing over the last couple of threads I can see a passing reference by Volcanopete, but no figures or dates with voting intentions.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I'm not a libertarian, although I have a certain admiration for those rare individuals who can consistently apply the principles. However, you raise a point that I meant to raise with you earlier. The Atlanticist, Thatcherite, low-tax, rational economics, small-government, free-trade principles that you generally espouse don't really have a home in the modern Conservative party. It's got Christian Democrats at one end, interfering busybodies (with the best of motives, naturally) who like spending your money for the greater good, and National Conservative small-towners who are suspicious of outsiders at the other end. We've had seven years of this now, the debt isn't going down, the pound isn't going up, taxes are still referred to as "investment", Help-To-Buy still exists, and now your body isn't your own.
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
The Conservative Party has always been a coalition. We are held together by belief in the Crown and the Union, the Empire now being moot.
We can argue about the rest.
Ah our beloved Hanoverian royal family. So not all things German are bad
The Royal Family are a model of integration and assimilation, although it certainly wasn’t instant.
Well it took the Normans at least 300 years to assimilate, and some would argue they still haven't managed to properly!
'We’ve asked the Labour party what Ms Rayner was referring to when she said the number had gone down. From the measures we’ve looked at, more disadvantaged students than ever are going to university.'
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I'm not a libertarian, although I have a certain admiration for those rare individuals who can consistently apply the principles. However, you raise a point that I meant to raise with you earlier. The Atlanticist, Thatcherite, low-tax, rational economics, small-government, free-trade principles that you generally espouse don't really have a home in the modern Conservative party. It's got Christian Democrats at one end, interfering busybodies (with the best of motives, naturally) who like spending your money for the greater good, and National Conservative small-towners who are suspicious of outsiders at the other end. We've had seven years of this now, the debt isn't going down, the pound isn't going up, taxes are still referred to as "investment", Help-To-Buy still exists, and now your body isn't your own.
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
The Conservative Party has always been a coalition. We are held together by belief in the Crown and the Union, the Empire now being moot.
We can argue about the rest.
Crown and Union, whilst necessary and important, are not sufficient for a program of government. It's like going for an interview as a car designer and replying "well, wheels and a engine" when asked what is important - one hopes for more than that.
'We’ve asked the Labour party what Ms Rayner was referring to when she said the number had gone down. From the measures we’ve looked at, more disadvantaged students than ever are going to university.'
But a smaller percentage of the total going to University are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Which is what she said. If you dont believe me just rewind QT.
'We’ve asked the Labour party what Ms Rayner was referring to when she said the number had gone down. From the measures we’ve looked at, more disadvantaged students than ever are going to university.'
But a smaller percentage of the total going to University are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Which is what she said. If you dont believe me just rewind QT.
Because there are fewer people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds?
'We’ve asked the Labour party what Ms Rayner was referring to when she said the number had gone down. From the measures we’ve looked at, more disadvantaged students than ever are going to university.'
But a smaller percentage of the total going to University are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Which is what she said. If you dont believe me just rewind QT.
Most official statistics show that the proportion of students at English universities who came from less well-off backgrounds continued to increase even after the coalition government upped tuition fees.
Why are Labour against more poorer students going to university? Is it because they're only for the middle classes now?
Comments
Are three of the signatures Grant Shapps, Michael Green and Sebastian Fox?
It seems very odd to argue, as the government apparently now does, that there's a 'balance' to be struck on regarding your body as a source of spare parts, but no 'balance' to be struck between the horror of a lingering, painful, undignified and certain death, and the well-known reasons for making assisted dying a criminal offence.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/916055982484180992
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ruthless
For anyone who believes that their is a dignity in both life and death, it is not, as Mr Nabavi says, an issue of balance. It is simply a line that should not be crossed.
So great, another 3 months of drift and conservative infighting.
I hope you never need a transplant. At least if you do, someone with a different attitude might have helped you, and you can live safe in the knowledge that you will never do the same.
Everyone still has that choice, even with this reform.
Hmm, top political story in Le Monde is about Macron merging three departments with the greater paris metroplis if google translate is anything to go by. Another one is about French MEPs and some controvesy over the european flag. The top political on de spiegal seems to be about Merkel's challenge in forming a coalition.
No no, that cannot be - if a mere commentator in Britain is unusual to take a british centric view, the continent's papers online sites surely would only lead with the real lead stories.
Charity is something that is given, not appropriated unless opted out of.
Aye for abart 5 hours
Prime ministers fall for many reasons. Asquith and Chamberlain went because they were not good war leaders. Eden went because of Suez. Thatcher went because of the Poll Tax.
Is May going to be deposed now (the election was four months ago) because she had a cough, security at the party conference allowed a comedian to approach her, and some letters dropped off a wall?
The Tories had better choose wisely because they might get an even worse leader. None of the cabinet would be any good.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gruntle
Ownership of fully automatic weapons is illegal, with few exceptions. Use of a bump stock on a semi-automatic weapon makes it effectively an automatic weapon. They are legal currently because they do not physically modify the weapon.
I have shot a weapon with a bump stock on a range. To say it's exhilarating is a severe understatement.
https://lifehacker.com/what-is-a-bump-stock-and-why-is-it-so-dangerous-1819180018
The integrity of your future corpse is obviously important to you. Fine. We are (or should be) a free country, and you should have the absolute unquestioned right to insist on it. However, I don't see why your preference should guide government policy.
Nobody is prevented from doing what they want by this change, and more people will live longer and healthier lives. I count that as a win.
Realise it is not the usual PB practicality of legal, financial and technology advice. But it keeps me out of bother...
A delayed resignation is probable (although that makes "health grounds" as her justification, problematic).
Be careful betting on exit dates.
If it doesn't come to a head now, it's likely to come with the budget.
The accounts look horrible. Are the tories really going to end austerity for non-tory voters? I struggle to see how the books balance with the ideological coalition that is keeping her in power.
50/50 she'll survive.
What is important to me is the principle of consent.
TM called an election and lost her majority.
The speech was just the point where it all came to a head.
And yet here in Wales it has been in place since December 2015 and more organs have been donated and more lives saved. To those who object ask how they would feel if an organ donation could save their nearest and dearest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b097596s
I understand your stance; let's agree to disagree. Thanks for the argument!
*hugs*
Labour 490
Con 384
LD 89
Grn 31
Lab gain from UKIP (who didn't even field a candidate)
I tried to introduce this when I was in Parliament, and the Government is right on this one, in my opinion. In fact recent Government moves on several issues seem pleasantly social democratic, as though TM had appointed EdM to advise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1506150/Alistair-Cookes-bones-stolen-by-transplant-gang.html
4th to 1st
Lab 718
Con 447
Ind 171
LD 162
Gr 46
Lab hold
Be honest. Other than the carriers and Brexit, what was the last government policy that made you mutter "fuck yeah"?
Anyway, time for bed. G'night all.
Basically, it's like a game of rugby: Europe vs The Rest of the World. And we're the ball.
Pause.
We can argue about the rest.
Joy Bratherton (Lab) 1,174
Mary Elizabeth Addison (C) 542
Eddie Ankers (UKIP) 158
Melanie Ruth English (GP) 59
Lab hold
Lab gain Borehamwood Kenilworth (Hertsmere) from Con
'We’ve asked the Labour party what Ms Rayner was referring to when she said the number had gone down. From the measures we’ve looked at, more disadvantaged students than ever are going to university.'
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-wrong-on-working-class-students
Most official statistics show that the proportion of students at English universities who came from less well-off backgrounds continued to increase even after the coalition government upped tuition fees.
Why are Labour against more poorer students going to university? Is it because they're only for the middle classes now?