Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

That’s Life? – politicalbetting.com

135678

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470

    Melonia thinks the UN shouldn't have lots of power because people didn't vote for them.

    https://x.com/g_gosden/status/1856435924416008622

    A foolish attitude.

    Saudi Arabia getting the Human Rights portfolio (in the rotation), *after* the journalist disassembly thing, has helped restore and revive satire.

    Which has taken many heavy hit, since Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize. Blair as the Middle East Peace Envoy, as another example.

    Satire is an important facet of the human condition and needs careful nurturing.
  • Melonia thinks the UN shouldn't have lots of power because people didn't vote for them.

    https://x.com/g_gosden/status/1856435924416008622

    Quite a reasonable attitude.

    We should not respect any organisation that has the Taliban, Pakistan, Qatar, the DRC etc on its "human rights" committee.

    The UN is a bad joke. It should be regarded as a talking shop for the world's nations, many of whom we should not be respecting, and nothing more than that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,152
    kinabalu said:

    The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
    It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,314
    edited November 2024

    I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
    Oh beat me to it. I thought @Jossiasjessop post was very thoughtful, but I then focused on the changing the limit from 80 to retirement age. Retirement age is misnamed. It is not an age where you need to retire and now many (most?) don't. It is simply the age when you get your state pension. Many retire earlier and many later. I agree with @Richard_Tyndall comment of bringing experience to the job.

    There does come an age when you no longer do that, but that age is different for everyone. I guess if you have to have an arbitrary age 80 is a lot better than 66 or whatever it is now (comment from someone turning 70 in a couple of weeks)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,321
    Leon said:

    I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna

    It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”

    The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people

    There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?

    Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard

    Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna

    You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.

    We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.

    I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.

    The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399

    What is the next step(s) after that? It will be legally challenged, of course.
    My cynicism was in play there - the actual process is it's sent to the planning Inspectorate to decide (as it would do were the application appealed in the first case)

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/called-in-planning-applications

    How you would appeal a case that had ben determined by the inspectorate is a different question...
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,196
    edited November 2024
    eek said:

    My point was that in London they operate on the basis that it's the time your train was scheduled to leave that is the important point not the arrival time.

    So the 15:55 is off peak but the 16:10 is a peak train.

    It meant that for years I couldn't catch a particular train from Amersham but could if I lived in Chalfont...
    In London they work on the time the train is timetabled to be in London because that's the busy end. So peak restrictions in the afternoon are worked out on time of departure, and peak restrictions in the morning on time of arrival. Obviously this should all be based on the timetabled times, not the delayed running times...

    As an example: https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ticket-types/validity/c4/ has "Not valid on trains timed to depart after 04:29 which *arrive at*, or depart from; any London Terminal, Farringdon, or Kensington Olympia *before 10:00*" (my emphasis).
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,001
    kinabalu said:

    The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
    If you want to be isolationalist and parochial you would be advised to spend such a fortune on defence as then you can ignore geopolitical events outside your borders knowing that whatever happens nobody is going to end up causing you trouble.

  • This is a good example of why you are tedious to debate with.

    You are dismissing a view as “fallacious” as a statement of fact. You believe that it is fallacious, others do not

    Similarly you dismiss others arguments as “bullshit” if you disagree with them or ignore their statistics if they don’t support your preconceived notions.

    It means that discussions with you are neither interesting nor illuminating.

    I did not merely dismiss an argument as fallacious, I did a detailed argument as to WHY I consider it fallacious.

    If you take umbrage with my argument then feel free to rebut it. Or ignore it. But it is not tedious for people to say they disagree and WHY.

    If I had said "this is fallacious" and left it at that, then yes that would be tedious. I did not.

    I do not ignore statistics that challenge my views. I may leave the conversation as I have a real life outside this site, but if I continue the conversation as a general rule I would normally either respond accepting that (and I can and do change my views, and votes, on things based on debate) or sometimes say why I disagree with a statistic or the way it is being used. Which again is entirely reasonable, if I portray a statistic you disagree with you have that right of course too.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296

    It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.

    In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.

    The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
    Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,001
    kinabalu said:

    Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
    Bloody Dr Shipman ruining the ability of Doctors and Nurses offing people ahead of their time by offing people ahead of their time.
  • kinabalu said:

    Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
    People should not be "eased off" if it is not their desire for that to happen. That is murder.

    This is why a legalised system is better than a nudge and a wink system.

    Someone who wants to end their suffering should have that choice. As their choice.

    Someone who wants to live should not be murdered on a nudge and a wink by anyone else.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470

    It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
    If procurement was based on efficiency, rather than protecting a political jobs pyramid, that could probably be halved.

    Same in the UK - spending X% of GDP is one thing. But on what?

    There are some signs in the US, that low cost vendors are starting to break into the military market. Solid rocket motors, for various weapons, as a start. Some of the numbers there are startling. 10x lower price than legacy vendors, with increased reliability and performance under test.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470

    You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.

    We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.

    I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.

    The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
    IIRC a major reason for the loans vs a graduate tax was the fear that a tax would encourage emigration.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296

    It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
    Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    Dopermean said:

    It's good argument, Peers and Doctors are both professional roles with significant responsibility, the monarch is supposed to be a ceremonial figurehead.

    Noted that the Monarch does have far more political influence than is openly acknowledged but on the basis that

    a) they know they're on shaky ground which seems to restrain from being too political
    b) it's likely any replacement, while cheaper/releasing significant assets, will be worse e,g President Johnson/Farage/Corbyn/BoatyMcBoatface

    I don't consider it a priority for abolition, though reform, neutering their political power / exceptionalism further, would be good. I'm not convinced it will survive William.
    Oh it will, Trump's election just shows even more why we do not want to be a Republic like the US and William is of course more popular than Charles anyway
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,152

    Quite a reasonable attitude.

    We should not respect any organisation that has the Taliban, Pakistan, Qatar, the DRC etc on its "human rights" committee.

    The UN is a bad joke. It should be regarded as a talking shop for the world's nations, many of whom we should not be respecting, and nothing more than that.
    Plus when the UN was founded there was no WEF, so is it really still needed?
  • AEP on US:

    "The deportation of 10m-15m illegal immigrants certainly would drive up inflation. The Baker Institute estimates that undocumented migrants make up 40pc of farm crop workers in the US. They staff much of the meatpacking industry too. But for that reason the deportations will never happen – beyond a few PR stunts."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/13/markets-are-wrong-trump-not-going-launch-roaring-inflation/


    We'll see. Trump will have sack the new border guy - who seems a total zealot - if he decides deportation of millions can't happen because of economic meltdown effects.

    But then again Trump 1.0 was just one long hiring and fire of staff.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    If procurement was based on efficiency, rather than protecting a political jobs pyramid, that could probably be halved.

    Same in the UK - spending X% of GDP is one thing. But on what?

    There are some signs in the US, that low cost vendors are starting to break into the military market. Solid rocket motors, for various weapons, as a start. Some of the numbers there are startling. 10x lower price than legacy vendors, with increased reliability and performance under test.
    We only need to look at how SpaceX managed to turn the rocket industry upside-down, to imagine how much disruption there could be in the military industrial complex.

    But as with the pharma industry, they’ve got the politicians bought and paid for, and that trillion dollars supports thousands of jobs in every single State, and the constituencies of the vast majority of Representatives.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470

    You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.

    We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.

    I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.

    The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
    And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.

    My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,452

    It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
    The trouble with that is if they head South, they'll re-absorb all those Latino populations that Trump has been castigating as murderers and rapists and is planning to deport. If they head North they'll bring on board loads more liberal coastal cities that might tilt the balance of congress towards the Democrats. I suppose they could just operate on the basis of pillage and enslavement, or some form of settler apartheid, but that's harder to maintain long term.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296
    boulay said:

    Bloody Dr Shipman ruining the ability of Doctors and Nurses offing people ahead of their time by offing people ahead of their time.
    Well that was one of the impacts of his crimes. Less of what was a widespread and compassionate practice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    Cookie said:

    But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it?
    And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
    Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.

    Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,262
    kinabalu said:

    Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
    During my working life I several (at least) times dispensed medication which both the prescriber and I knew was 'stronger' than the (terminally ill) patient needed to relieve their pain. I've also worked with hospice teams and seen patients gently eased out of pain, and with care home staff frustrated that no-one can or will do that.
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,505

    Yes, that is difficult to quantify. I’d rather look at how agonising and degrading the next 6 (or 12 or 18) months of life are likely to be which I imagine would be largely based on the previous 6 months. Again I accept that would be difficult to formally define.
    It's worth noting that many healthcare professionals (particularly GPs and District Nurses) already have relevant experience of referring their patients into the various end of life care settings that are currently available.

    In-patient hospice care, for example, has a median stay for end of life (rather than respite) care of just 10 days. Those who choose to die at home typically receive hospice support for around a month.

    So this isn't a completely new problem that we would be facing for the first time if this bill were to pass into law
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,136
    edited November 2024

    You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.

    We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.

    I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.

    The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
    There is no reason to have an educated person tax, education is not something to be discouraged or taxed.

    It is an age and education discriminatory income tax, no more or less than that. It is not levied or rated based on what you studied but what you earn.

    While exempting those who passed the tax, who were graduates, and their colleagues and peers most of whom were graduates too, from paying the tax.

    It should be abolished. If you want income tax it should be paid the same by everyone, whether they're a 22 year old graduate or a 60 year old Prime Minister or a 80 year old ex PM all should be on the same income tax system.

    Fixing this would of course hurt people like myself who have both paid back our loans and would then be expected to pay higher income tax to replace the graduate tax, I recognise that. It is still the right thing to do.

    I shouldn't have paid a higher rate of tax than those older than me who earned the same income did. Those younger than me shouldn't be paying a higher rate of tax than those older than them do on the same income. Two wrongs do not make a right.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296

    People should not be "eased off" if it is not their desire for that to happen. That is murder.

    This is why a legalised system is better than a nudge and a wink system.

    Someone who wants to end their suffering should have that choice. As their choice.

    Someone who wants to live should not be murdered on a nudge and a wink by anyone else.
    Yes, an AD law is what we need and I hope we get one. I think I've said that already.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,765
    edited November 2024
    Stocky said:

    On undue pressure being put on the patient - the importance of this is being exaggerated. I doubt whether family coercion would happen given the patient has less that six months to live anyway. Forgive me but I suspect your objection is religious - only God should take life.
    This is the thing.

    There is overwhelming public support for assisted dying. It seems pretty obvious that people who object for moral reasons are throwing up all kinds of objections as deep down they know the public don't support their moral reasons.

    It seems quite extraordinary that everybody should be prevented from doing something just because a far smaller number of people MIGHT be pressured to do something against their will.

    We wouldn't stop everyone driving a car because a small number of people might be killed (or indeed we know some people will be killed). How about stopping bank transfers of money - after all someone might be pressured to give someone money against their will?

    Of course life is much more important than a bank transfer. But then you come to the point - can it really be right that everyone has control over everything they do in life except the one most important thing - whether to continue living.

    Wherever assisted dying has been brought in, it's been a popular change to the law. No countries are repealing such laws after they have been introduced. Where the scope has been extended that's a positive sign - it shows the law is popular and more peoole want to use it.

    The public simply does not support being prevented from doing what they want because it goes against other people's morals or religion - we need to cut through the objections and get this done.

    It's very similar to abortion and gay marriage where all kinds of objections were raised. It's very simple - if you don't want an abortion or a gay marriage then don't have one. But don't tell everyone else what to do.

    If you don't like assisted dying, don't do it. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    AlsoLei said:

    It's worth noting that many healthcare professionals (particularly GPs and District Nurses) already have relevant experience of referring their patients into the various end of life care settings that are currently available.

    In-patient hospice care, for example, has a median stay for end of life (rather than respite) care of just 10 days. Those who choose to die at home typically receive hospice support for around a month.

    So this isn't a completely new problem that we would be facing for the first time if this bill were to pass into law
    Separate issue - a lot of Hospices are very short of cash as various sorts of NHS funding has been curtailed....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    kinabalu said:

    Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
    Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.

    In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.

    A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....

    There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
  • kinabalu said:

    Yes, an AD law is what we need and I hope we get one. I think I've said that already.
    Indeed, I'm agreeing with you.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,773
    Thank you for the article @Cyclefree. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I think it deserves a more considered response than that. I'll try to pull my thoughts together later in the day.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    MikeL said:

    This is the thing.

    There is overwhelming public support for assisted dying. It seems pretty obvious that people who object for moral reasons are throwing up all kinds of objections as deep down they know the public don't support their moral reasons.

    It seems quite extraordinary that everybody should be prevented from doing something just because a far smaller number of people MIGHT be pressured to do something against their will.

    We wouldn't stop everyone driving a car because a small number of people might be killed (or indeed we know some people will be killed). How about stopping bank transfers of money - after all someone might be pressured to give someone money against their will?

    Of course life is much more important than a bank transfer. But then you come to the point - can it really be right that everyone has control over everything they do in life except the one most important thing - whether to continue living.

    Wherever assisted dying has been brought in, it's been a popular change to the law. No countries are repealing such laws after they have been introduced. Where the scope has been extended that's a positive sign - it shows the law is popular and more peoole want to use it.

    The public simply does not support being prevented from doing what they want because it goes against other people's morals or religion - we need to cut through the objections and get this done.
    You are aware that all kinds of processes have been put in place to slow down and even block bank transfers by elderly people? Because of the issue of pressure by family (and others)...

    Note the issues seen in Canada. The use of assisted suicide in IHT avoidance is darkly funny, in a Holocaust Joke kind of way.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296

    During my working life I several (at least) times dispensed medication which both the prescriber and I knew was 'stronger' than the (terminally ill) patient needed to relieve their pain. I've also worked with hospice teams and seen patients gently eased out of pain, and with care home staff frustrated that no-one can or will do that.
    All my 4 grandparents were helped off in that way. It was the norm.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,737
    Thanks @Cyclefree . A thought-provoking header.

    One point:

    It fails to consider the evidence that whereas suicide is far more prevalent among men than women, coercive behaviour is more likely to be directed towards women and may be a particular problem for older women.

    It's worth a note that there are many older women than older men, due to different life expectations. And also that coercive behaviour may well be operating in different modes for elderly people, or those coming to the end of their lives. It may include, for example 'Think about the grandchildren' or 'it's the best for you'.

    Where compulsory - as opposed to voluntary - euthanasia (ie killing) has been promoted, it has been marketed as 'it's the best for them' or 'helping them out of their misery'.

  • Great header - thanks. To be honest I am in favour of legislating to allow assisted suicide. But, do think the legislation / scrutiny seems a bit rushed.

    I would imagine a Royal Commission or some such organisation could do a decent job looking at the whole issue of “end-of-life” care and assisted suicide. I think it would feel a lot a better if there had been a bit more rigour to all this than a backbenchers bill.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,765

    You are aware that all kinds of processes have been put in place to slow down and even block bank transfers by elderly people? Because of the issue of pressure by family (and others)...

    Note the issues seen in Canada. The use of assisted suicide in IHT avoidance is darkly funny, in a Holocaust Joke kind of way.
    Of course we have controls for bank transfers. Just like there will be controls for assisted dying.

    The point is we don't ban all bank transfers. So we don't need to ban everyone from having an assisted death, no matter how many hoops they jump through.
  • More senior clergy may have to resign over scandal that engulfed Welby, says top bishop

    Bishop of Birkenhead says ‘some other people need to go’ after victims call on two bishops and an associate minister to step down


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/more-senior-clergy-may-have-to-resign-over-scandal-that-eng/
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,773

    Quite a reasonable attitude.

    We should not respect any organisation that has the Taliban, Pakistan, Qatar, the DRC etc on its "human rights" committee.

    The UN is a bad joke. It should be regarded as a talking shop for the world's nations, many of whom we should not be respecting, and nothing more than that.
    Any world organisation has to include the countries of the world. Until there is universal agreement on a thing, and there are means of enforcing that thing, there will be disagreement. You can resolve them thru discussion or thru warfare. If you remove the former, you are only left with the latter.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,636
    HYUFD said:

    Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.

    Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
    There are other places to get married than a church.

    On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,118
    edited November 2024

    I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
    I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?

    Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.

    You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).

    Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?

    Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.

    For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.

    Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?

    I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
  • viewcode said:

    Any world organisation has to include the countries of the world. Until there is universal agreement on a thing, and there are means of enforcing that thing, there will be disagreement. You can resolve them thru discussion or thru warfare. If you remove the former, you are only left with the latter.
    There is no need to either resolve disagreements via discussion or warfare.

    There is a third option: respectfully disagree.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,910
    edited November 2024
    kjh said:

    You shouldn't force your religious views on others either. Difficult decisions should be made on the evidence regardless of religious views. Atheists have compassion also. Religion is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing.

    Many on here are involved in charities, campaigning, etc regardless of religious views. Both my wife and I do and on different things, yet we are atheist. As I have said before, give it a try. It is very satisfying.
    I donate my
    HYUFD said:

    Nah, General Luna will just be their extended gap yah
    Nope. Most universities will die within 5-15 years

    The crap ones will go bust first but then the collapse will spread

    Funnily enough I just had this very conversation with an academic from Princeton and she completely agrees. Doomed
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,001

    Great header - thanks. To be honest I am in favour of legislating to allow assisted suicide. But, do think the legislation / scrutiny seems a bit rushed.

    I would imagine a Royal Commission or some such organisation could do a decent job looking at the whole issue of “end-of-life” care and assisted suicide. I think it would feel a lot a better if there had been a bit more rigour to all this than a backbenchers bill.

    I wonder if any of the “rush” is because the IOM and Jersey are already down the road on this and some people think it would not be great if they got something agreed on this before the UK.
  • Quite a reasonable attitude.

    We should not respect any organisation that has the Taliban, Pakistan, Qatar, the DRC etc on its "human rights" committee.

    The UN is a bad joke. It should be regarded as a talking shop for the world's nations, many of whom we should not be respecting, and nothing more than that.
    Yeah.
    About that having lots of power without people having voted for you..
  • I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?

    Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.

    You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).

    Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?

    Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.

    For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.

    Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?

    I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
    Judges have an upper age limit of 75. Why not adopt that limit for the Lords?
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,911
    kinabalu said:

    Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
    Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470

    More senior clergy may have to resign over scandal that engulfed Welby, says top bishop

    Bishop of Birkenhead says ‘some other people need to go’ after victims call on two bishops and an associate minister to step down


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/more-senior-clergy-may-have-to-resign-over-scandal-that-eng/

    Can we please be quite clear

    - Lessons do not need to be learnt
    - It's not time to move on
    - We are not looking to the future
    - We don't need to wait 10 years for another report
    - We don't need to let people finish their natural term in office because they are fundamentally Good People

    What we need is

    - Lots and lots of people to lose their jobs. For fucking up
    - Not by resigning. By being fired for gross negligence etc.
    - We need police investigation of apparent obstructions of the justice system.
    - We need assurances that the people in question will not pop up in other important jobs, about 10 minutes later.
    - We need assurances they don't pop up in glossy magazine interviews in a year or two, explaining how they are actually the victims here.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296
    boulay said:

    If you want to be isolationalist and parochial you would be advised to spend such a fortune on defence as then you can ignore geopolitical events outside your borders knowing that whatever happens nobody is going to end up causing you trouble.
    Exactly. And they're way beyond that with $1 trillion a year. Massive scope for savings there.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,773
    edited November 2024
    viewcode said:

    Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.

    Votes received and percentages of total vote
    Candidate Votes Pct.
    Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0
    Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8
    Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2

    Lead 72,626.

    Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
    Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.

    Votes received and percentages of total vote
    Candidate Votes Pct.
    Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0
    Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8
    Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2

    Lead 72,736

    Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    viewcode said:

    Any world organisation has to include the countries of the world. Until there is universal agreement on a thing, and there are means of enforcing that thing, there will be disagreement. You can resolve them thru discussion or thru warfare. If you remove the former, you are only left with the latter.
    I take the view that UN roles should be divided up by domain knowledge

    - Afghanistan gets Women's Rights
    - Iran gets LGBT
    - Russia gets Decolonisation
    - Mauritania gets Anti-Slavery

    etc
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399

    I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?

    Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.

    You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).

    Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?

    Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.

    For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.

    Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?

    I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
    Alongside the point of the house of Lords - we need to know what is its actual purpose. Because at the moment it seems to be the only point where sanity and quality control is applied to the bills being passed.

    It's clear that that isn't the purpose of the House of Commons and it's clear that the bills being sent to the Commons are often version 0.1 drafts (there are other recent examples that make the Assisted Dying Bill look fully reversed and problem free). And I don't think you can look at the point of something until you know what it needs to be doing...
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,505
    HYUFD said:

    Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.

    Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
    C of E churches already refuse weddings to those in same-sex relationships, so unfortunately I don't think they're on particularly firm footing when claiming universal availability as a point in their favour.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399

    More senior clergy may have to resign over scandal that engulfed Welby, says top bishop

    Bishop of Birkenhead says ‘some other people need to go’ after victims call on two bishops and an associate minister to step down


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/more-senior-clergy-may-have-to-resign-over-scandal-that-eng/

    Yep - I suspect the Archbishop of York is also going on his way after his comments today...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,118

    Good, it should be changed. The six month principle is absurd, someone in agony with years ahead of them of agony they want to end should have that choice. If they want assistance to die with dignity they should have that choice.

    They shouldn't be told you have no say in your own life, but you have the right to commit suicide if you want to and are able to do so.

    They shouldn't be left thinking getting in front of a train or something similar is their only option to end it.

    Let people control their own bodies and their own lives.

    But those amendments can only occur through Parliament if Parliament democratically votes that way - as it should.
    I am in favour of people having control over their bodies and their lives, including the end of their life. Yes. So, simple choice to support assisted dying in all circumstances?

    Well, no. There are lots of potentially vulnerable people, mentally ill, or coerced, who could fall victim to such a law, passed in haste and poorly regulated. And once they are dead the paperwork would say it was their choice and there would be little prospect of justice.

    I recognise that the status quo is intolerable for many people in pain and suffering numerous indignities. But a great number of new victims could be created by a simplistic and naive approach. I do not know how to reconcile these two concerns. I would expect that time and care would be taken to do so. The general election was barely four months ago. A bit more time would not go amiss.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,910

    You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.

    We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.

    I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.

    The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
    Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,137
    I'm very much in favour of assisted dying, but I do share some of Cyclefree's concerns about this bill. What we need is an independent review to look into the issues in general, make recommendations and a commitment from the government to draft legislation based on that to put before the house for proper consideration.

    It seems to me that what we need is a bill that would oblige the government to do that.

    On a personal level, when my maternal grandmother was dying of cancer, my mum was very clear that she would not want to live and die like that, that she would not wish to continue her life beyond the point where it had reasonable quality. My mum now has Alzheimer's, can barely speak (and hardly ever makes sense with the few words she can manage) is confined to a bed and armchair (with a hoist being used for transfers between the two). I am certain that, presented with this prognosis five years ago she would have chosen to die rather than be in this state. She would not be covered by this legislation - she may have fewer than six months left, but she may have more and she lacks capacity to express (or perhaps even have) a clear wish to end her life. Neurodegenerative conditions, except perhaps very fast moving, would never be covered, as there would not be capacity within 6 months of death to make the decision. My mum, if faced with death, may now very much want to live, if she's able to process those ideas, I don't know. But for those with sound mind but certain death and pain ahead there should be a way out even if they lack physical capacity to take their own lives.
  • Judges have an upper age limit of 75. Why not adopt that limit for the Lords?
    "Hereditary Peers are better"
    There may be some hereditary peers who have made a valuable contribution, however that has absolutely no correlatuon or causation with them being hereditary
    Hereditary peers have been almost universally male by nature of the hereditary system
    That some appointed peers shouldn't have been appointed is irrelevant.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    viewcode said:

    Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.

    Votes received and percentages of total vote
    Candidate Votes Pct.
    Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0
    Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8
    Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2

    Lead 72,736

    Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
    It’s only been a week, can’t possibly be helping those concerned at the process in a very close race. Come on Arizona, take some lessons from Florida.

    California is doing even worse, they’re only at 79% for the Senate seat, although that one is a clear Dem win and not close.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,737
    edited November 2024

    More senior clergy may have to resign over scandal that engulfed Welby, says top bishop

    Bishop of Birkenhead says ‘some other people need to go’ after victims call on two bishops and an associate minister to step down


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/more-senior-clergy-may-have-to-resign-over-scandal-that-eng/

    I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).

    Full article: https://archive.ph/wip/wCPQ7

    I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.

    (I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.

    Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    edited November 2024
    Leon said:

    Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
    It's not done:

    1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing
    2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...

    The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
  • eek said:

    And looking at what @rcs1000 posted earlier as with the UK budget - there is a lot of money being spent but very little that can actually be cut...
    Well, we can but people would need to take a lot more responsibility and risk.

    That's hard to get elected on.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,452
    MattW said:

    I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).

    I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.

    (I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.

    Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
    Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,956

    More senior clergy may have to resign over scandal that engulfed Welby, says top bishop

    Bishop of Birkenhead says ‘some other people need to go’ after victims call on two bishops and an associate minister to step down


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/more-senior-clergy-may-have-to-resign-over-scandal-that-eng/

    Since when has the Bishop of Birkenhead been a "top bishop"? Just wondering.....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    Selebian said:

    I'm very much in favour of assisted dying, but I do share some of Cyclefree's concerns about this bill. What we need is an independent review to look into the issues in general, make recommendations and a commitment from the government to draft legislation based on that to put before the house for proper consideration.

    It seems to me that what we need is a bill that would oblige the government to do that.

    On a personal level, when my maternal grandmother was dying of cancer, my mum was very clear that she would not want to live and die like that, that she would not wish to continue her life beyond the point where it had reasonable quality. My mum now has Alzheimer's, can barely speak (and hardly ever makes sense with the few words she can manage) is confined to a bed and armchair (with a hoist being used for transfers between the two). I am certain that, presented with this prognosis five years ago she would have chosen to die rather than be in this state. She would not be covered by this legislation - she may have fewer than six months left, but she may have more and she lacks capacity to express (or perhaps even have) a clear wish to end her life. Neurodegenerative conditions, except perhaps very fast moving, would never be covered, as there would not be capacity within 6 months of death to make the decision. My mum, if faced with death, may now very much want to live, if she's able to process those ideas, I don't know. But for those with sound mind but certain death and pain ahead there should be a way out even if they lack physical capacity to take their own lives.

    Have someone of the calibre of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Warnock,_Baroness_Warnock available? Her reports created whole areas of ethical and moral approaches to education and medicine.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,636

    More senior clergy may have to resign over scandal that engulfed Welby, says top bishop

    Bishop of Birkenhead says ‘some other people need to go’ after victims call on two bishops and an associate minister to step down


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/more-senior-clergy-may-have-to-resign-over-scandal-that-eng/

    Birkenhead has a bishop?
  • I am in favour of people having control over their bodies and their lives, including the end of their life. Yes. So, simple choice to support assisted dying in all circumstances?

    Well, no. There are lots of potentially vulnerable people, mentally ill, or coerced, who could fall victim to such a law, passed in haste and poorly regulated. And once they are dead the paperwork would say it was their choice and there would be little prospect of justice.

    I recognise that the status quo is intolerable for many people in pain and suffering numerous indignities. But a great number of new victims could be created by a simplistic and naive approach. I do not know how to reconcile these two concerns. I would expect that time and care would be taken to do so. The general election was barely four months ago. A bit more time would not go amiss.
    A bit more time?

    Getting an appointment to speak to a first doctor.
    Going to see the first doctor.
    Getting an appointment to speak to the second doctor.
    Going to see the second doctor.
    Getting an appointment for it to be seen by a Judge (a ridiculous step that shouldn't be there in my view).
    It actually being seen by the Judge.
    Getting an appointment for assisted dying.
    Proceeding with the appointment.

    That's more than a bit of time, seven steps by my reckoning with plenty of time for people to cool off if it's not what they want.

    Too often "a bit more time" is code for do nothing. Not accusing you of that, but Parliament. This should be legalised and if it needs amending in the future there are ways to do it, but stop doing nothing and let people choose their own destiny.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    ClippP said:

    Since when has the Bishop of Birkenhead been a "top bishop"? Just wondering.....
    Same as random, pissant backbencher being described as a "senior politician"
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,452
    eek said:

    It's not done:

    1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing
    2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...

    The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
    I went to the open day at Swansea last weekend with my son, who’s planning on doing geography.

    In the right weather, if you squint a bit and ignore the 60s tower blocks, you could be in a tropical beach resort. Perhaps Swansea is the future of British higher ed. Closest campus to the beach on the planet apparently.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,773

    I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?

    Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.

    You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).

    Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?

    Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.

    For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.

    Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?

    I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
    May I introduce you to the concept of "corporatism". We currently live in a system where the building blocks are individuals and they vote - one (wo)man, one vote. But it is not the only option, and other basic concepts are available - groups such as "families", "tribes", "regions", "guilds", "soviets", "syndics", and more. "Corporatism" involves groups such as trades union and management bodies in government directly. Here are some YouTubes It is often confused with the similarly-titled "corporatocracy", where government is lobbied by large companies. This is not that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,152
    Which UK party will be the first to copy the Department of Government Efficiency idea?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    TimS said:

    I went to the open day at Swansea last weekend with my son, who’s planning on doing geography.

    In the right weather, if you squint a bit and ignore the 60s tower blocks, you could be in a tropical beach resort. Perhaps Swansea is the future of British higher ed. Closest campus to the beach on the planet apparently.
    *IDEA*

    Sell the UK buildings. Move to a beach on Thailand (or similar). The whole shebang. The student will like that - spend three years in Thailand. The staff will probably like it. The local government will love long term investment.

    Anyone think of a catch?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,910
    eek said:

    It's not done:

    1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing
    2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...

    The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
    FFS. Half these jobs are about to disappear. Do you still not get it?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296
    edited November 2024
    Taz said:

    Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
    A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,284

    Which UK party will be the first to copy the Department of Government Efficiency idea?

    Ministry of Administrative Affairs?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,004
    rcs1000 said:

    No, they can't get it through Congress, because the Republicans majority there is going to be absolutely tiny.
    We'll see the depth of the GOP swamp today when the votes for the two Johns are totted up.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    edited November 2024
    ClippP said:

    Since when has the Bishop of Birkenhead been a "top bishop"? Just wondering.....
    Deputy lead on Safeguarding. The issue here is that we look at Bishops based on the relative importance of the Diocese when it may be that the work is actually being done by the deputy...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,773

    Which UK party will be the first to copy the Department of Government Efficiency idea?

    Labour did it in the 1960s with the Department of Economic Affairs, an attempt to wrest control from the Treasury. It was the model for Jim Hacker's Department of Administrative Affairs in "Yes, Minister"
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,636
    eek said:

    It's not done:

    1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing
    2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...

    The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
    Essentially, a degree is a very expensive ticket to the middle classes.
    Almost everyone who applies to university ends up graduating. We could save a lot of people a lot of money by granting people a 2:1 honours in generic studies from the University of Bang Average simply by applying for it with a small nominal fee to cover the admin costs and a fancy graduation, and being accepted on the basis of a certain number of UCCA points. We could use the money thus saved to educate people in things which its actually worthwhile a bit of actual study and teaching.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    TimS said:

    Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
    It would be hard to imagine, with the duties of a Bishop being what they are, that she doesn't have a legal responsibility for safeguarding.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,004
    edited November 2024
    Starmer has appointed Goldstein as the officer for value for money here, whilst Trump has Musk - who cut his X staff by 80% and Ramaswamy. Let's see who gets on better.

    Anyway I've got a saying, look after the hundreds of billions and the trillions look after themselves.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,296
    viewcode said:

    Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.

    Votes received and percentages of total vote
    Candidate Votes Pct.
    Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0
    Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8
    Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2

    Lead 72,736

    Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
    One genuinely still in-play question is whether Trump will end up above or below 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't really matter but I hope it's below (1.68 fav atm) since that will mean more Americans voted against him than for him.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,911
    kinabalu said:

    A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
    I said killing I didn't say murder. It could be manslaughter.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,470
    viewcode said:

    Labour did it in the 1960s with the Department of Economic Affairs, an attempt to wrest control from the Treasury. It was the model for Jim Hacker's Department of Administrative Affairs in "Yes, Minister"
    What is actually needed, is to internalise consulting, process reform and IT within each department. And make steady, incremental improvement in productivity a part of the goals of the department. No stupid big bangs, just methodical work, over time.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,956
    Cookie said:

    Birkenhead has a bishop?
    It seems that he is a woman. And at one time was a policeman. But seems never to have stayed very long in anything.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,910

    And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.

    My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
    So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely

    It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast

    A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,452

    *IDEA*

    Sell the UK buildings. Move to a beach on Thailand (or similar). The whole shebang. The student will like that - spend three years in Thailand. The staff will probably like it. The local government will love long term investment.

    Anyone think of a catch?
    Yes, a big catch. How will they be able to run their field trips to study coastal erosion in the Gower or urban regeneration in Cardiff Bay? And what would the geography department do with their inventory of fleeces?

    (Yes, they really do possess a store of fleeces and rainwear to lend out to students on field trips).
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,505

    A bit more time?

    Getting an appointment to speak to a first doctor.
    Going to see the first doctor.
    Getting an appointment to speak to the second doctor.
    Going to see the second doctor.
    Getting an appointment for it to be seen by a Judge (a ridiculous step that shouldn't be there in my view).
    It actually being seen by the Judge.
    Getting an appointment for assisted dying.
    Proceeding with the appointment.

    That's more than a bit of time, seven steps by my reckoning with plenty of time for people to cool off if it's not what they want.

    Too often "a bit more time" is code for do nothing. Not accusing you of that, but Parliament. This should be legalised and if it needs amending in the future there are ways to do it, but stop doing nothing and let people choose their own destiny.
    Yes, my concern with the bill in its current form is that it seeks to put so many last-minute hurdles in the path of those who want an assisted death that it will likely result in most not being able to access one in the time left available to them.

    It's better than nothing, but not much better.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,314
    edited November 2024
    Leon said:

    I donate my Nope. Most universities will die within 5-15 years

    The crap ones will go bust first but then the collapse will spread

    Funnily enough I just had this very conversation with an academic from Princeton and she completely agrees. Doomed
    Hi @leon, your reply got truncated so I don't know what you were going to say. As it started with 'I donate my.....' I assume it was giving money.

    The point I an others were making however is atheists and non atheists both do. Religion is usually irrelevant other than a lot of religious people will carry out charity work via their religious organisation which is great.

    In terms of donations it is notable that although well off people usually donate more, as a percentage of disposable income poorer people tend to be more generous and the excuse by some richer people that 'I pay more tax' is not a substitute.

    As an aside there is also the doing rather than giving. We had this discussion before. When you compare your exciting lifestyle to some of our more mundane lifestyles it is worth noting the huge satisfaction that people get from doing stuff for others.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,773

    There is no need to either resolve disagreements via discussion or warfare.

    There is a third option: respectfully disagree.
    I actually agree with you. But this is for cases where that option is not taken.
  • kinabalu said:

    A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
    That is what they said about the Liverpool Pathway and killing people like my father by denying them food and water.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,452

    It would be hard to imagine, with the duties of a Bishop being what they are, that she doesn't have a legal responsibility for safeguarding.
    She was presented on Today as deputy head of safeguarding for the CoE.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    Leon said:

    So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely

    It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast

    A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
    'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'

    In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.

    So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,321
    Leon said:

    I donate my Nope. Most universities will die within 5-15 years

    The crap ones will go bust first but then the collapse will spread

    Funnily enough I just had this very conversation with an academic from Princeton and she completely agrees. Doomed
    Is the academic from Princeton like your Bayern Munich goalkeeper? (I'm thinking its a porter, cleaner or one of the catering staff).

    I don't think you are right on this. You seem to use reduction to absurdity in all your predictions. Take AI (not that you can). Various forms of it are being used in research all over the world. It can be a fantastic tool. It is not removing 90% off all jobs. Students still want to go to University. For many its part of the growing up process. There is an expectation that they will go, gain qualifications that help their career but just as importantly will meet new people, have great experiences, and generally grow up. Many 18 year olds are still very immature. Its less of any issue 3/4 years later.
  • I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
    Yes.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    edited November 2024
    Leon said:

    So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely

    It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast

    A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
    You still have this idea that AI is going to take over the world.

    As someone who works in that field - you are utterly insane unless some fundamental problems are fixable, which I see little evidence for.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    Cookie said:

    Birkenhead has a bishop?
    Suffragen not diocesan
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,321

    And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.

    My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
    It will very for every uni and every course. It can work, online tutorials, but on the whole we have found poor engagement. During the pandemic, when I tried to run workshops online (would normally be wandering a room helping students), the workshop was poor. Students do not want to turn their cameras on (often they are in their bedrooms) so there interactive element is gone.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,910
    HYUFD said:

    'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'

    In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.

    So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
    Which is why dance schools will thrive
This discussion has been closed.