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.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
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)
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?
Does anyone know how long it will take Rayner to hopefully approve the 3000 houses she “called in”?
She could do it today - but reality is you leave it for a few months so you can pretend actual work was done before the approval is made...
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)
One government initiative I welcome - revenue protection are unfriendly and aggressive, and often try and entrap passengers just trying to do the right thing rather than target serial offenders - which makes me wonder if they have "targets" to catch a certain number of "faredodgers" and are incentivised accordingly:
The ones at Manchester Piccadilly are utter arseholes.
Northern Trains are often late/cancelled so people have legitimately bought an off peak ticket but arrive at peak time due to delays/cancellations.
HTF is it possible to arrive at a peak time. In London for as long as I've known (so mid 80s) the evening peak fate is for people leaving London during peak hours
Not everyone starts their journey at a terminus.
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).
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
I also don't agree with comparing suicide and assisted dying. There are often similarities, but often big differences. They are distinct.
Well said again.
Suicide attempts are often a cry for help, or a break in a moment.
Assisted dying is completely different and being regulated has essentially a built in cooling off period to ensure this is actually somebodies desired will.
If you want to (fallaciously) compare the two then getting people from unregulated taking actions in their own way through to a thoughtful, considered process with a cooling off period is essentially a part of suicide prevention, not it's antithesis.
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.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes but how long will it stay like that when the principle is established? We've already seen in Canada and Holland that assisted suicide is being extended to those with mental illnesses.
And so it should. I have a parent with vascular dementia and the other with Alzheimer's. It should be about quality of life not quantity and compliance with a person's wishes. I know what my parent's wishes are (or rather 'were' - when they had mental capacity). And their personal wishes are not being complied with. My mother cannot move, has to be hoisted everywhere, is doubly incontinent, cannot feed herself, cannot speak and almost certainly recognises no-one. Yet she is being prescribed every medication under the sum to prolong her life for as long as possible.
That's dreadful. My father-in-law was similar. Kept alive for two years beyond any quality of life whatsoever. It was legalised torture.
I have basic sympathy with the Bill, but recognise Ms Cyclefree's wise concerns. My wife and I have been down this road twice, first with her father and then, worse, with our daughter who, in her late 40's developed Motor Neurone Disease. At a late stage in the disease she needed support with her breathing, but, she was told, it would make what limited communication she had with her family and friends much more difficult. She refused it, although she was told by the doctors.... she was in Intensive Care by this time .... that her refusal would certainly shorten her life. She insisted and died a couple of days later, comfortably, with her family and close friends nearby.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
Bloody Dr Shipman ruining the ability of Doctors and Nurses offing people ahead of their time by offing people ahead of their time.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
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.
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?
IIRC a major reason for the loans vs a graduate tax was the fear that a tax would encourage emigration.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
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.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
Poor argument. Do you accept a hereditary monarchy?
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
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?
"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."
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.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
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.
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?
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, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
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.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
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
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
It is not really clear what is the basis of the objection in the header, at least on principle, other than that the practical details have not been nailed down.
That a private member's bill is badly drafted is almost a given since many government bills are badly drafted, at least if the number of amendments is any guide.
If suicide and attempted suicide are legal, what is the principled objection to assisted suicide? To placing the metaphorical pearl-handled revolver by the hospital bed? Are we to ban the infirm from travel to Switzerland, just in case?
But yes, I have no real answer to the questions around coercion, or how to judge imminent death (although in practice, many doctors do this every day with varying and probably unmeasured degrees of accuracy: most of us will have experienced that call to come and visit our relatives whose death is thought to be imminent) or how to allow staff to opt out.
What worries me more in immediate practical terms is that doctors, especially in this post-Shipman age, might be withholding adequate pain relief where death is a possible side effect.
Afaics ‘assisted suicide’ is already present in treatment, in certain forms anyway. My friend with MND whose life came to end almost exactly two years ago had an assisted death in everything but name. He discussed with his care team exactly what would happen months before his death, that is being taken into a hospice, withdrawal from his respirator which he was completely dependent upon by that point, and whatever heroic amounts of sedation would be needed to reduce discomfort as he asphyxiated. The whole process took less than 36 hours.
The crime of this bill is that it challenges the great British vice of hypocrisy, attempting to formalise something that everyone knows goes on but would rather avert their eyes from.
It's not hypocrisy that is the vice here, but the pretence that prolonging someone's death is the same as prolonging their life.
I’d argue that this is a kind of hypocrisy, but yes. As with so much of what goes on nowadays, it’s become about the personal and the feels. I get eg why disabled people might feel uncomfortable about any such legislation and noisily oppose it, but is their discomfort a valid reason for imposing their view on everyone? Since the proposition is that assistance would only be given when illness is terminal within 6 months, I don’t see why anyone with a lifelong or long term disability would be affected. The argument seems to be that this is the thin end of the wedge which is always a crap argument against anything.
As cyclefree noted, we can’t tell reliably tell who is terminal within 6 months. My aunt was diagnosed as terminal within 6 months about 5 years ago, for example, and she is doing fine. I don’t see this as an insuperable problem, but we need to be conscious of it.
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
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?
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.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
Good header. I certainly have reservations about assisted suicide. While suicide is now legal allowing another to help you take your own life risks undue pressure being put on the patient. While the safeguard of a terminal illness in severe pain is meant to be there, in Canada now they now have even those with mental illness pressured to end their lives. Hence Conservative Opposition Leader Poilievre has promised to cut back on access to assisted suicide in Canada if elected PM next year
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.
It is not really clear what is the basis of the objection in the header, at least on principle, other than that the practical details have not been nailed down.
That a private member's bill is badly drafted is almost a given since many government bills are badly drafted, at least if the number of amendments is any guide.
If suicide and attempted suicide are legal, what is the principled objection to assisted suicide? To placing the metaphorical pearl-handled revolver by the hospital bed? Are we to ban the infirm from travel to Switzerland, just in case?
But yes, I have no real answer to the questions around coercion, or how to judge imminent death (although in practice, many doctors do this every day with varying and probably unmeasured degrees of accuracy: most of us will have experienced that call to come and visit our relatives whose death is thought to be imminent) or how to allow staff to opt out.
What worries me more in immediate practical terms is that doctors, especially in this post-Shipman age, might be withholding adequate pain relief where death is a possible side effect.
Afaics ‘assisted suicide’ is already present in treatment, in certain forms anyway. My friend with MND whose life came to end almost exactly two years ago had an assisted death in everything but name. He discussed with his care team exactly what would happen months before his death, that is being taken into a hospice, withdrawal from his respirator which he was completely dependent upon by that point, and whatever heroic amounts of sedation would be needed to reduce discomfort as he asphyxiated. The whole process took less than 36 hours.
The crime of this bill is that it challenges the great British vice of hypocrisy, attempting to formalise something that everyone knows goes on but would rather avert their eyes from.
It's not hypocrisy that is the vice here, but the pretence that prolonging someone's death is the same as prolonging their life.
I’d argue that this is a kind of hypocrisy, but yes. As with so much of what goes on nowadays, it’s become about the personal and the feels. I get eg why disabled people might feel uncomfortable about any such legislation and noisily oppose it, but is their discomfort a valid reason for imposing their view on everyone? Since the proposition is that assistance would only be given when illness is terminal within 6 months, I don’t see why anyone with a lifelong or long term disability would be affected. The argument seems to be that this is the thin end of the wedge which is always a crap argument against anything.
As cyclefree noted, we can’t tell reliably tell who is terminal within 6 months. My aunt was diagnosed as terminal within 6 months about 5 years ago, for example, and she is doing fine. I don’t see this as an insuperable problem, but we need to be conscious of it.
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
Separate issue - a lot of Hospices are very short of cash as various sorts of NHS funding has been curtailed....
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
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......
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
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.
Good header. I certainly have reservations about assisted suicide. While suicide is now legal allowing another to help you take your own life risks undue pressure being put on the patient. While the safeguard of a terminal illness in severe pain is meant to be there, in Canada now they now have even those with mental illness pressured to end their lives. Hence Conservative Opposition Leader Poilievre has promised to cut back on access to assisted suicide in Canada if elected PM next year
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.
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.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
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.
Good header. I certainly have reservations about assisted suicide. While suicide is now legal allowing another to help you take your own life risks undue pressure being put on the patient. While the safeguard of a terminal illness in severe pain is meant to be there, in Canada now they now have even those with mental illness pressured to end their lives. Hence Conservative Opposition Leader Poilievre has promised to cut back on access to assisted suicide in Canada if elected PM next year
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.
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.
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.
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
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
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!
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
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.
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.
There is no need to either resolve disagreements via discussion or warfare.
It's also a topic where religion needs to keep its nose well out.
Why?
Many people - not you evidently - see their faith as an important part of their ethical framework. Why would you deny them leadership from people they respect?
Yes. Quite
The PB atheists are extremely wearying. Fine. They don’t believe. I feel sorry for them that they don’t have that solace - as they no doubt pity believers for their credulity
They have no right to force their sad desolate nihilism on those of us that do believe
For many religious people the question in the header goes to the core of what religious belief means
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 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
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
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.
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'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
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.
Judges have an upper age limit of 75. Why not adopt that limit for the Lords?
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
- 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.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
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.
Exactly. And they're way beyond that with $1 trillion a year. Massive scope for savings there.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
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.
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.
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
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
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.
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...
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
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
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.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
That's what the Bill says now. Yes. But once the principle is established that is easier to change. And sometimes these things can be implemented in a very broad way. What if it becomes accepted practice for a medical professional to conclude that a very depressed person with suicidal ideation is likely to die from suicide within six months, and so can be considered "terminally ill"?
The way in which abortion is regulated in Britain is a guide to this. Abortion was introduced with a number of safeguards in Britain. Two doctors would be required to sign off on it. Abortion could only be granted in a restricted number of circumstances - it isn't abortion on demand. Yet the implementation of the law has been quite different. The second doctor is a mere formality. The circumstance of "mental distress for the pregnant woman" has in practice been used as a catch-all that permits abortion on demand.
I think it is fair to be concerned about scope creep, and whether the Bill is written in a way that keeps its implementation to the restricted circumstances as claimed. Perhaps a more explicit protection for people suffering from mental illness should be added to the Bill?
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.
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?
Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
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.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
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.
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.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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..
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The big crunch comes next year when Congress has to renew the Trump tax cuts from his last administration - or they expire.
It's not going to be very popular cutting everyone's entitlements at the same time they renew the billionaire tax breaks. Particularly as it's the billionaires heading the cutting.
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.
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?
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.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
That's what the Bill says now. Yes. But once the principle is established that is easier to change. And sometimes these things can be implemented in a very broad way. What if it becomes accepted practice for a medical professional to conclude that a very depressed person with suicidal ideation is likely to die from suicide within six months, and so can be considered "terminally ill"?
The way in which abortion is regulated in Britain is a guide to this. Abortion was introduced with a number of safeguards in Britain. Two doctors would be required to sign off on it. Abortion could only be granted in a restricted number of circumstances - it isn't abortion on demand. Yet the implementation of the law has been quite different. The second doctor is a mere formality. The circumstance of "mental distress for the pregnant woman" has in practice been used as a catch-all that permits abortion on demand.
I think it is fair to be concerned about scope creep, and whether the Bill is written in a way that keeps its implementation to the restricted circumstances as claimed. Perhaps a more explicit protection for people suffering from mental illness should be added to the Bill?
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.
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.
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?
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..
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.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
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.
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
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?
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..
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.
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?
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..
FFS. Half these jobs are about to disappear. Do you still not get it?
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
Yes there’s a number of Federal college grant and loan programmes, that would either need to be shifted elsewhere in government or administered by the States. I suspect that we end up seeing departments merged and reduced in size, rather than abolished entirely. There will still be functions that need to be done somewhere.
It just goes to show - though - how difficult it is to cut spending significantly without going after mandated welfare programs and healthcare. Medicare/Medicaid, plus Social Security, plus Veterans Affairs makes up a massive slice of Federal Funding.
Yes these areas take up a lot of spending, but how much of that can be made more efficient? IIRC there’s a law that says that Medicare and Medicaid are not allowed to negotiate drug prices with pharma companies, have to pay the list price as those same companies advertise hard on TV to consumers.
There’s an awful lot of waste in that system, the question is can they get things like this example through Congress when many of the Representatives and Senators have been bought and paid for by the pharma companies?
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.
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...
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"
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?
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..
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.
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?
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.
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.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
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.
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.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
I said killing I didn't say murder. It could be manslaughter.
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"
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.
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?
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
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?
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..
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?
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).
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
That's what the Bill says now. Yes. But once the principle is established that is easier to change. And sometimes these things can be implemented in a very broad way. What if it becomes accepted practice for a medical professional to conclude that a very depressed person with suicidal ideation is likely to die from suicide within six months, and so can be considered "terminally ill"?
The way in which abortion is regulated in Britain is a guide to this. Abortion was introduced with a number of safeguards in Britain. Two doctors would be required to sign off on it. Abortion could only be granted in a restricted number of circumstances - it isn't abortion on demand. Yet the implementation of the law has been quite different. The second doctor is a mere formality. The circumstance of "mental distress for the pregnant woman" has in practice been used as a catch-all that permits abortion on demand.
I think it is fair to be concerned about scope creep, and whether the Bill is written in a way that keeps its implementation to the restricted circumstances as claimed. Perhaps a more explicit protection for people suffering from mental illness should be added to the Bill?
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.
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 also a topic where religion needs to keep its nose well out.
Why?
Many people - not you evidently - see their faith as an important part of their ethical framework. Why would you deny them leadership from people they respect?
Yes. Quite
The PB atheists are extremely wearying. Fine. They don’t believe. I feel sorry for them that they don’t have that solace - as they no doubt pity believers for their credulity
They have no right to force their sad desolate nihilism on those of us that do believe
For many religious people the question in the header goes to the core of what religious belief means
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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
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.
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.
That is what they said about the Liverpool Pathway and killing people like my father by denying them food and water.
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?
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.
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?
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
'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
It's also a topic where religion needs to keep its nose well out.
Why?
Many people - not you evidently - see their faith as an important part of their ethical framework. Why would you deny them leadership from people they respect?
Yes. Quite
The PB atheists are extremely wearying. Fine. They don’t believe. I feel sorry for them that they don’t have that solace - as they no doubt pity believers for their credulity
They have no right to force their sad desolate nihilism on those of us that do believe
For many religious people the question in the header goes to the core of what religious belief means
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 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
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
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'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
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 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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
'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
Comments
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.
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.
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)
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?
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...
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).
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.
At a late stage in the disease she needed support with her breathing, but, she was told, it would make what limited communication she had with her family and friends much more difficult.
She refused it, although she was told by the doctors.... she was in Intensive Care by this time .... that her refusal would certainly shorten her life. She insisted and died a couple of days later, comfortably, with her family and close friends nearby.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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......
Note the issues seen in Canada. The use of assisted suicide in IHT avoidance is darkly funny, in a Holocaust Joke kind of way.
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'.
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.
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.
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/
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!
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.
There is a third option: respectfully disagree.
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
About that having lots of power without people having voted for you..
- 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.
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.
- Afghanistan gets Women's Rights
- Iran gets LGBT
- Russia gets Decolonisation
- Mauritania gets Anti-Slavery
etc
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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..
That's hard to get elected on.
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.
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.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxA-IfRifgE (5 mins)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwU_OR854hs (13 mins)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9lHb7DhyoA (26 mins)
It is often confused with the similarly-titled "corporatocracy", where government is lobbied by large companies. This is not that.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?
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.
Anyway I've got a saying, look after the hundreds of billions and the trillions look after themselves.
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
(Yes, they really do possess a store of fleeces and rainwear to lend out to students on field trips).
It's better than nothing, but not much better.
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.
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
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.
As someone who works in that field - you are utterly insane unless some fundamental problems are fixable, which I see little evidence for.