Hell – politicalbetting.com

IanB2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I do think this country will be quite different by the end of 2029. Labour is certainly shaking a lot of things up.

If only that were true.

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.

Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.

I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.

Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.

I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.

You could be fined for non attendance of a C of E church every Sunday here from 1558 until 1888 via the Act of Uniformity (albeit nonconformist worship was tolerated from 1689 and Roman Catholic worship from 1791)

Times vary, but enforcement by human systems goes on. You can be fined for going on holiday in term time or failing to send your children to school now, but not then. The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. We will be the past one day.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I do think this country will be quite different by the end of 2029. Labour is certainly shaking a lot of things up.

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.

I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed

You need to wise up.

The state enables people to be killed, all the time.

Just not those condemned by illness to soon be dead, anyway.

Only the likes of terrorists threatening to kill others immediately. It is interesting to see traditional Conservatives like me finding some common cause with some otherwise leftwing Labour MPs on this issue

Andy_JS said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just look at the questions Opinium have just polled me on.

I will do several threads on this poll when they publish the results.

Never except to pay my barber. Cash is pointless.

Cash has a real-ness about it that electronic payments don't have.

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

The other lens through which to view the bill is that of personal autonomy.

Here's an extreme example of the consequences of allowing the religious to deny individuals their personal autonomy.

Women arrested by Taliban for begging report rape and killings in Afghan jails
Draconian new laws allow mass incarceration of women and children forced to beg because of work ban
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/29/afghanistan-taliban-women-children-arrested-begging-rape-torture-killings-jails-destitution-work-ban

Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.

I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish

If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.

It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians

My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.

For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.

Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.

Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too

Which was not what you were saying yesterday...

But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.

No, men's role has traditionally been that of the wage earner and bread winner and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home.

Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home

"traditionally"

I'm sad that Conservativism has (apparently) become stuck in unthinking appeals to "tradition" rather than responding to the changing needs of the times. It feels more akin to the pre-Disraeli Party that seemed solely to exist to defend the landed aristocracy. It's not at all like the party that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918, or championed free-market economics in the 1980s.

IanB2 said:

Nevertheless the course of history has been for sensible folk like the most of us, to secure freedoms to escape from the control-freakery of folks like you.

Chelyabinsk said:

IanB2 said:

Nevertheless the course of history has been for sensible folk like the most of us, to secure freedoms to escape from the control-freakery of folks like you.

Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.

SandyRentool said:

Taz said:

Something going down in Syria.

Syrian rebel forces have entered Aleppo. Assad’s troops barely putting up a fight.

No Russia to protect Assad either.

https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1862490901748105588?s=61

Are these the good rebels that we should be cheering on, or the bad rebels we should be condemning as terrorists?

Chelyabinsk said:

IanB2 said:

Nevertheless the course of history has been for sensible folk like the most of us, to secure freedoms to escape from the control-freakery of folks like you.

Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.

Barnesian said:

Yes a bigger majority than I expected. Good.

MarqueeMark said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

I do think this country will be quite different by the end of 2029. Labour is certainly shaking a lot of things up.

If only perceptions of how crap a Labour Government can be....

mwadams said:

I'm still hope to see improved drafting as the bill progresses, but I agree. This is being done in a thoughtful, non-partisan and generally responsible fashion.

IanB2 said:

Don’t miss the anti puppy smuggling bill, up next…

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

This is not a partisan debate or subject

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

This is not a partisan debate or subject

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

This is not a partisan debate or subject

It seems unlikely to have passed under the Tories, so whilst it was a free vote it is connected to Labour being in power and having the votes.

HYUFD said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.

Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all

Burgessian said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Jonathan said:

Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent

A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.

Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame

So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.

A deal of disestablishment plus a financial guarantee for the maintenance of, say, the best 5000-6000 churches, as religious or in due course community assets, with a bias to those in neglected areas would be OK with this middle of the road CoE member.

(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).

Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

This is not a partisan debate or subject

It seems unlikely to have passed under the Tories, so whilst it was a free vote it is connected to Labour being in power and having the votes.

I really think it is a shame that such a respectful and well argued case across the house should now be claimed as a Labour win

This is not in the spirit of today when Parliament as a whole voted democratically and not on partisan lines

algarkirk said:

Burgessian said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Jonathan said:

Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent

A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.

Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame

So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.

A deal of disestablishment plus a financial guarantee for the maintenance of, say, the best 5000-6000 churches, as religious or in due course community assets, with a bias to those in neglected areas would be OK with this middle of the road CoE member.

(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).

Simon Jenkins's "1,000 Best Churches" is very good. Led me to take a look at Lastingham Church in the North York Moors and its Norman crypt. High levels of Noom.

I agree he is good, but the best 1000 are all quite well known. There is huge interest to be found in the next few thousand down the list of excellence - these are mostly found in Betjeman, and the 2 vol edition from the 1950s is still the best thing around for these - none of the updates really improve on it.

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.

I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.

Nigelb said:

Barnesian said:

I was at the assisted dying demo in Parliament Square this morning.
My MP knew I was there and phoned me and asked me to meet her in her office in Portcullis House to explain why she was voting against the bill. We spent an hour and found some common ground. She is for assisted dying in principle but objects to the process (too rushed) and would prefer a government sponsored bill. The problem is that might result in a 5-10 year delay.

That's not a problem for someone who thinks it "too rushed".
They probably prefer 10.

Chelyabinsk said:

IanB2 said:

Nevertheless the course of history has been for sensible folk like the most of us, to secure freedoms to escape from the control-freakery of folks like you.

Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.

MattW said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Jonathan said:

Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent

A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.

Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame

So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.

A deal of disestablishment plus a financial guarantee for the maintenance of, say, the best 5000-6000 churches, as religious or in due course community assets, with a bias to those in neglected areas would be OK with this middle of the road CoE member.

(Betjeman's 'Parish Churches', the old 2 volume edition lists about 4000 churches. My copies are worn to bits with use. Those 4000 would be a good starting point).

It's going to need a good deal of background work to come up with something practical.

Stats are that there are 12,500 listed Church England Buildings, and approximately 4,200 of them are Grade I listed. That is, just under half of the Grade I listed buildings in England.

There have been occasional major reports looking at the question.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

This is not a partisan debate or subject

I think more than a hundred Labour MPs will have voted against, possibly 150. Definitely not a simple party political matter.

147 Labour mps voted no

rottenborough said:

‪John Rentoul‬ ‪@rentouljohn.bsky.social‬
·
2m
Here is a visual reprersentation of how the parties divided votes.parliament.uk/votes/common...

https://bsky.app/profile/rentouljohn.bsky.social/post/3lc3sh6xp7s2q

Stocky said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Euthanasia Bill passes.

I wasn't expecting this.

330 MPs voted in favour, 275 against - a majority of 55.

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.

I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.

As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.

SandyRentool said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Jonathan said:

Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent

A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.

Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame

So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.

Plenty of redundant methodist chapels in very good state of repair, and being put to good use as homes or business premises. Let the market decide whether churches have useful function, or if they should be demolished to make way for a Lidl.

Stocky said:

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.

I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.

As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.

Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.

I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.

As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.

Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.

If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?

We crossed several rivers back then.

Stocky said:

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.

I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.

As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.

Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.

Chelyabinsk said:

IanB2 said:

Nevertheless the course of history has been for sensible folk like the most of us, to secure freedoms to escape from the control-freakery of folks like you.

Could you clarify where exactly this freedom lies? I ask because in 1914, when membership of faith bodies was c.30% of the population, "a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman... He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission". Whereas in 2024 12% of the population are members of faith bodies and you need photo ID to buy teaspoons.

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.

Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.

I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.

Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.

I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.

You could be fined for non attendance of a C of E church every Sunday here from 1558 until 1888 via the Act of Uniformity (albeit nonconformist worship was tolerated from 1689 and Roman Catholic worship from 1791)

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.

Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all

Many more LibDems than Tories voted for the bill. Only 7 LibDems against compared with 70+Tories against.

HYUFD said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.

Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Fantastic news.

Well done Labour.

Not at all, clearly a significant number of Labour MPs joined most Tory MPs and Farage and the DUP to vote against the Bill.

Given Labour has a majority of 170 for the assisted dying bill to only pass by a majority of just 55 is really not much of a majority at all

Many more LibDems than Tories voted for the bill. Only 7 LibDems against compared with 70+Tories against.

Well no surprise they are LIBERALs. Pleased to see most Tories actually acted as conservatives this time though with a majority of Tory MPs voting against assisted dying

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Crossing this rubicon demolishes a lot of the moral arguments against the death penalty.

I don't see why. The bill is for people who are literally already dying. Within weeks or a handful of months.

As Diane Abbott put it, we'll have a fully-funded suicide service, but only partial funding for palliative care. It destroys the argument that the state should never kill.

Comparing death by choice while suffering a terminal illness with state killing is not a fair comparison.

If the argument is that this crosses a rubicon that the state never kills then what the feck happened in WWII?

Should not kill the innocent is the point