"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.... I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Who's talking about loneliness? Think about suffering from terminal cancer. Does society have the right to insist you drain the last drop, even if you want to end it?
I am not aware of any evidence of economic coercion being an issue in countries/states where assisted suicide is legal. If anyone can point me to studies that show this to be a real issue then please do so.
Isolation and loneliness are a serious issue. But again to cite scares around this to deny the right to die to those facing intolerable illness (whether mental or physical) is unacceptable.
Allowing an individual to choose the manner and timing of their own death is - to my mind - a deeply humane thing. It is a choice that I would not wish anyone felt they had to make - but the reality is that many people do want to make and are forced to take extreme action rather than being able to avail themselves of a dignified and controlled end to their pain.
Agreed - but it is one of those ‘difficult’ topics where simple moral values appear to be in conflict. Couple that with a significant part of the electorate determinedly opposing the idea, and it seems possible that the lengthy Royal Commission approach might actually be the quickest means of making any progress towards legalisation.
I am not aware of any evidence of economic coercion being an issue in countries/states where assisted suicide is legal. If anyone can point me to studies that show this to be a real issue then please do so.
Isolation and loneliness are a serious issue. But again to cite scares around this to deny the right to die to those facing intolerable illness (whether mental or physical) is unacceptable.
Allowing an individual to choose the manner and timing of their own death is - to my mind - a deeply humane thing. It is a choice that I would not wish anyone felt they had to make - but the reality is that many people do want to make and are forced to take extreme action rather than being able to avail themselves of a dignified and controlled end to their pain.
Maybe he did but you'd be hard-pressed to justify those charges from that particular clip.
On the BBC site ATM. 'About 3,000 people have joined former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson in a protest against the BBC.' They're protesting about a forthcoming Panorama programme about Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
I don't disagree with you about immigration but why EU immigration? I would suggest there are vast numbers of highly educated non EU nationals who could do the job just as well and if they come from India, for example, have the benefit of having English as one of their two official languages and of having a lot of cultural ties. I have no problem with filling our work force with EU migrants, I just wonder why you would prefer them over other countries?
Because that would mean some reciprocal arrangements so Brits could go the other way. I’d like to see a programme where younger people and students can have more opportunities . With freedom of movement going generally I’d like to see an exception for that group . It’s not fair that the younger generation who so wanted to remain should lose that opportunity . Indeed if May had not been so clueless and anti immigrant she could have pushed for this to try and heal some of the divisions .
I return to the facts mentioned a few days ago. Over 70% of Britons living outside the UK live in non EU countries. The idea that Brexit stops people travelling, living or working abroad is just fanciful.
And they all post on PB telling us how great a no deal Brexit would be...
He does make a sort of valid point - is politics about personalities or helping people?
The word Chuka or Soubry has probably been mentioned far more times this week by the political commentariat than say the words housing, homelessness, education or healthcare. The TIGgers of course probably couldn't agree on a policy to solve those - and don't seem that interested either unless it involves a 'people's vote'.
Resolving our health or housing problems is about leadership as much as policy. The Prime Minister is one person, it's their effect on others that makes the difference. All the issues raised by journalists are directly relevant to Corbyn's ability to lead the Labour Party and the country.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of life care is important - but there are many conditions which lead individuals to not wanting to get close to that stage. Conditions which will never improve and which will only lead to slow, inevitable decline. I think it is important to find a way to allow them to take steps to end their life before the quality of that life is so impaired that they no longer have the ability to take the necessary action.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Who's talking about loneliness? Think about suffering from terminal cancer. Does society have the right to insist you drain the last drop, even if you want to end it?
I am not aware of any evidence of economic coercion being an issue in countries/states where assisted suicide is legal. If anyone can point me to studies that show this to be a real issue then please do so.
Isolation and loneliness are a serious issue. But again to cite scares around this to deny the right to die to those facing intolerable illness (whether mental or physical) is unacceptable.
Allowing an individual to choose the manner and timing of their own death is - to my mind - a deeply humane thing. It is a choice that I would not wish anyone felt they had to make - but the reality is that many people do want to make and are forced to take extreme action rather than being able to avail themselves of a dignified and controlled end to their pain.
The only economic pressure that I've seen is from relations who think they might inherit money or goods and fight tooth and nail to keep their relative in hospital (free) rather than be discharged to a care home (charged). TBH, that's in no-one's interests. I've no idea how they feel about it afterwards.
Even then, it’s often rather more complicated than that. The standard level of care in hospital as opposed to care home is often much higher. Those with significant complex health needs which exceed the social and nursing care expected from a care home are supposed to receive NHS funding for that provision, but in practice this is a process designed to deny it in a very large number of cases.
The interface/interaction between medical and social care and NHS/local authority responsibility is extraordinarily dysfunctional.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
I'm sure your general experience is much more extensive than mine. However I was referring to public advocates who are angry that they have to travel 100s of miles to a strange place and make their loved ones possibly complicit in an illegal act. Afaik they've stuck to their principle and not had to book a return flight.
When do you expect that better end of life care in hospices to kick in?
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Who's talking about loneliness? Think about suffering from terminal cancer. Does society have the right to insist you drain the last drop, even if you want to end it?
I am not aware of any evidence of economic coercion being an issue in countries/states where assisted suicide is legal. If anyone can point me to studies that show this to be a real issue then please do so.
Isolation and loneliness are a serious issue. But again to cite scares around this to deny the right to die to those facing intolerable illness (whether mental or physical) is unacceptable.
Allowing an individual to choose the manner and timing of their own death is - to my mind - a deeply humane thing. It is a choice that I would not wish anyone felt they had to make - but the reality is that many people do want to make and are forced to take extreme action rather than being able to avail themselves of a dignified and controlled end to their pain.
The only economic pressure that I've seen is from relations who think they might inherit money or goods and fight tooth and nail to keep their relative in hospital (free) rather than be discharged to a care home (charged). TBH, that's in no-one's interests. I've no idea how they feel about it afterwards.
Even then, it’s often rather more complicated than that. The standard level of care in hospital as opposed to care home is often much higher. Those with significant complex health needs which exceed the social and nursing care expected from a care home are supposed to receive NHS funding for that provision, but in practice this is a process designed to deny it in a very large number of cases.
The interface/interaction between medical and social care and NHS/local authority responsibility is extraordinarily dysfunctional.
Wouldn't disagree that it's complicated. The perception of care in a care home may be higher though; staff are sometimes, not by any means always, under less pressure.I've been present at, or in contact with several relations at the time of their death and none of them were the same. Similar sometimes, but all individual.
I believe that Vince Cable has preparted a speech for the next LibDem conference:
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for... for... for... your afternoon nap. And maybe crumpets, if you're lucky. And is the Antiques Roadshow on today? Ohhh with that Lovejoy presenting. Ohhh I love Antiques Roadshow."
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
I'm sure your general experience is much more extensive than mine. However I was referring to public advocates who are angry that they have to travel 100s of miles to a strange place and make their loved ones possibly complicit in an illegal act. Afaik they've stuck to their principle and not had to book a return flight.
When do you expect that better end of life care in hospices to kick in?
I think that, on the whole, hospice staff are extremely caring. And I've been close to four, not as the relation of a patient, but as a visiting member of NHS staff.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
I’m not sure that’s true. What about conditions like PSP ?
And even with excellent care, I’m not sure that Alzheimer’s can be a dignified end for many.
He does make a sort of valid point - is politics about personalities or helping people?
The word Chuka or Soubry has probably been mentioned far more times this week by the political commentariat than say the words housing, homelessness, education or healthcare. The TIGgers of course probably couldn't agree on a policy to solve those - and don't seem that interested either unless it involves a 'people's vote'.
How often have Corbyn's ardent supporters mentioned Chuka, Soubry and TIG? Most of them seem to have done almost nothing else since the first seven defected. Emily Thornberry's speech today made it all about them too.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
I'm sure your general experience is much more extensive than mine. However I was referring to public advocates who are angry that they have to travel 100s of miles to a strange place and make their loved ones possibly complicit in an illegal act. Afaik they've stuck to their principle and not had to book a return flight.
When do you expect that better end of life care in hospices to kick in?
I think that, on the whole, hospice staff are extremely caring. And I've been close to four, not as the relation of a patient, but as a visiting member of NHS staff.
I've had experience of hospices on a personal level and I agree, in my experience there has been a high level of compassionate care. I was really responding to the suggestion by Foxy that there was insufficient (in quantity rather than quality imho) end of life care.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
I can't think of one that actually answers the softer side of Sean F's objection.
There's no legislating against that nagging feeling of guilt that one shouldn't be on this Earth anymore, your continued existence is merely disinheriting the family / burdening the taxpayer, and it's about time you had yourself done away with. Especially once most of your friends and relations your own age have taken themselves for the chop.
The flip side is that where it's been implemented, very many people seem relieved to have that choice even if they do not, in fact, take it.
Why not land of hope and glory or there'll always be an England (albeit with a slight alteration of the lyrics to change Empire to EU?).
LOHG always used to be the anthem used for England. GSTQ is silly to use - as most of the nations England regularly plays in rugby have the same queen!
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
I'm sure your general experience is much more extensive than mine. However I was referring to public advocates who are angry that they have to travel 100s of miles to a strange place and make their loved ones possibly complicit in an illegal act. Afaik they've stuck to their principle and not had to book a return flight.
When do you expect that better end of life care in hospices to kick in?
I think that, on the whole, hospice staff are extremely caring. And I've been close to four, not as the relation of a patient, but as a visiting member of NHS staff.
I've had experience of hospices on a personal level and I agree, in my experience there has been a high level of compassionate care. I was really responding to the suggestion by Foxy that there was insufficient (in quantity rather than quality imho) end of life care.
Agree. Although I feel that our daughter, who died in a hospital, couldn't have been much better cared for.
No he didn't. He makes a perfectly reasonable point.
No he doesn’t.
He has simply no good argument as to why so many Jewish MPs face constant anti-Semitic baiting from *within* the party.
Something changed when Corbyn and his cronies took control of the party, namely that they made the party attractive to a far left which trades in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as part of its world view. In all probability, Corbyn has sympathy for such theories himself.
Although the ERGers are quite mad if not wicked, one doesn’t see leading Tories constantly apologising for regrettably racist comments, or ethnic minorities bullied and hounded from the party.
Why not land of hope and glory or there'll always be an England (albeit with a slight alteration of the lyrics to change Empire to EU?).
LOHG always used to be the anthem used for England. GSTQ is silly to use - as most of the nations England regularly plays in rugby have the same queen!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of life care is important - but there are many conditions which lead individuals to not wanting to get close to that stage. Conditions which will never improve and which will only lead to slow, inevitable decline. I think it is important to find a way to allow them to take steps to end their life before the quality of that life is so impaired that they no longer have the ability to take the necessary action.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
I believe that Vince Cable has preparted a speech for the next LibDem conference:
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for... for... for... your afternoon nap. And maybe crumpets, if you're lucky. And is the Antiques Roadshow on today? Ohhh with that Lovejoy presenting. Ohhh I love Antiques Roadshow."
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for power naps...."
I believe that Vince Cable has preparted a speech for the next LibDem conference:
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for... for... for... your afternoon nap. And maybe crumpets, if you're lucky. And is the Antiques Roadshow on today? Ohhh with that Lovejoy presenting. Ohhh I love Antiques Roadshow."
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for power naps...."
Or prepare for no deal and powdered eggs for Easter?
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of life care is important - but there are many conditions which lead individuals to not wanting to get close to that stage. Conditions which will never improve and which will only lead to slow, inevitable decline. I think it is important to find a way to allow them to take steps to end their life before the quality of that life is so impaired that they no longer have the ability to take the necessary action.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Dignitas does have issues with profiteering, as well as a rather uncomfortable zeal.
I’m not sure that’s true. What about conditions like PSP ?
And even with excellent care, I’m not sure that Alzheimer’s can be a dignified end for many.
Having had family members with alzheimers I have left my son in no doubt that if I go that way I want to shuffle off the mortal coil post haste.
I am less convinced that the problem of loneliness is old age is a pressing one however these days. As the next generation becomes pensioners they will have grown up with social media and online stuff in general. Therefore they will not be housebound with just the tv for company but will instead still be part of the larger internet community.
I know plenty of individuals now in various online communities that are over 70 and that will likely increase as those that grew up with technology reach that age and just like the disabled find that an online life can help compensate somewhat and make them feel more included
Why not land of hope and glory or there'll always be an England (albeit with a slight alteration of the lyrics to change Empire to EU?).
LOHG always used to be the anthem used for England. GSTQ is silly to use - as most of the nations England regularly plays in rugby have the same queen!
I Vow to Thee, my Country' isn't bad. First verse only, of course.
They could always sing the lyrics to the sixth verse of GSTQ at the Calcutta cup! You could always pretend you were singing about Virginia Wade?
I vow to thee my country is a fine song - but what is wrong with the second verse as its quite powerful?
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago, Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know; We may not count her armies, we may not see her King; Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering; And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase, And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.
No he didn't. He makes a perfectly reasonable point.
And there is Mr Palmer's blindspot. He refuses to see what everyone sees with regards to Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, they have a shared personal connection - but that should not blind Mr Palmer to the reality of what Corbyn is saying and doing. Or, in the case of tacking antisemitism and the bullying culture within Labour, not doing.
An interview is not there for an interviewee to be asked the questions they want to answer, it is there for the interviewer to interrogate the interviewee. In a week of 9 MPs resigning the Labour whip and their membership of the party, of course the focus will be on their reasons and the reaction of the leadership. Corbyn's petulance on this issue speaks volumes.
There is more than enough evidence of significant antisemitism, there is more than enough evidence of serious online bullying/intimidation. Corbyn denies all of this.
The condemnation of Labour's mishandling of these issues is clear and evidence based. But Corbyn just points to a puppet organisation set up by his fellow travellers as his defence - along with the fatally flawed Chakrabarti report. A report that will forever be tainted by the peeerage he personally arranged.
Denying the right of journalists to hold the Labour leadership to account for all of this is unacceptable. Claiming this as reasonable is unacceptable.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of life care is important - but there are many conditions which lead individuals to not wanting to get close to that stage. Conditions which will never improve and which will only lead to slow, inevitable decline. I think it is important to find a way to allow them to take steps to end their life before the quality of that life is so impaired that they no longer have the ability to take the necessary action.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Oh, certainly there may be practical "issues". But let's be clear that in principle people have the right to decide for themselves, rather than be told they can't by those who think they know better.
Even then, it’s often rather more complicated than that. The standard level of care in hospital as opposed to care home is often much higher. Those with significant complex health needs which exceed the social and nursing care expected from a care home are supposed to receive NHS funding for that provision, but in practice this is a process designed to deny it in a very large number of cases.
The interface/interaction between medical and social care and NHS/local authority responsibility is extraordinarily dysfunctional.
By my understanding and experience with my parents there are Care Homes and "Extra Care Homes". For mother she lived at home with me and dad until she could not do any more. By then she was way past the "Care Home" stage. The fact is it is impossible to find extra care home places, because they do not exist in the numbers needed. My mother was a "bed-blocker" for six months. We finally got her into an "extra care home" and she lasted less than a month - they ballsed up her medication.
Dad didn't make it out of hospital the last time. I was getting him into the same care home where mother had been - yes, I was that desperate.
Because my friends are much the same age as I am, and my cousins I am seeing it with their parents. No-one knows what to do so you sort of find your way through the maze.
How the hell do you pay for it ? If you are a small businessman, such as I am a farmer, then the farm is your livelihood and yet it has to go to pay for care. Mrs May's proposals would have been right for me. My parents didn't last long enough for the care costs to amount to much - the truth is of course I had been caring for them for 20 years before the end. One of my friends has had to add £100k to his farm overdraft because his mother was in a care home for five years.
Perhaps the TIGgers should sign up Shamima Begum - and triple their ratings!
And how much of that Begum story is around Corbyn saying let her back in?
To be fair, fuck all. I don’t think that got any cut-through.
Unlike Javid’s demented actions to remind all second passport holders - or even putative second passport holders - that their British nationality can be stripped from them by fiat.
Sux to be Irish, Jewish, Polish, or even a New Zealander...
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Is there a no subject where, in a few words, you can quickly prove your ignorance? There can be plenty of history in PPE if that’s what you want.
Politics, philosophy and economics is not history in any of those elements, you may touch on some history when studying political or philosophical theory but that is not the same as a proper chronological historical narrative however many insults you wish to throw around!
*checks bookshelves*. Sees dozens of history texts. Considers your siloing and your belief in chronological narrative as the mark of a history degree the work of a simplistic thinker.
Perhaps the TIGgers should sign up Shamima Begum - and triple their ratings!
And how much of that Begum story is around Corbyn saying let her back in?
To be fair, fuck all. I don’t think that got any cut-through.
Unlike Javid’s demented actions to remind all second passport holders - or even putative second passport holders - that their British nationality can be stripped from them by fiat.
Sux to be Irish, Jewish, Polish, or even a New Zealander...
Javid's actions, right or wrong, did not create the law he is attempting to utilise. Perhaps it is a good thing people are discovering the power exists, given how many people are utterly furious at this long standing power.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of life care is important - but there are many conditions which lead individuals to not wanting to get close to that stage. Conditions which will never improve and which will only lead to slow, inevitable decline. I think it is important to find a way to allow them to take steps to end their life before the quality of that life is so impaired that they no longer have the ability to take the necessary action.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Oh, certainly there may be practical "issues". But let's be clear that in principle people have the right to decide for themselves, rather than be told they can't by those who think they know better.
No, I don't agree. Coercion, consent and mental capacity are unresolvable issues, much as certainty of guilt is in capital punishment.
No he didn't. He makes a perfectly reasonable point.
That being?
Because we know for a fact that he gets pissy when asked about things he does not want to be asked about, because of the 'Can we have a question on the NHS please?' incident.
I'm sure all politicians get annoyed about being asked about things. Corbyn, occasionally, reveals that and gets affronted about it.
Why not land of hope and glory or there'll always be an England (albeit with a slight alteration of the lyrics to change Empire to EU?).
LOHG always used to be the anthem used for England. GSTQ is silly to use - as most of the nations England regularly plays in rugby have the same queen!
Perhaps the TIGgers should sign up Shamima Begum - and triple their ratings!
And how much of that Begum story is around Corbyn saying let her back in?
To be fair, fuck all. I don’t think that got any cut-through.
Unlike Javid’s demented actions to remind all second passport holders - or even putative second passport holders - that their British nationality can be stripped from them by fiat.
Sux to be Irish, Jewish, Polish, or even a New Zealander...
Javid's actions, right or wrong, did not create the law he is attempting to utilise. Perhaps it is a good thing people are discovering the power exists, given how many people are utterly furious at this long standing power.
Yes. It is profoundly illiberal, and ought to be rescinded.
Not particularly smart stuff by Thornberry. Better to take a regretful tone than to accuse the Tiggers of being austerity lovin’ Tory huggers.
In fairness I think it is not the right place to strike regretful tones at a political rally. Personally I find the fervour of top politicos and supporters a bit creepy. I'm not sure if it is better or worse that many politicians at least, whilst believing in the values of their party, don't actually believe it to the crazy degree they might say, recognising it as political theatre. I know too many politicians who get on so well with opponents to accept they actually believe the tone of hatred they might spew at other times.
I believe that Vince Cable has preparted a speech for the next LibDem conference:
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for... for... for... your afternoon nap. And maybe crumpets, if you're lucky. And is the Antiques Roadshow on today? Ohhh with that Lovejoy presenting. Ohhh I love Antiques Roadshow."
Aren't the majority of the nations which have seen the highest GDP growth in recent years in the EU the ones which have either seen population decline via outward migration or little change. Ireland's US corporation driven GDP growth is an exception but its the western European nations which have imported the cheap labour which have seen the lowest growth? Lose the deadwood - get that growth?
Perhaps the TIGgers should sign up Shamima Begum - and triple their ratings!
And how much of that Begum story is around Corbyn saying let her back in?
To be fair, fuck all. I don’t think that got any cut-through.
Unlike Javid’s demented actions to remind all second passport holders - or even putative second passport holders - that their British nationality can be stripped from them by fiat.
Sux to be Irish, Jewish, Polish, or even a New Zealander...
Javid's actions, right or wrong, did not create the law he is attempting to utilise. Perhaps it is a good thing people are discovering the power exists, given how many people are utterly furious at this long standing power.
Yes. It is profoundly illiberal, and ought to be rescinded.
Cannot say I like politicians having the power, but I have a sneaking suspicion the reason it has lasted this long since it came in is because whatever they might initially think or say, politicians find it quite useful to have in their back pocket when they get into power. And when in power one is probably not inclined to reduce that power.
Is that true though? Areas like Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow have undergone the most extraordinary transition over the last fifteen years, the cities of Britain are back.. They are largely modern outward looking hunting out their own little cultural and economic focus.
It’s the smaller mid sized towns that are struggling.
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems here is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
Are they going to get any voters? Who is to say how many Tiggers will stand and where.
They are on 14% in the latest poll if they stand a full slate of candidates
That was my point. Do we really think they are going to? They are not an actual party yet so there's an excuse for not standing in the next by-election, but I cannot imagine they are keen to face the electorate.
They will likely form a pact with the LDs eventually as to who stands where
I doubt it. If the Lib Dems go down that route again you will suddenly see Liberal Party candidates in those seats.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of life care is important - but there are many conditions which lead individuals to not wanting to get close to that stage. Conditions which will never improve and which will only lead to slow, inevitable decline. I think it is important to find a way to allow them to take steps to end their life before the quality of that life is so impaired that they no longer have the ability to take the necessary action.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
If one of Foxy's patients were to tell him he was contemplating suicide, would you not think that Foxy should try to save his patient's life.
No he didn't. He makes a perfectly reasonable point.
And there is Mr Palmer's blindspot. He refuses to see what everyone sees with regards to Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, they have a shared personal connection - but that should not blind Mr Palmer to the reality of what Corbyn is saying and doing. Or, in the case of tacking antisemitism and the bullying culture within Labour, not doing.
An interview is not there for an interviewee to be asked the questions they want to answer, it is there for the interviewer to interrogate the interviewee. In a week of 9 MPs resigning the Labour whip and their membership of the party, of course the focus will be on their reasons and the reaction of the leadership. Corbyn's petulance on this issue speaks volumes.
There is more than enough evidence of significant antisemitism, there is more than enough evidence of serious online bullying/intimidation. Corbyn denies all of this.
The condemnation of Labour's mishandling of these issues is clear and evidence based. But Corbyn just points to a puppet organisation set up by his fellow travellers as his defence - along with the fatally flawed Chakrabarti report. A report that will forever be tainted by the peeerage he personally arranged.
Denying the right of journalists to hold the Labour leadership to account for all of this is unacceptable. Claiming this as reasonable is unacceptable.
The thing is that most political interviews of anyone on the left are like this one. Hectoring, challenging and continually talking over the subject of the interview. We never get to hear what they have to say. That isn't really very good for democracy, at least not all the time. It is very good when Andrew Neil does it, and he is even handed in that he doles it out to both sides in the same measure. But most interviewers don't have his skill or attention to detail.
I think paradoxically in Corbyn's case this has actually helped him because whenever I hear him being interviewed or talked about I just find myself sympathising with the appalling treatment he is getting. Now I have heard enough from him to make a judgement I'm much less impressed with him. But if I only had that interview to go by I'd only be thinking 'what an unpleasant and partisan interviewer'.
Is that true though? Areas like Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow have undergone the most extraordinary transition over the last fifteen years, the cities of Britain are back.. They are largely modern outward looking hunting out their own little cultural and economic focus.
It’s the smaller mid sized towns that are struggling.
The transition of second tier U.K. cities is pretty superficial. Outside London, only Edinburgh, Cambridge and to some extent Bristol have performed at par.
If you do much travelling you realise how shabby and send rate most British cities are.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of life care is important - but there are many conditions which lead individuals to not wanting to get close to that stage. Conditions which will never improve and which will only lead to slow, inevitable decline. I think it is important to find a way to allow them to take steps to end their life before the quality of that life is so impaired that they no longer have the ability to take the necessary action.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Oh, certainly there may be practical "issues". But let's be clear that in principle people have the right to decide for themselves, rather than be told they can't by those who think they know better.
No, I don't agree. Coercion, consent and mental capacity are unresolvable issues, much as certainty of guilt is in capital punishment.
Sure, sure. People never have any difficulty in figuring out reasons why they should have the right to tell other people what to do. Not really a surprise.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Oh, certainly there may be practical "issues". But let's be clear that in principle people have the right to decide for themselves, rather than be told they can't by those who think they know better.
No, I don't agree. Coercion, consent and mental capacity are unresolvable issues, much as certainty of guilt is in capital punishment.
Sure, sure. People never have any difficulty in figuring out reasons why they should have the right to tell other people what to do. Not really a surprise.
Aren't all laws some people telling others they don't have the right to do things?
No he didn't. He makes a perfectly reasonable point.
And there is Mr Palmer's blindspot. He refuses to see what everyone sees with regards to Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, they have a shared personal connection - but that should not blind Mr Palmer to the reality of what Corbyn is saying and doing. Or, in the case of tacking antisemitism and the bullying culture within Labour, not doing.
There is more than enough evidence of significant antisemitism, there is more than enough evidence of serious online bullying/intimidation. Corbyn denies all of this.
The condemnation of Labour's mishandling of these issues is clear and evidence based. But Corbyn just points to a puppet organisation set up by his fellow travellers as his defence - along with the fatally flawed Chakrabarti report. A report that will forever be tainted by the peeerage he personally arranged.
Denying the right of journalists to hold the Labour leadership to account for all of this is unacceptable. Claiming this as reasonable is unacceptable.
The thing is that most political interviews of anyone on the left are like this one. Hectoring, challenging and continually talking over the subject of the interview. We never get to hear what they have to say. That isn't really very good for democracy, at least not all the time. It is very good when Andrew Neil does it, and he is even handed in that he doles it out to both sides in the same measure. But most interviewers don't have his skill or attention to detail.
I think paradoxically in Corbyn's case this has actually helped him because whenever I hear him being interviewed or talked about I just find myself sympathising with the appalling treatment he is getting. Now I have heard enough from him to make a judgement I'm much less impressed with him. But if I only had that interview to go by I'd only be thinking 'what an unpleasant and partisan interviewer'.
Lewis Goodall was very much on the left of student politics during his time in Oxford - so he isn't a partisan hack. He was absolutely right to focus on the events of the week when talking to Corbyn for Sky - just as Corbyn was wrong to try to demand to set the parameters for the encounter. If he wanted to do a tame interview, there are plenty of people from Skwawkbox or similar in-house organs who would have let him pontificate.
There was nothing appalling about Goodall's interview yesterday. Nothing hectoring, challenging. No talking over. It was a respectful set of questions - and Corbyn still complains.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Is there a no subject where, in a few words, you can quickly prove your ignorance? There can be plenty of history in PPE if that’s what you want.
Politics, philosophy and economics is not history in any of those elements, you may touch on some history when studying political or philosophical theory but that is not the same as a proper chronological historical narrative however many insults you wish to throw around!
*checks bookshelves*. Sees dozens of history texts. Considers your siloing and your belief in chronological narrative as the mark of a history degree the work of a simplistic thinker.
History texts on bookshelves has no connection at all with what constitutes a PPE degree.
A chronological narrative and knowledge of the core facts is also needed before any analysis and identification of themes can be done
No he didn't. He makes a perfectly reasonable point.
And there is Mr Palmer's blindspot. He refuses to see what everyone sees with regards to Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, they have a shared personal connection - but that should not blind Mr Palmer to the reality of what Corbyn is saying and doing. Or, in the case of tacking antisemitism and the bullying culture within Labour, not doing.
There is more than enough evidence of significant antisemitism, there is more than enough evidence of serious online bullying/intimidation. Corbyn denies all of this.
The condemnation of Labour's mishandling of these issues is clear and evidence based. But Corbyn just points to a puppet organisation set up by his fellow travellers as his defence - along with the fatally flawed Chakrabarti report. A report that will forever be tainted by the peeerage he personally arranged.
Denying the right of journalists to hold the Labour leadership to account for all of this is unacceptable. Claiming this as reasonable is unacceptable.
The thing is that
Lewis Goodall was very much on the left of student politics during his time in Oxford - so he isn't a partisan hack. He was absolutely right to focus on the events of the week when talking to Corbyn for Sky - just as Corbyn was wrong to try to demand to set the parameters for the encounter. If he wanted to do a tame interview, there are plenty of people from Skwawkbox or similar in-house organs who would have let him pontificate.
There was nothing appalling about Goodall's interview yesterday. Nothing hectoring, challenging. No talking over. It was a respectful set of questions - and Corbyn still complains.
That is a very, very bad look.
Not to his fans. Like Trump, it fuels the narrative they want. In his slight defence, hyper sensitivity and deliberate over reaction to the media is not a solely left wing trope.
Maybe he did but you'd be hard-pressed to justify those charges from that particular clip.
You don't understand.
Corbyn is left wing so what he says in this clip is terrible.
John Mann attacking Kevin Maguire who works at the mirror in far harsher terms than Corbyn has ever said about a journalist and doing it in a way that he can't face the consequences of his words...
Who cares, John Mann is a Corbyn critic, attacking the media is great, where is that Owen Jones don't like him either...
Basically if you point out some of the BS of the right wing press you are evil. Attacking the left wing press should be celebrated.
Is that true though? Areas like Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow have undergone the most extraordinary transition over the last fifteen years, the cities of Britain are back.. They are largely modern outward looking hunting out their own little cultural and economic focus.
It’s the smaller mid sized towns that are struggling.
The transition of second tier U.K. cities is pretty superficial. Outside London, only Edinburgh, Cambridge and to some extent Bristol have performed at par.
If you do much travelling you realise how shabby and send rate most British cities are.
York, Leeds, Exeter, St. Alban's, Oxford, Durham, Chester, Bath, Norwich, are pretty good IMHO.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Oh, certainly there may be practical "issues". But let's be clear that in principle people have the right to decide for themselves, rather than be told they can't by those who think they know better.
No, I don't agree. Coercion, consent and mental capacity are unresolvable issues, much as certainty of guilt is in capital punishment.
Sure, sure. People never have any difficulty in figuring out reasons why they should have the right to tell other people what to do. Not really a surprise.
Aren't all laws some people telling others they don't have the right to do things?
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of p done properly.
End of
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Oh, certainly there may be practical "issues". But let's be clear that in principle people have the right to decide for themselves, rather than be told they can't by those who think they know better.
No, I don't agree. Coercion, consent and mental capacity are unresolvable issues, much as certainty of guilt is in capital punishment.
Sure, sure. People never have any difficulty in figuring out reasons why they should have the right to tell other people what to do. Not really a surprise.
Aren't all laws some people telling others they don't have the right to do things?
No doubt. Your point being what?
You seemed aggrieved at the principle that people have no difficulty in figuring out reasons that they should have the right to tell other people what to do. I could not understand what the issue with that as a principle was, even if people disagree on where it should be applied. Sometimes it is right.
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
My experience of people dying is pretty much the opposite. People are fine about it in principle, then cling grimly to life as the end nears.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
End of
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Quite. How can people be so arrogant as to tell others they don't have the right to end their own lives if they find them intolerable?
The issue of informed consent, and in particular in the presence of cognitive impairment is not an insignificant one.
Oh, certainly there may be practical "issues". But let's be clear that in principle people have the right to decide for themselves, rather than be told they can't by those who think they know better.
No, I don't agree. Coercion, consent and mental capacity are unresolvable issues, much as certainty of guilt is in capital punishment.
Sure, sure. People never have any difficulty in figuring out reasons why they should have the right to tell other people what to do. Not really a surprise.
Aren't all laws some people telling others they don't have the right to do things?
No doubt. Your point being what?
The point being that sometimes telling others they don't have the right to do things is the correct thing to do.
Comments
'About 3,000 people have joined former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson in a protest against the BBC.'
They're protesting about a forthcoming Panorama programme about Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon.
Personally I am not keen on euthanasia. What we need is better end of life care in Hospices. No one need die in pain or without dignity when it is done properly.
It is about treating people as individuals, with agency over their own life - and allowing them to make an informed choice.
Those with significant complex health needs which exceed the social and nursing care expected from a care home are supposed to receive NHS funding for that provision, but in practice this is a process designed to deny it in a very large number of cases.
The interface/interaction between medical and social care and NHS/local authority responsibility is extraordinarily dysfunctional.
I get more pleasure over the Welsh than I do from victories over the French.
When do you expect that better end of life care in hospices to kick in?
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for... for... for... your afternoon nap. And maybe crumpets, if you're lucky. And is the Antiques Roadshow on today? Ohhh with that Lovejoy presenting. Ohhh I love Antiques Roadshow."
And even with excellent care, I’m not sure that Alzheimer’s can be a dignified end for many.
#TIGGERS
There's no legislating against that nagging feeling of guilt that one shouldn't be on this Earth anymore, your continued existence is merely disinheriting the family / burdening the taxpayer, and it's about time you had yourself done away with. Especially once most of your friends and relations your own age have taken themselves for the chop.
The flip side is that where it's been implemented, very many people seem relieved to have that choice even if they do not, in fact, take it.
LOHG always used to be the anthem used for England. GSTQ is silly to use - as most of the nations England regularly plays in rugby have the same queen!
Something for us 'Little Englanders'!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhCqRAzf2I4
He has simply no good argument as to why so many Jewish MPs face constant anti-Semitic baiting from *within* the party.
Something changed when Corbyn and his cronies took control of the party, namely that they made the party attractive to a far left which trades in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as part of its world view. In all probability, Corbyn has sympathy for such theories himself.
Although the ERGers are quite mad if not wicked, one doesn’t see leading Tories constantly apologising for regrettably racist comments, or ethnic minorities bullied and hounded from the party.
Dignitas does have issues with profiteering, as well as a rather uncomfortable zeal.
https://www.thelocal.ch/20180518/head-of-swiss-assisted-suicide-group-dignitas-in-court-on-charges-of-profiteering
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/1420106/Dignitas-helps-physically-healthy-to-die.html
The line between Dignitas and Dr Shipman is often not quite as obvious as we would like. Perhaps also the events at Portsmouth in recent years.
I am less convinced that the problem of loneliness is old age is a pressing one however these days. As the next generation becomes pensioners they will have grown up with social media and online stuff in general. Therefore they will not be housebound with just the tv for company but will instead still be part of the larger internet community.
I know plenty of individuals now in various online communities that are over 70 and that will likely increase as those that grew up with technology reach that age and just like the disabled find that an online life can help compensate somewhat and make them feel more included
I vow to thee my country is a fine song - but what is wrong with the second verse as its quite powerful?
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.
Better to take a regretful tone than to accuse the Tiggers of being austerity lovin’ Tory huggers.
An interview is not there for an interviewee to be asked the questions they want to answer, it is there for the interviewer to interrogate the interviewee. In a week of 9 MPs resigning the Labour whip and their membership of the party, of course the focus will be on their reasons and the reaction of the leadership. Corbyn's petulance on this issue speaks volumes.
There is more than enough evidence of significant antisemitism, there is more than enough evidence of serious online bullying/intimidation. Corbyn denies all of this.
The condemnation of Labour's mishandling of these issues is clear and evidence based. But Corbyn just points to a puppet organisation set up by his fellow travellers as his defence - along with the fatally flawed Chakrabarti report. A report that will forever be tainted by the peeerage he personally arranged.
Denying the right of journalists to hold the Labour leadership to account for all of this is unacceptable. Claiming this as reasonable is unacceptable.
Dad didn't make it out of hospital the last time. I was getting him into the same care home where mother had been - yes, I was that desperate.
Because my friends are much the same age as I am, and my cousins I am seeing it with their parents. No-one knows what to do so you sort of find your way through the maze.
How the hell do you pay for it ? If you are a small businessman, such as I am a farmer, then the farm is your livelihood and yet it has to go to pay for care. Mrs May's proposals would have been right for me. My parents didn't last long enough for the care costs to amount to much - the truth is of course I had been caring for them for 20 years before the end. One of my friends has had to add £100k to his farm overdraft because his mother was in a care home for five years.
I don’t think that got any cut-through.
Unlike Javid’s demented actions to remind all second passport holders - or even putative second passport holders - that their British nationality can be stripped from them by fiat.
Sux to be Irish, Jewish, Polish, or even a New Zealander...
Despite the cabinet revolt, Theresa May's Brexit star is rising
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-latest-theresa-may-cabinet-revolt-amber-rudd-greg-clark-david-gauke-a8793536.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkmIyC6v00
Other countries get richer; Britain’s regions stagnate in low productivity and low expectations.
Really we ought to see economic migration from Leeds to Ljubljana. The latter offers a far more pleasant quality of life as well.
https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1099361785658990593?s=21
Because we know for a fact that he gets pissy when asked about things he does not want to be asked about, because of the 'Can we have a question on the NHS please?' incident.
I'm sure all politicians get annoyed about being asked about things. Corbyn, occasionally, reveals that and gets affronted about it.
The labour leadership have been found out for the nasties they are
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1099315656003108865
It’s the smaller mid sized towns that are struggling.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems here is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
Are they going to get any voters? Who is to say how many Tiggers will stand and where.
They are on 14% in the latest poll if they stand a full slate of candidates
That was my point. Do we really think they are going to? They are not an actual party yet so there's an excuse for not standing in the next by-election, but I cannot imagine they are keen to face the electorate.
They will likely form a pact with the LDs eventually as to who stands where
I doubt it. If the Lib Dems go down that route again you will suddenly see Liberal Party candidates in those seats.
It’s only 2m to Yorkshire’s 5m.
And Yorkshire is no means the worst.
If Wales were independent it would be one of the poorest countries in the EU.
I think paradoxically in Corbyn's case this has actually helped him because whenever I hear him being interviewed or talked about I just find myself sympathising with the appalling treatment he is getting. Now I have heard enough from him to make a judgement I'm much less impressed with him. But if I only had that interview to go by I'd only be thinking 'what an unpleasant and partisan interviewer'.
If you do much travelling you realise how shabby and send rate most British cities are.
There was nothing appalling about Goodall's interview yesterday. Nothing hectoring, challenging. No talking over. It was a respectful set of questions - and Corbyn still complains.
That is a very, very bad look.
A chronological narrative and knowledge of the core facts is also needed before any analysis and identification of themes can be done
Arseholes.
Corbyn is left wing so what he says in this clip is terrible.
John Mann attacking Kevin Maguire who works at the mirror in far harsher terms than Corbyn has ever said about a journalist and doing it in a way that he can't face the consequences of his words...
Who cares, John Mann is a Corbyn critic, attacking the media is great, where is that Owen Jones don't like him either...
Basically if you point out some of the BS of the right wing press you are evil. Attacking the left wing press should be celebrated.
You are right about the Mezzogiorno, but one would hope we had slightly higher aspirations in this country.
https://twitter.com/Sonjamclaughlan/status/1099024032723292160