It's sad how many shits on here are starting to peddle the Musk/MAGA "We need higher fertility rates!" line. Which actually means reducing womens' rights in quite startling ways.
Not necessarily
I worry about fertility rates. But that should be addressed via cost of living, tax incentives etc. not some kind of breeding farm.
As Mrs Foxy and I rather fancy some grandchildren, I too am keen on seeing some births soon!
Cost of living and tax incentives matter, but ultimately it is a free choice of women how many, if any, babies they have. We should consider why it isn't appealing to many. The alternatives of career, consumer goods, travel and relationships are simply better options for many. There is too a problem with men, many of whom don't make for very appealing life partners.
This is one of those complex moral and philosophical questions for which everyone will have their opinion enforced (usually) by personal experience, education, culture and the rest.
Death (especially our own) is a subject with which none of us feel comfortable though as Mr Bulsara once asked "who wants to live forever?" and as a famous Doctor also opined "I want to see what's next". To be blunt, the past happened without us and the future will as well.
The other side to this is what we would want for ourselves and our loved ones and what we would want for everyone else and there's often a conflict.
It's a lot to do with freedom - some might argue the overpowerful State restricts oue right to live how we choose and shouldn't restrict our right to die how we choose. That's a little blunt but free will and individual choice do have a big role to play. If there comes a point when an individual's life is intolerable shouldn't that individual (if of sound mind) have the right to end it on their own terms?
Those suffering with dementia (and that's often not the individual but their loved ones) pose a particular moral dilemma and I've no easy answers for that.
It's one of those issues which requires sober and honest argument.
That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone make that argument but it’s at the crux of the matter.
The State should be entirely neutral on self-willed death. It shouldn’t prosecute suicide. But equally agents of the state (doctors etc) should not be facilitating death.
Assisted dying is the State getting involved where it should have no remit.
59% want assisted dying for themselves. 68% want it for their loved ones.
That 9% is precisely why I think there are problems with this bill.
The penultimate tweet also worrys me. People clearly expect a slippery slope and a degree of pressure on people to kill themselves. I think that a likely outcome too.
why do you think it is a likely outcome. Fecking doctor's have been doing it for ages, the shitty Liverpool pathway they invented as a perfect example.
A friend of mine was effectively put on the 'pathway' by a consultant at Flatlands hospital. She had a blood cancer of some kind.
Something didn't seem quite right so the family kept hassling and it turned out that she also had an infection, which when they eventually decided to treat had her recovering well enough to go home.
She survived pretty well for two years and outlived the doctor, who died of Covid the following year.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Forcing one’s beliefs on the rest of the nation is exactly what politicians of all stripes do.
Not the most positive description of the democratic process
It's no problem for me, because I trust Mrs PtP totally and would be sure she would make the right decision at the right time. Not everyone is so fortunate however, and they are the ones who need to be protected.
There's a lot of devil in the detail of this one, I believe,
What do you think would be the wrong decision?
It's your decision - mentally capable with terminal illness and less that six months to live anyway.
There are too many possible scenarios to generalise but I would certainly trust her judgement if mine no longer could be.
On topic: assisted dying is such an emotive issue that I think we tend to forget that any policy created at scale will have edge cases that are difficult to deal with. Whether or not you are willing to accept the edge cases in an assisted dying policy probably says quite a lot about your personal ethics. In my own case I'm supportive - I think the harm done to the vast majority of people kept alive against their will wins out over the inevitable (but smaller number of) cases of people being pressured into ending their life. But I would find it very hard to legislate this as I've come to realise my own personal ethics are somewhat unusual.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
If they are, and I fear they may well be, then our descendants are basically fucked. The high point of international cooperation has been and gone, and the future is one of nationalist insanity and environmental destruction.
Darwin got it all wrong. We're regressing.
Evolution is not teleological. Darwin never said it always means "progress or improvement"
Yes, things can zig zag. I know that.
Anyway, as I now keep saying to all and sundry, Left Populism is coming. A radical economic offer for the struggling classes without the tacky xenophobic nostalgia that defines the right wing version.
It won't get funded by billionaires (for obvious reasons) but that won't matter once it gets rolling. I'm in. ✊️🕺
(please refrain from the very tedious "lol" if you choose to reply, which you shouldn't feel you have to)
I have seen you suggest this a couple of times and I don't really get it. Left populism would be an utter disaster for all of us (see Venezuela for an obvious example).
Populism is the enemy of progress, both of the left and right variety, and I think of you as a progressive. What's going on?
I mean a politics that shifts wealth and opportunity in favour of those who are in most need without corruption or financial recklessness or xenophobic obsession with borders and immigration. Nothing like Venezuela.
What do you honestly think will happen if Britain becomes, say, 30% Muslim? Or 40%? Think about it, and be honest
He can't. He wants to live in his bubble.
We couldn't accept that level and nor could any European country.
I agree, but that means necessarily at some point:
European countries bring in nation- or culture-specific restrictions on Islamic migration, which at the moment is entirely unpalatable to a lot of lefties, or indeed lots of people (and I can see why)
And/or
European countries start restricting displays of Islamic religion as a deterrent. Minarets, burqas, etc. We already see that in France and Switzerland
And/or
European countries start "voluntary deportation" of migrants. Already happening in Sweden
I predict this will all get a lot worse before it gets better
I think restricting and revoking visas and residency for people who don't align to our cultural values is necessary. It's going to upset people but we're allowing the viper into the nest because people are scared to say that vipers aren't good for nests.
Again, to repeat what I have posted many times in the past, we should be looking to Norway for our example here. 300 hours of compulsory language and culture lessons and immigrants don't get to choose where the live. They are assigned a county where they have to settle to avoid the creation of ghettos. It works.
Does it? Even Norway has serious problems. Probably only Denmark is seriously attempting - with success - to address this. Hence the re-election of their social democrat government, which is hard right - to an eye-watering degree by UK standards - on migration, culture, and asylum
Norway has serious problems with right wing biker gangs buring down churches. They don't have any real issues with immigrant populations - certainly nothing to copare with most other European countries.
If you remember this is why I was so convinced - along with you - that the 2011 attacks would turn out to be a right wing nutter rather than a muslim attack.
Norway is mercifully free of terror attacks, and of course Breivik was the worst by far
However of the 13 attacks since the year 2000, 8 or 9 appear to be Muslim/Islamist - ie the majority
BTW; how many deaths were there in these 13 attacks, just to put things in context for us.
Please, take your time.
Suggesting muslims are not over represented in terror/terrorist attacks would be very brave of you.
I'm not saying that at all. My point is simply that @Richard_Tyndall is spot on that Norway has done a genuinely excellent job of integrating people.
@Leon disagrees based upon the fact that - over a quarter century - there have been half a dozen terrorist incidents in Norway that are attributable to Muslims, of which only one resulted in fatalities (when two people died).
Now, obviously the ideal scenario is zero. But one fatal terrorist incident over 24 years is statistical noise. It is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Hence, I agree with @Richard_Tyndall's point that Norway *has* done a good job of integrating minorities, and especially Muslims.
I'm in Norway and very much enjoying the high levels of trust there are here, such as almost no ticket barriers for anything. People are trusted to have paid for tickets for transport. I hope not too many people are taking advantage of it, particularly tourists.
In a discussion that generated a lot more heat than light last night, the combined analysis of Norway by Richard, Robert and Andy is really useful.
I'm slowly building up to a header about the role of trust in politics; @Andy_JS I couldn't agree more about the feeling of trust in Norway and how big an impact it has on the public realm.
Agree with you on both of those replies.
On assisted dying, it's hard to accept a balance of benefits/harms argument on such an issue, where strong opinions, both moral and emotional, prevail. I doubt that a majority of MPs will be up to the task, preferring as they do the craven punt, to sticking their necks out.
59% want assisted dying for themselves. 68% want it for their loved ones.
That 9% is precisely why I think there are problems with this bill.
The penultimate tweet also worrys me. People clearly expect a slippery slope and a degree of pressure on people to kill themselves. I think that a likely outcome too.
Wherever you draw the line, there will always be hard cases on the other side. So, the pressure will always be for the line to move.
It's sad how many shits on here are starting to peddle the Musk/MAGA "We need higher fertility rates!" line. Which actually means reducing womens' rights in quite startling ways.
Not necessarily
I worry about fertility rates. But that should be addressed via cost of living, tax incentives etc. not some kind of breeding farm.
As Mrs Foxy and I rather fancy some grandchildren, I too am keen on seeing some births soon!
Cost of living and tax incentives matter, but ultimately it is a free choice of women how many, if any, babies they have. We should consider why it isn't appealing to many. The alternatives of career, consumer goods, travel and relationships are simply better options for many. There is too a problem with men, many of whom don't make for very appealing life partners.
I agree with all of that - it is ultimately a question of free choice for women and men.
But if there are positive externalities then it is reasonable for the state to incentivise certain actions
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
I wonder if some countries will get to the point where they tax childless women unless they can show medical cause, together with banning abortion and contraception?
A bit like the reverse of the China one-child policy. Ceaușescu did this and it did raise the birth rate, although it also led to the horror of the Romanian Orphanages.
Russia I believe is doing it, and enacring a law to make it a crime to promote the idea of not having children. But then it does have a particular problem as it has decided to kill a lot of its people in Ukraine
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
I'm surmising, but I think it would be framed around the twin concepts of respect for life, and respect for the sovereignty of God. In general aiui Islam has a stronger concept of 'fate' ("Inshallah") over human agency compared to some other belief systems eg Protestant Christianity. It has a version of what I could characterise as "Calvinist" values.
So a decision to be killed could be seen as an imposition on matters that are not strictly our decision.
I sense that many religious views on the subject emanate from a feeling that life is a gift from whichever god goes with you, and that there is something blasphemous about having agency over the ending of it.
(Snip)
Given how both Christianity and Islam have taken great glee historically in ending life of the 'wrong' people, and of hurting many others, I think that's utterly wrong.
The churches pretend to care about people. In reality, the churches and their hierarchies are about control of the population.
(I see churches as very different from faith.)
I think the picture is more mixed.
OTOH, you have brutal wars of religion. On the other, you have truces of God, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, Just War theory, and religious buildings treated as places of sanctuary. These all had an impact in mitigating the brutality of medieval warfare.
One reason why warfare became more atrocious in the 16th century is that as the Church split, so it lost its authority over men who waged war.
I think the worsening of war is down to improvements in weaponry and associated technology more than a church split. I fear the crusades (and the equivalent Islamic wars of conquest) belie the idea that the religious authorities were not bloodthirsty charlatans. The rules, such that there were, were often broken when it suited the combatants.
As a minor example from history, remember how much Pope Alexander II promoted and encouraged the Norman Invasion.
I’d add in, the growth in the power of the State to raise armies. Peasants could survive an army 5-10,000 soldiers foraging in a district, far better than 30,000.
Medieval laws of war were flouted as often as ours are, but they did exist, and were mostly the work of theologians. But, what is often cited as medieval brutality is often early modern brutality.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
It's sad how many shits on here are starting to peddle the Musk/MAGA "We need higher fertility rates!" line. Which actually means reducing womens' rights in quite startling ways.
Not necessarily
I worry about fertility rates. But that should be addressed via cost of living, tax incentives etc. not some kind of breeding farm.
As Mrs Foxy and I rather fancy some grandchildren, I too am keen on seeing some births soon!
Cost of living and tax incentives matter, but ultimately it is a free choice of women how many, if any, babies they have. We should consider why it isn't appealing to many. The alternatives of career, consumer goods, travel and relationships are simply better options for many. There is too a problem with men, many of whom don't make for very appealing life partners.
I agree with all of that - it is ultimately a question of free choice for women and men.
But if there are positive externalities then it is reasonable for the state to incentivise certain actions
Although... there are a lot more single people. In practice, a lot of incentivising people to have children is just a subsidy for couples. Living on your own is more expensive anyway, it is particularly galling if they introduce tax breaks that have the effect of subsidising well-off couples that already have economies of scale
One of our failures that doesn't have its roots under Mrs.T. Blair/Brown set up Ofcom, and raided the industry for tens of billions to fund current spending, crippling the UK's lead. Downhill since then.
It's no problem for me, because I trust Mrs PtP totally and would be sure she would make the right decision at the right time. Not everyone is so fortunate however, and they are the ones who need to be protected.
There's a lot of devil in the detail of this one, I believe,
Assuming she doesn't predecease you, and is still mentally competent to make the decision when the time comes.
It's no problem for me, because I trust Mrs PtP totally and would be sure she would make the right decision at the right time. Not everyone is so fortunate however, and they are the ones who need to be protected.
There's a lot of devil in the detail of this one, I believe,
However some dumbcluck MP should not be deciding that I have to die in excruating pain over a long period just because they are thick fcukwits. If it is good enough for dogs it should be good enough for humans.
It is a common observation, especially amongst us dog lovers, that we treat animals much better than humans in this respect. It is no easy matter however to extend such consideration to humans, and I'm glad I don't have the job of trying to frame the appropriate laws.
It shouldn't be beyond our wit, but it won't be easy.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
Malc that is sooooooo cute. You’re a big softie at heart 😀 what a lovely gift. I hope she had a great time.
I think with this place many of the people here are privileged and never really had to struggle. I like your combative approach to the BS you see Malc. It is refreshing.
People here were supporting us giving billions a year in climate reparations yesterday. Insane.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
I was astonished by HYUFD's comment as well. "Not allowed to get divorced and forced to have children" is the logical implication I'm drawing from it, I assume that's not what's meant. Observing others misfortune, I'd conclude that long, acrimonious disputes are the worst thing for all parties, including the children.
I have long believed that if I choose to end my own life for health reasons that it should be my choice without having to resort to suicide, or without risking the future freedom of someone who may help me or be aware of my intent.
It's my right I believe.
It has nothing to do with my politics nor my religion.
I welcome the fact this Government has allowed a free vote, I hear and understand the right of politicians of all sides to share their views.
I believe in the right to decide and hopefully a Bill allowing it, with suitable safeguards will be passed.
I hope I don't have to make the choice, but if I do, I simply hope that the choice is there.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
I wonder if some countries will get to the point where they tax childless women unless they can show medical cause, together with banning abortion and contraception?
A bit like the reverse of the China one-child policy. Ceaușescu did this and it did raise the birth rate, although it also led to the horror of the Romanian Orphanages.
Russia I believe is doing it, and enacring a law to make it a crime to promote the idea of not having children. But then it does have a particular problem as it has decided to kill a lot of its people in Ukraine
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
I wonder if some countries will get to the point where they tax childless women unless they can show medical cause, together with banning abortion and contraception?
A bit like the reverse of the China one-child policy. Ceaușescu did this and it did raise the birth rate, although it also led to the horror of the Romanian Orphanages.
Russia I believe is doing it, and enacring a law to make it a crime to promote the idea of not having children. But then it does have a particular problem as it has decided to kill a lot of its people in Ukraine
And more young men will never return, after fleeing abroad.
Fortunately for us, Russia does things in ways that are brutal, inefficient, and self-defeating.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
I think Occam’s Razor strips it back to Starmer & co being terrible at presentational politics. This has been disguised by years of the Tories being terrible at governing but Labour really need to get their act together and get some coaching on principled populism.
We probably need a plan to rebuild the army, navy and to some extent the air force (this is a trickier one that I'll come back to) over a 5-10 year period, with an industrial strategy to boot, otherwise any extra money will simply be absorbed by inflation. On top, we'd need software integration of the defence platforms. Strategic objective should be to protect international and global trade, global stability and British interests worldwide as well as deter a serious "hot" war on the continent or near east, with a large sized force, and the option of a long-term medium sized deployment overseas.
RAF: hypersonic and drone defences, which might be more where the modern RAF needs to go on top of Tempest, if it's still valid, and additional strike capability. I doubt seven front-line squadrons are enough. Of course, we need maritime aircraft.
Royal Navy: is in a pitiful state. The 1998 SDR projected reducing the fleet of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. And we were supposed to get 12 x Type 45 destroyers. But we now actually only have 6 and, I think now, only 12 x frigates, most of which can't put to sea, and 6 x functional HK subs. We need to get back up to 12 x destroyers, 20 x frigates, 12 x attack submarines, four x strategic subs, two amphibious platforms, and a RFA that can sustain them all. We can deploy a serious carrier battlegroup with reserves at any time. Big expansion.
British Army: in an even more pitiful state. At almost every level. Where do you start? Ammo, artillery, fighting vehicles, APCs, tanks and infantry all well below even the most basic establishment levels. The BAOR was about 50k men right though the 1980s and British Forces Germany still 25k men in the 1990s. Whatever way I look at it I think we need the capability for the deployment of two fully equipped heavy war-fighting divisions, with another in reserve and another in training. It probably needs to go back up to about 125,000 regulars which is an expansion of 50,000 men. Massive.
But my fag packet calculations are that we'd need to probably spend 3.5% of GDP ultimately to do all that. So the defence budget need to rise from £57bn per year to about £88-89bn per year or about a 30-32bn increase each year.
I can get there with 2p on the basic rate and the higher rate, so 22p becomes the new basic rate and 42p become the higher rate and 47p the new top rate (raises about £20bn of that) and ending the triple lock (saves about £10bn).
The more I think about it the more I think we have to do it, and start arguing for it..
I could live with that. You?
Yes, pretty much. Some minor caveats: Tempest is probably non-doable and the Americans are thinking about abandoning their next-gen program in favour of continually upgrading F35. So cease all future development and concentrate on adding to, and continually improving what we have. So bring all SA80 rifles up to L85A3 standard, all Challys up to Challenger 3 standard, put cats and traps on the carriers and add drones for refuelling and recon. I haven't a clue what to do with F35 (you can't maintain it on land let alone sea) or Ajax (its shit). But that's just noodling: your plan is sound, and there's nothing more expensive than a second-best army.
I don't see the point of the cats and traps on the carriers.
I think I can foresee anti-drone systems at air bases quite rapidly, and I'd punt for light beam based, or mobile ones deployed tactically (what worked well in Ukraine?). I think I can also see harsher restrictions on drones - Auditors are going to need to watch it, and could be treated as assaults on national security.
I can see Type 32 frigates coming firmly into the programme from the current Hokey-Cokey, as being cost effective.
I can see a further batch of Typhoon being ordered, to latest spec (as Germany?), to bridge a gap. The production lines are still rolling. In addition to a further wave of F35, to Block 4.
Personally, I don't see Tempest being stopped - we are too deep in with Japan / Italy.
Recruitment is a biggie, as is pilot training. As also is air defence, and general fragility caused by concentration of bases to a few airfields and a couple of naval bases.
I think I can see an increased push on CCF in schools, which has been reasonably successfully expanded (aiui) over the last decade. I think I also see something on expansion of reservists.
We have much to learn from Finland and Sweden.
And maybe Ireland will even get a motorised pedalo.
I think one thing to watch for is to the extent the NATO response this week to Putin's latest eye-poke is a unified response.
I disagree with a great deal of Casino's proposals (other than our need to spend a great deal more on defence). The easy and obvious move (which us being done to an extent) is to increase the manufacturing capacity and procurement of munitions, without which the systems we have are useless anyway.
The rest needs an urgent review of future requirements. Carriers, for example - in the form of our hugely expensive floating targets, at least - are quite possibly (probably ?) obsolete.
It would be very easy to spend, and waste, another percent or two of GDP. That would be disastrous.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
People do have strong religious beliefs on subjects such as these, it's why I don't think it's necessarily a suitable topic to be decided entirely by parliament. We could see religious groups campaigning against individual MPs on what should be considered a matter of conscience.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
People do have strong religious beliefs on subjects such as these, it's why I don't think it's necessarily a suitable topic to be decided entirely by parliament. We could see religious groups campaigning against individual MPs on what should be considered a matter of conscience.
That’s democracy and no different to Gaza loons campaigning against MPs over their conscience on the Israel Gaza war.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
Ahhh!
My photo quota of the day. The National Trust cycle racks at Hardwick Hall are the ideal place to park that pony.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
People do have strong religious beliefs on subjects such as these, it's why I don't think it's necessarily a suitable topic to be decided entirely by parliament. We could see religious groups campaigning against individual MPs on what should be considered a matter of conscience.
For them, of course, it *is* a matter of conscience.
Good morning everybody. Quite pleasant here, if rather breezy.
On topic, as one of the two or three here who has gone well past the 'three score and ten' mark, and as someone who has worked with hospice teams,I find the issue very difficult. I do find the suggested process over-complicated; I only hope that Parliament takes it's time over debating, and comes up with a somewhat more sympathetic process. That suggested seems potentially long-winded and indeed, cruel.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
Good morning everybody. Quite pleasant here, if rather breezy.
On topic, as one of the two or three here who has gone well past the 'three score and ten' mark, and as someone who has worked with hospice teams,I find the issue very difficult. I do find the suggested process over-complicated; I only hope that Parliament takes it's time over debating, and comes up with a somewhat more sympathetic process. That suggested seems potentially long-winded and indeed, cruel.
Morning OKC, sunny here with a light breeze, though not very warm.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
Ahhh!
My photo quota of the day. The National Trust cycle racks at Hardwick Hall are the ideal place to park that pony.
Perfect , they will be at least as tall as him, his day name is Harry Potter. I don't remember his fancy show name.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
It’s genuinely interesting that we trust ourselves to take responsibility for animals, but not ourselves or each other.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
I personally find it hard to believe anyone being able to pressure me on it.
Good morning everybody. Quite pleasant here, if rather breezy.
On topic, as one of the two or three here who has gone well past the 'three score and ten' mark, and as someone who has worked with hospice teams,I find the issue very difficult. I do find the suggested process over-complicated; I only hope that Parliament takes it's time over debating, and comes up with a somewhat more sympathetic process. That suggested seems potentially long-winded and indeed, cruel.
Morning OKC, sunny here with a light breeze, though not very warm.
Clouds breaking very nicely now, quite a lot of blue sky. And I agree, it's a super gift.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
(Seriously Malc, that's a lovely present.)
LOL, the horse was indeed the present.
Watch out, though. The smaller the horse/pony, the worse the temper, very often.
I hope you will be chipping in for the vets fees. Horses are very expensive to run….
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
I personally find it hard to believe anyone being able to pressure me on it.
The way I feel sometimes, nowadays, I think I could be.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
(Seriously Malc, that's a lovely present.)
LOL, the horse was indeed the present.
Watch out, though. The smaller the horse/pony, the worse the temper, very often.
I hope you will be chipping in for the vets fees. Horses are very expensive to run….
We've got as far as kittens (see profile pic), and they're proving expensive enough.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
I think Occam’s Razor strips it back to Starmer & co being terrible at presentational politics. This has been disguised by years of the Tories being terrible at governing but Labour really need to get their act together and get some coaching on principled populism.
I think chalking it up to a few presentational difficulties is a bit gamey. How do you present a shit sandwich of a Government in a palatable way?
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
It’s genuinely interesting that we trust ourselves to take responsibility for animals, but not ourselves or each other.
It isn't that interesting. The difference is just that we aren't all that bothered if some cats die rather earlier than they might due to the owners not wanting to pay vets' bills to squeeze out a couple more years, whereas we are if some pensioners are pressured into going out to avoid care home bills eroding their inheritance. It isn't that we care more about cats - it's that we care less.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
I think Occam’s Razor strips it back to Starmer & co being terrible at presentational politics. This has been disguised by years of the Tories being terrible at governing but Labour really need to get their act together and get some coaching on principled populism.
I think chalking it up to a few presentational difficulties is a bit gamey. How do you present a shit sandwich of a Government in a palatable way?
The government are clearly in a rush to get the bad stuff out early in the parliament. Not only that, but they are so taken in by the tough decisions rhetoric they are making things tougher than they need to be.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
I personally find it hard to believe anyone being able to pressure me on it.
On "safeguards", I doubt they can be designed so as to prevent someone believing it is their duty to die for the sake of others - even if they are fully compos mentis
It's sad how many shits on here are starting to peddle the Musk/MAGA "We need higher fertility rates!" line. Which actually means reducing womens' rights in quite startling ways.
Not necessarily
I worry about fertility rates. But that should be addressed via cost of living, tax incentives etc. not some kind of breeding farm.
As Mrs Foxy and I rather fancy some grandchildren, I too am keen on seeing some births soon!
Cost of living and tax incentives matter, but ultimately it is a free choice of women how many, if any, babies they have. We should consider why it isn't appealing to many. The alternatives of career, consumer goods, travel and relationships are simply better options for many. There is too a problem with men, many of whom don't make for very appealing life partners.
I think we've got to be careful about simply assuming it's a free choice by women not to have children. There are loads of pressures on women that affect their choices, not least of which will be economic. Bearing in mind that the explicit message if government policy is to tell people not to have more than two children of they can't afford them - government policy continues to be to reduce the number of children people have. Is there any government in the world with such a policy of reducing the fertility rate?
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
It’s genuinely interesting that we trust ourselves to take responsibility for animals, but not ourselves or each other.
It isn't that interesting. The difference is just that we aren't all that bothered if some cats die rather earlier than they might due to the owners not wanting to pay vets' bills to squeeze out a couple more years, whereas we are if some pensioners are pressured into going out to avoid care home bills eroding their inheritance. It isn't that we care more about cats - it's that we care less.
Isn't it even more simple?
I'm not a cat. There's no risk of someone driving me off to the vet to put me to sleep. If assisted dying is brought in then there's a perceived risk that I will be offed, and the perpetrator will escape justice by convincing people it was all my idea.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
It’s genuinely interesting that we trust ourselves to take responsibility for animals, but not ourselves or each other.
It isn't that interesting. The difference is just that we aren't all that bothered if some cats die rather earlier than they might due to the owners not wanting to pay vets' bills to squeeze out a couple more years, whereas we are if some pensioners are pressured into going out to avoid care home bills eroding their inheritance. It isn't that we care more about cats - it's that we care less.
Dunno if you own pets but that's balls. Our elderly cat is currently costing us c.£300 per month because he's maxed out his insurance for most of his various conditions. I'm pretty sure our vet wouldn't euthanise him just on our say so but we could just stop the meds which would finish him off in pretty short order. Every time we've had a cat put down it's after a sorrowful conversation with the vet (who after all is making money as long as the cat is alive) telling us they'd reached the end of the line.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
There are already multiple safeguards written into the bill. two doctors, a judge, test for coercion etc. And the Committee Stage is yet to come. So it's not a major issue.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
"Net migration at ‘unsustainable’ levels, says government adviser Interview: Prof Brian Bell warns current immigration levels are unsustainable for Britain"
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
I think Occam’s Razor strips it back to Starmer & co being terrible at presentational politics. This has been disguised by years of the Tories being terrible at governing but Labour really need to get their act together and get some coaching on principled populism.
I think chalking it up to a few presentational difficulties is a bit gamey. How do you present a shit sandwich of a Government in a palatable way?
Writes a Liz Truss fanboi.
N.B. Although you have a point, this Government is a bit s***. Not for hounding farmers out of their multi million pound inheritances but doing next to nothing to alleviate one-in-three child poverty and nothing about homelessness and vagrancy.
Good morning everybody. Quite pleasant here, if rather breezy.
On topic, as one of the two or three here who has gone well past the 'three score and ten' mark, and as someone who has worked with hospice teams,I find the issue very difficult. I do find the suggested process over-complicated; I only hope that Parliament takes it's time over debating, and comes up with a somewhat more sympathetic process. That suggested seems potentially long-winded and indeed, cruel.
Morning OKC, sunny here with a light breeze, though not very warm.
Morning Malky and OKC. Same here, but warming up a little is the forecast.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
I think Occam’s Razor strips it back to Starmer & co being terrible at presentational politics. This has been disguised by years of the Tories being terrible at governing but Labour really need to get their act together and get some coaching on principled populism.
I think chalking it up to a few presentational difficulties is a bit gamey. How do you present a shit sandwich of a Government in a palatable way?
Writes a Liz Truss fanboi.
N.B. Although you have a point, this Government is a bit s***. Not for hounding farmers out of their multi million pound inheritances but doing next to nothing to alleviate one-in-three child poverty and nothing about homelessness and vagrancy.
And have HMG done something about HMRC staffing? Especially investigators, who were being run down by the last lot for reasons which were blindingly obvious and self-serving. I see that tax investigators produce a payback of about 20X on their salary, so I'd hope that particular investment is being made.
SLIPPERY SLOPE In the UK there is no slippery slope. Any change to the legislation would have to be voted through by a majority in Parliament. It can't slide down a slope!
COERCION Currently many old people give up living because they feel, or are persuaded, that they are a burden. There is no scrutiny. Under the proposed legislation there will be scrutiny. It will be an improvement.
IMPROVED PALLIATIVE CARE It's not EITHOR/OR. It's AND. Improved palliative care AND assisted dying.
LIBERALISM To deny people the choice of an assisted death because you personally don't approve of it is deeply illiberal.
On Defence I think there are three main challenges: money, people and technology.
The money one is the one that gets most attention and, despite the precarious nature of Britain's economy and public finances, it's probably the easiest to fix. Yes. Britain needs to spend a lot more money. And, yes, that means higher taxes and lower spending on other things.
People is a much tougher issue. Even with the reduced recruitment targets, recruitment is falling short. We might want to double the size of the Navy, but where do the sailors and engineering specialists come from to keep those ships at sea?
And then there's technology. It's always been hard to predict which weapons will be required for the next war and, for example, the importance of artillery in the Russo-Ukraine War has rather caught a lot of people unprepared. Development and procurement timescales are too long in Britain, and these need to be shortened to react to developments and ensure that large sums of money are not spent on obsolete equipment.
The other challenge is that Britain would have to accept that some mistakes will be made, and to adopt a mindset that is willing to move on from mistakes, rather than to be paralysed into inaction by the fear of making future mistakes. Let's make the best decisions we can now, accepting that we might have to revise them in the future.
On "safeguards", I doubt they can be designed so as to prevent someone believing it is their duty to die for the sake of others - even if they are fully compos mentis
That's their choice. It is now, but with zero safeguards.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
I personally find it hard to believe anyone being able to pressure me on it.
The way I feel sometimes, nowadays, I think I could be.
There are times when assisted dying has its place, but it is maybe easy to support it, but then would we have the desire to use it in the circumstances or rather have an endurable end of life with palliative care
My sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but lived 2 years before passing away under palliative care and though she was taking huge doses of pain medication, including morphine, I doubt she would have taken her own life
The other problematic issue is the 6 month diagnosis, as it is far from certain that medics can predict the timing of death
A very complex subject which needs enormous safeguards
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
(Seriously Malc, that's a lovely present.)
LOL, the horse was indeed the present.
Watch out, though. The smaller the horse/pony, the worse the temper, very often.
I hope you will be chipping in for the vets fees. Horses are very expensive to run….
We've got as far as kittens (see profile pic), and they're proving expensive enough.
They've taken over their own bed for starters. Slippery slope that....
"Net migration at ‘unsustainable’ levels, says government adviser Interview: Prof Brian Bell warns current immigration levels are unsustainable for Britain"
But your chap Alexander Johnson explained that after Brexit and after those nasty Eastern Europeans went back from whence they came we could invite "our friends" from essentially all points outside Europe to fill in the resulting vacancies created.
On Defence I think there are three main challenges: money, people and technology.
The money one is the one that gets most attention and, despite the precarious nature of Britain's economy and public finances, it's probably the easiest to fix. Yes. Britain needs to spend a lot more money. And, yes, that means higher taxes and lower spending on other things.
People is a much tougher issue. Even with the reduced recruitment targets, recruitment is falling short. We might want to double the size of the Navy, but where do the sailors and engineering specialists come from to keep those ships at sea?
And then there's technology. It's always been hard to predict which weapons will be required for the next war and, for example, the importance of artillery in the Russo-Ukraine War has rather caught a lot of people unprepared. Development and procurement timescales are too long in Britain, and these need to be shortened to react to developments and ensure that large sums of money are not spent on obsolete equipment.
The other challenge is that Britain would have to accept that some mistakes will be made, and to adopt a mindset that is willing to move on from mistakes, rather than to be paralysed into inaction by the fear of making future mistakes. Let's make the best decisions we can now, accepting that we might have to revise them in the future.
I've highlighted the key point and it's true of the Police as well. Politicians promise they will recruit "thousands" of extra officers but do they?
There is chronic under-employment in many sectors yet at the same time a growing number of economically inactive. Part of it is the demographic profile which has been known about for decades but about which successive Governments did little or nothing.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
I was astonished by HYUFD's comment as well. "Not allowed to get divorced and forced to have children" is the logical implication I'm drawing from it, I assume that's not what's meant. Observing others misfortune, I'd conclude that long, acrimonious disputes are the worst thing for all parties, including the children.
When're the Married Women's Property Acts going to be repealed, then?
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
I personally find it hard to believe anyone being able to pressure me on it.
The way I feel sometimes, nowadays, I think I could be.
There are times when assisted dying has its place, but it is maybe easy to support it, but then would we have the desire to use it in the circumstances or rather have an endurable end of life with palliative care
My sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but lived 2 years before passing away under palliative care and though she was taking huge doses of pain medication, including morphine, I doubt she would have taken her own life
The other problematic issue is the 6 month diagnosis, as it is far from certain that medics can predict the timing of death
A very complex subject which needs enormous safeguards
You're absolutely right about the 6 month diagnosis.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
It’s genuinely interesting that we trust ourselves to take responsibility for animals, but not ourselves or each other.
It isn't that interesting. The difference is just that we aren't all that bothered if some cats die rather earlier than they might due to the owners not wanting to pay vets' bills to squeeze out a couple more years, whereas we are if some pensioners are pressured into going out to avoid care home bills eroding their inheritance. It isn't that we care more about cats - it's that we care less.
Dunno if you own pets but that's balls. Our elderly cat is currently costing us c.£300 per month because he's maxed out his insurance for most of his various conditions. I'm pretty sure our vet wouldn't euthanise him just on our say so but we could just stop the meds which would finish him off in pretty short order. Every time we've had a cat put down it's after a sorrowful conversation with the vet (who after all is making money as long as the cat is alive) telling us they'd reached the end of the line.
That's all lovely, and I'd do the same. But vets quite often put down cats that are elderly and have health conditions that are costing the owner a lot of money.
I'm delighted that you see £300 a month spent on an elderly cat is worth it. But not everyone does. There are certainly appreciable numbers that are put down in those circumstances, and that's not seen as being as much of a worry by any means as it would if they were human.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
I wonder if some countries will get to the point where they tax childless women unless they can show medical cause, together with banning abortion and contraception?
A bit like the reverse of the China one-child policy. Ceaușescu did this and it did raise the birth rate, although it also led to the horror of the Romanian Orphanages.
Isn't that exactly what we are seeing in Trumpistan?
Yes, to some extent. But are they restricting contraception and taxing childlessness?
I expect the most extreme policies on this to be outside the West. But we won't hear much criticism of that due to cultural relativism.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
(Seriously Malc, that's a lovely present.)
LOL, the horse was indeed the present.
Watch out, though. The smaller the horse/pony, the worse the temper, very often.
I hope you will be chipping in for the vets fees. Horses are very expensive to run….
Don't I know it , she has had horses for a long time.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
I personally find it hard to believe anyone being able to pressure me on it.
The way I feel sometimes, nowadays, I think I could be.
There are times when assisted dying has its place, but it is maybe easy to support it, but then would we have the desire to use it in the circumstances or rather have an endurable end of life with palliative care
My sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but lived 2 years before passing away under palliative care and though she was taking huge doses of pain medication, including morphine, I doubt she would have taken her own life
The other problematic issue is the 6 month diagnosis, as it is far from certain that medics can predict the timing of death
A very complex subject which needs enormous safeguards
You're absolutely right about the 6 month diagnosis.
Referring to my sister, she had a DNR and I was called to her nursing home, as she was very ill, and the nursing home had summoned an ambulance and the paramedics were there when I arrived
I referred them to the DNR and asked whether she should remain in the nursing home care and was told, politely, it was my decision but that they should take her to hospital
That is an impossibe position to be in, but I felt I had to allow her to go to hospital where she died 3 hours later
I was required to formally identify her body, then had to wait whilst the police were called to interview me as she had died so soon on arrival at the hospital
It was bizarre and after the police interview her death was confirmed
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
(Seriously Malc, that's a lovely present.)
LOL, the horse was indeed the present.
Watch out, though. The smaller the horse/pony, the worse the temper, very often.
I hope you will be chipping in for the vets fees. Horses are very expensive to run….
Don't I know it , she has had horses for a long time.
This is one of those complex moral and philosophical questions for which everyone will have their opinion enforced (usually) by personal experience, education, culture and the rest.
Death (especially our own) is a subject with which none of us feel comfortable though as Mr Bulsara once asked "who wants to live forever?" and as a famous Doctor also opined "I want to see what's next". To be blunt, the past happened without us and the future will as well.
The other side to this is what we would want for ourselves and our loved ones and what we would want for everyone else and there's often a conflict.
It's a lot to do with freedom - some might argue the overpowerful State restricts oue right to live how we choose and shouldn't restrict our right to die how we choose. That's a little blunt but free will and individual choice do have a big role to play. If there comes a point when an individual's life is intolerable shouldn't that individual (if of sound mind) have the right to end it on their own terms?
Those suffering with dementia (and that's often not the individual but their loved ones) pose a particular moral dilemma and I've no easy answers for that.
It's one of those issues which requires sober and honest argument.
That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone make that argument but it’s at the crux of the matter.
The State should be entirely neutral on self-willed death. It shouldn’t prosecute suicide. But equally agents of the state (doctors etc) should not be facilitating death.
Assisted dying is the State getting involved where it should have no remit.
Except that doctors exist to serve the patient, not the state.
If the patient makes their will clear, the doctors should do what the patient chooses. They are acting as agents of the patient then, not agents of the state.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
I'd have thought the practical risk of a cat being pressured into ending its life prematurely by rapacious kittens is acceptably low.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
I personally find it hard to believe anyone being able to pressure me on it.
The way I feel sometimes, nowadays, I think I could be.
There are times when assisted dying has its place, but it is maybe easy to support it, but then would we have the desire to use it in the circumstances or rather have an endurable end of life with palliative care
My sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but lived 2 years before passing away under palliative care and though she was taking huge doses of pain medication, including morphine, I doubt she would have taken her own life
The other problematic issue is the 6 month diagnosis, as it is far from certain that medics can predict the timing of death
A very complex subject which needs enormous safeguards
You're absolutely right about the 6 month diagnosis.
And for other purposes, eg benefits, government has now adopted a 1 year rule, rather than the previous 6 months. So inconsistent
"Net migration at ‘unsustainable’ levels, says government adviser Interview: Prof Brian Bell warns current immigration levels are unsustainable for Britain"
But your chap Alexander Johnson explained that after Brexit and after those nasty Eastern Europeans went back from whence they came we could invite "our friends" from essentially all points outside Europe to fill in the resulting vacancies created.
Don't forget Al got all the "big calls right".
Yes, Johnson's populist open door policy has got to be reversed. Now the grown ups are in charge we can clamp down hard.
It's no problem for me, because I trust Mrs PtP totally and would be sure she would make the right decision at the right time. Not everyone is so fortunate however, and they are the ones who need to be protected.
There's a lot of devil in the detail of this one, I believe,
Assuming she doesn't predecease you, and is still mentally competent to make the decision when the time comes.
Naturally, Scott, I took the precaution of selecting a wife who was young and fit enough for me to be confident it would be her looking after me,and not the other way about. I heed your words, however, and can assure you that in the event of an unforeseen decline in either her mental or physical powers, I shall trade her in sharp.
It's no problem for me, because I trust Mrs PtP totally and would be sure she would make the right decision at the right time. Not everyone is so fortunate however, and they are the ones who need to be protected.
There's a lot of devil in the detail of this one, I believe,
Assuming she doesn't predecease you, and is still mentally competent to make the decision when the time comes.
Naturally, Scott, I took the precaution of selecting a wife who was young and fit enough for me to be confident it would be her looking after me,and not the other way about. I heed your words, however, and can assure you that in the event of an unforeseen decline in either her mental or physical powers, I shall trade her in sharp.
As one would.
As Tony Curtis said when a journalist asked him about the huge age gap between him and his latest wife:
I'm quite sure that those in favour of assisted dying will be using this survey as support for the proposals, probably during the bit over a couple of hours they have to debate it.
If there is ever a topic that should require a referendum after a public debate, it is this. Especially when not one single party (to my knowledge) included this in their GE manifestos just a matter of months ago. It's almost as if it is being pushed through by vested interests.
My wife works in social care assessing the care needs of the typical person that this will be relevant to. I can safely say that there will be many families perfectly happy to push and coerce people down this route. Especially where money is concerned and where it is being eaten up by care requirements.
Personally, I tend to lean towards favouring it, but not in the way it is being pushed through.
I have just noticed that several of @leon's posts got flagged yesterday including one in reply to me.
For @leon's information I didn't flag it and frankly it didn't deserve flagging either.
Can I ask the moderators: Do we need the flag button and if so why is it anonymous? If someone does post something that the forum thinks should be reported we can always message the moderators.
Similarly can we remove the private setting for each individual's activity. There is nothing private under the setting and posters should not be able to keep their past posts secret. If I am ever embarrassed about a posting or get something obviously wrong I apologise or correct it.
I note that several times it has cropped up that posters were unaware they were private, which I guess is the case in the majority of cases and this is a very useful tool.
We should also not forget the suffering many terminally ill people go through. Palliative care can be good, but drugs cannot always take away all the pain, and large quantities of painkillers can turn life into a mere shadowy existence.
This is one of those complex moral and philosophical questions for which everyone will have their opinion enforced (usually) by personal experience, education, culture and the rest.
Death (especially our own) is a subject with which none of us feel comfortable though as Mr Bulsara once asked "who wants to live forever?" and as a famous Doctor also opined "I want to see what's next". To be blunt, the past happened without us and the future will as well.
The other side to this is what we would want for ourselves and our loved ones and what we would want for everyone else and there's often a conflict.
It's a lot to do with freedom - some might argue the overpowerful State restricts oue right to live how we choose and shouldn't restrict our right to die how we choose. That's a little blunt but free will and individual choice do have a big role to play. If there comes a point when an individual's life is intolerable shouldn't that individual (if of sound mind) have the right to end it on their own terms?
Those suffering with dementia (and that's often not the individual but their loved ones) pose a particular moral dilemma and I've no easy answers for that.
It's one of those issues which requires sober and honest argument.
That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone make that argument but it’s at the crux of the matter.
The State should be entirely neutral on self-willed death. It shouldn’t prosecute suicide. But equally agents of the state (doctors etc) should not be facilitating death.
Assisted dying is the State getting involved where it should have no remit.
Except that doctors exist to serve the patient, not the state.
If the patient makes their will clear, the doctors should do what the patient chooses. They are acting as agents of the patient then, not agents of the state.
I don’t think that’s how doctors would see their role at all.
Plenty of doctors would flatly refuse to things their patients want, if they believe it to be contrary to their patients’ interests or medical ethics.
We should also not forget the suffering many terminally ill people go through. Palliative care can be good, but drugs cannot always take away all the pain, and large quantities of painkillers can turn life into a mere shadowy existence.
Well said.
It is a horrendous death sometimes that has utterly no dignity to it.
If someone wants to die then that should be nobody else's business but the patient.
And doctors should serve the patients interest and nobody else's.
Anyone who doesn't like it, can make a different choice. Free will.
This is one of those complex moral and philosophical questions for which everyone will have their opinion enforced (usually) by personal experience, education, culture and the rest.
Death (especially our own) is a subject with which none of us feel comfortable though as Mr Bulsara once asked "who wants to live forever?" and as a famous Doctor also opined "I want to see what's next". To be blunt, the past happened without us and the future will as well.
The other side to this is what we would want for ourselves and our loved ones and what we would want for everyone else and there's often a conflict.
It's a lot to do with freedom - some might argue the overpowerful State restricts oue right to live how we choose and shouldn't restrict our right to die how we choose. That's a little blunt but free will and individual choice do have a big role to play. If there comes a point when an individual's life is intolerable shouldn't that individual (if of sound mind) have the right to end it on their own terms?
Those suffering with dementia (and that's often not the individual but their loved ones) pose a particular moral dilemma and I've no easy answers for that.
It's one of those issues which requires sober and honest argument.
That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone make that argument but it’s at the crux of the matter.
The State should be entirely neutral on self-willed death. It shouldn’t prosecute suicide. But equally agents of the state (doctors etc) should not be facilitating death.
Assisted dying is the State getting involved where it should have no remit.
Except that doctors exist to serve the patient, not the state.
If the patient makes their will clear, the doctors should do what the patient chooses. They are acting as agents of the patient then, not agents of the state.
I don’t think that’s how doctors would see their role at all.
Plenty of doctors would flatly refuse to things their patients want, if they believe it to be contrary to their patients’ interests or medical ethics.
I disagree. Those doctors still see themselves as serving the patient, just that they know better for the patient, not agents of the state.
Agents of the state is a totally different meaning. If the state were decreeing that people must die, whether they want to or not, then any doctors executing people like that would indeed be acting as agents of the state. But that is not remotely the proposal and never would be.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
Ahhh!
My photo quota of the day. The National Trust cycle racks at Hardwick Hall are the ideal place to park that pony.
Perfect , they will be at least as tall as him, his day name is Harry Potter. I don't remember his fancy show name.
I think they are about 2'8" to the cross bar.
When I'm explaining to the staff why they need to improve their cycle racks (various things make those inaccessible, unsurveilled and idenified on Google Streetview, no luxury free charging for e-bikes etc) I always suggest that they should make a Bugsy Malone Spaghetti Western. They actually have a metal frame on the inner side of the horse fencing.
I'm quite sure that those in favour of assisted dying will be using this survey as support for the proposals, probably during the bit over a couple of hours they have to debate it.
If there is ever a topic that should require a referendum after a public debate, it is this. Especially when not one single party (to my knowledge) included this in their GE manifestos just a matter of months ago. It's almost as if it is being pushed through by vested interests.
My wife works in social care assessing the care needs of the typical person that this will be relevant to. I can safely say that there will be many families perfectly happy to push and coerce people down this route. Especially where money is concerned and where it is being eaten up by care requirements.
Personally, I tend to lean towards favouring it, but not in the way it is being pushed through.
We elect MP's, surely, to make informed decisions, since they have, or ought to have, access to all the necessary information. It is, of course, open to constituents to try and influence MP's. On your third paragraph I have some experience there which supports your view. It is, or was when I was concerned with these things, sometimes difficult to persuade relatives to agree to a 'loved one' being taken out of a geriatric ward, where care is free, and sent to a care home where it isn't.
It's no problem for me, because I trust Mrs PtP totally and would be sure she would make the right decision at the right time. Not everyone is so fortunate however, and they are the ones who need to be protected.
There's a lot of devil in the detail of this one, I believe,
Assuming she doesn't predecease you, and is still mentally competent to make the decision when the time comes.
Naturally, Scott, I took the precaution of selecting a wife who was young and fit enough for me to be confident it would be her looking after me,and not the other way about. I heed your words, however, and can assure you that in the event of an unforeseen decline in either her mental or physical powers, I shall trade her in sharp.
As one would.
As Tony Curtis said when a journalist asked him about the huge age gap between him and his latest wife:
"What can I say? If she dies, she dies...."
My cousin at his wedding, "One behalf of my first wife and I..."
Comments
Cost of living and tax incentives matter, but ultimately it is a free choice of women how many, if any, babies they have. We should consider why it isn't appealing to many. The alternatives of career, consumer goods, travel and relationships are simply better options for many. There is too a problem with men, many of whom don't make for very appealing life partners.
The State should be entirely neutral on self-willed death. It shouldn’t prosecute suicide. But equally agents of the state (doctors etc) should not be facilitating death.
Assisted dying is the State getting involved where it should have no remit.
Something didn't seem quite right so the family kept hassling and it turned out that she also had an infection, which when they eventually decided to treat had her recovering well enough to go home.
She survived pretty well for two years and outlived the doctor, who died of Covid the following year.
How could you frame a law around that though?
On assisted dying, it's hard to accept a balance of benefits/harms argument on such an issue, where strong opinions, both moral and emotional, prevail.
I doubt that a majority of MPs will be up to the task, preferring as they do the craven punt, to sticking their necks out.
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1860604048216408418?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
‘The Oregon assisted dying law has barely been altered in three decades.’
I find it hard to believe this polling: that only 59% would want it for themselves if they are in that condition.
But if there are positive externalities then it is reasonable for the state to incentivise certain actions
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
Medieval laws of war were flouted as often as ours are, but they did exist, and were mostly the work of theologians. But, what is often cited as medieval brutality is often early modern brutality.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
https://bsky.app/profile/labourlewis.bsky.social/post/3lbiiht5u7c2z
One of our failures that doesn't have its roots under Mrs.T.
Blair/Brown set up Ofcom, and raided the industry for tens of billions to fund current spending, crippling the UK's lead.
Downhill since then.
The rich country with the worst mobile-phone service
https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/11/11/the-rich-country-with-the-worst-mobile-phone-service
The service in London is an absolute disgrace for a global capital.
It is a common observation, especially amongst us dog lovers, that we treat animals much better than humans in this respect. It is no easy matter however to extend such consideration to humans, and I'm glad I don't have the job of trying to frame the appropriate laws.
It shouldn't be beyond our wit, but it won't be easy.
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
(Seriously Malc, that's a lovely present.)
I think with this place many of the people here are privileged and never really had to struggle. I like your combative approach to the BS you see Malc. It is refreshing.
People here were supporting us giving billions a year in climate reparations yesterday. Insane.
"Not allowed to get divorced and forced to have children" is the logical implication I'm drawing from it, I assume that's not what's meant.
Observing others misfortune, I'd conclude that long, acrimonious disputes are the worst thing for all parties, including the children.
It's my right I believe.
It has nothing to do with my politics nor my religion.
I welcome the fact this Government has allowed a free vote, I hear and understand the right of politicians of all sides to share their views.
I believe in the right to decide and hopefully a Bill allowing it, with suitable safeguards will be passed.
I hope I don't have to make the choice, but if I do, I simply hope that the choice is there.
I think we all want to see this govt succeed but so far it has been a dud.
My worry is relaunches rarely work.
Fortunately for us, Russia does things in ways that are brutal, inefficient, and self-defeating.
The easy and obvious move (which us being done to an extent) is to increase the manufacturing capacity and procurement of munitions, without which the systems we have are useless anyway.
The rest needs an urgent review of future requirements. Carriers, for example - in the form of our hugely expensive floating targets, at least - are quite possibly (probably ?) obsolete.
It would be very easy to spend, and waste, another percent or two of GDP.
That would be disastrous.
My photo quota of the day. The National Trust cycle racks at Hardwick Hall are the ideal place to park that pony.
(Well, when I say worth, I mean cost...)
On topic, as one of the two or three here who has gone well past the 'three score and ten' mark, and as someone who has worked with hospice teams,I find the issue very difficult. I do find the suggested process over-complicated; I only hope that Parliament takes it's time over debating, and comes up with a somewhat more sympathetic process. That suggested seems potentially long-winded and indeed, cruel.
I mean, I get the point you're trying to make, but surely the blindingly obvious difference is the need for, and importance of, strict safeguards for humans.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860497526769561668
And I agree, it's a super gift.
I hope you will be chipping in for the vets fees. Horses are very expensive to run….
I'm not a cat. There's no risk of someone driving me off to the vet to put me to sleep. If assisted dying is brought in then there's a perceived risk that I will be offed, and the perpetrator will escape justice by convincing people it was all my idea.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Interview: Prof Brian Bell warns current immigration levels are unsustainable for Britain"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/24/net-migration-at-unsustainable-levels-government-adviser/
N.B. Although you have a point, this Government is a bit s***. Not for hounding farmers out of their multi million pound inheritances but doing next to nothing to alleviate one-in-three child poverty and nothing about homelessness and vagrancy.
Good to have OKC's take.
SLIPPERY SLOPE In the UK there is no slippery slope. Any change to the legislation would have to be voted through by a majority in Parliament. It can't slide down a slope!
COERCION Currently many old people give up living because they feel, or are persuaded, that they are a burden. There is no scrutiny. Under the proposed legislation there will be scrutiny. It will be an improvement.
IMPROVED PALLIATIVE CARE
It's not EITHOR/OR. It's AND.
Improved palliative care AND assisted dying.
LIBERALISM
To deny people the choice of an assisted death because you personally don't approve of it is deeply illiberal.
The money one is the one that gets most attention and, despite the precarious nature of Britain's economy and public finances, it's probably the easiest to fix. Yes. Britain needs to spend a lot more money. And, yes, that means higher taxes and lower spending on other things.
People is a much tougher issue. Even with the reduced recruitment targets, recruitment is falling short. We might want to double the size of the Navy, but where do the sailors and engineering specialists come from to keep those ships at sea?
And then there's technology. It's always been hard to predict which weapons will be required for the next war and, for example, the importance of artillery in the Russo-Ukraine War has rather caught a lot of people unprepared. Development and procurement timescales are too long in Britain, and these need to be shortened to react to developments and ensure that large sums of money are not spent on obsolete equipment.
The other challenge is that Britain would have to accept that some mistakes will be made, and to adopt a mindset that is willing to move on from mistakes, rather than to be paralysed into inaction by the fear of making future mistakes. Let's make the best decisions we can now, accepting that we might have to revise them in the future.
My sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but lived 2 years before passing away under palliative care and though she was taking huge doses of pain medication, including morphine, I doubt she would have taken her own life
The other problematic issue is the 6 month diagnosis, as it is far from certain that medics can predict the timing of death
A very complex subject which needs enormous safeguards
Don't forget Al got all the "big calls right".
There is chronic under-employment in many sectors yet at the same time a growing number of economically inactive. Part of it is the demographic profile which has been known about for decades but about which successive Governments did little or nothing.
I'm delighted that you see £300 a month spent on an elderly cat is worth it. But not everyone does. There are certainly appreciable numbers that are put down in those circumstances, and that's not seen as being as much of a worry by any means as it would if they were human.
I expect the most extreme policies on this to be outside the West. But we won't hear much criticism of that due to cultural relativism.
I referred them to the DNR and asked whether she should remain in the nursing home care and was told, politely, it was my decision but that they should take her to hospital
That is an impossibe position to be in, but I felt I had to allow her to go to hospital where she died 3 hours later
I was required to formally identify her body, then had to wait whilst the police were called to interview me as she had died so soon on arrival at the hospital
It was bizarre and after the police interview her death was confirmed
If the patient makes their will clear, the doctors should do what the patient chooses. They are acting as agents of the patient then, not agents of the state.
As one would.
"What can I say? If she dies, she dies...."
If there is ever a topic that should require a referendum after a public debate, it is this. Especially when not one single party (to my knowledge) included this in their GE manifestos just a matter of months ago. It's almost as if it is being pushed through by vested interests.
My wife works in social care assessing the care needs of the typical person that this will be relevant to. I can safely say that there will be many families perfectly happy to push and coerce people down this route. Especially where money is concerned and where it is being eaten up by care requirements.
Personally, I tend to lean towards favouring it, but not in the way it is being pushed through.
For @leon's information I didn't flag it and frankly it didn't deserve flagging either.
Can I ask the moderators: Do we need the flag button and if so why is it anonymous? If someone does post something that the forum thinks should be reported we can always message the moderators.
Similarly can we remove the private setting for each individual's activity. There is nothing private under the setting and posters should not be able to keep their past posts secret. If I am ever embarrassed about a posting or get something obviously wrong I apologise or correct it.
I note that several times it has cropped up that posters were unaware they were private, which I guess is the case in the majority of cases and this is a very useful tool.
Haven't we had an enquiry on the Birmingham pub bombings already?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jynrg79j2o
Plenty of doctors would flatly refuse to things their patients want, if they believe it to be contrary to their patients’ interests or medical ethics.
It is a horrendous death sometimes that has utterly no dignity to it.
If someone wants to die then that should be nobody else's business but the patient.
And doctors should serve the patients interest and nobody else's.
Anyone who doesn't like it, can make a different choice. Free will.
Agents of the state is a totally different meaning. If the state were decreeing that people must die, whether they want to or not, then any doctors executing people like that would indeed be acting as agents of the state. But that is not remotely the proposal and never would be.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
When I'm explaining to the staff why they need to improve their cycle racks (various things make those inaccessible, unsurveilled and idenified on Google Streetview, no luxury free charging for e-bikes
On your third paragraph I have some experience there which supports your view. It is, or was when I was concerned with these things, sometimes difficult to persuade relatives to agree to a 'loved one' being taken out of a geriatric ward, where care is free, and sent to a care home where it isn't.
Maybe they need to say how much we are responsible for and where it is coming from