Categories
Unintended Consequences? – politicalbetting.com
Unintended Consequences? – politicalbetting.com
Our political class is incapable of joining dots, a criticism made by the Home Secretary in Parliament on Monday about several public sector institutions. She really should look in the mirror. However, this week and last provide other examples of a failure to use information painfully learnt in one context to prevent the problem happening again elsewhere.
1
Comments
Polling in Iran is obviously difficult, but there's the following:
https://gamaan.org/2022/03/31/political-systems-survey-english/
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Also:
"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202302036145
Further proof that Musk is doing a Remo Williams.
He's pretending to build rockets that might someday work by getting 10B in taxpayer funds and spending 1B blowing it up and pocketing the other 9B and then asking for another 10B. His rockets will never work because they aren't supposed to.
https://bsky.app/profile/coachfinstock.bsky.social/post/3lrvezllqhs2r
The rush it through & tidy up afterwards approach rarely gets to the tidy up stage.
Good morning, everybody.
It would surprise me if that survey isn't an element in the DJT's considerations atm
It would not be great for anyone in Europe wanting less immigration. Or China, which relies upon its stable oil flows. Or Turkey, which takes Iranian gas and would also shoulder the migration problem. Or Russia, given the defence industries tie up.
But I don’t think Israel would at all mind Iran becoming a fractured ungovernable mess. And nor would many stakeholders in Washington either. And I suspect too the sunni arab states.
Hopefully I’m wrong and this time in 5 years I’m sipping a strong coffee in Isfahan with a lonely planet.
For Iran as I see it, the last 200 years have been monarchies or other arrangements at the behest of foreign powers (Russia / UK / BP). They had their attempts at Government constrained by colonial limits, and elites who wanted to be in London enjoying hedonism (ie money and sex) - just as we see in Kensington now for the corrupt moneyed elites of the Gulf. There followed the 1979 with a revolution following on from a century-long Islamist movement.
What is happening now is an attempt by the Netanyahu and Trump regimes to reimpose foreign control at arms' length via threats of war and bombing. I don't think that will work any more than it has anywhere else.
Trump wants a short-term settlement that he thinks will help him get his Nobel Peace Prize, and does not give a damn whether it works for Iran, or whether two thousand or two million civilians are killed. And, his basic operating principle - as everywhere else such as Afghanistan and Ukraine - is TACO; he always fires blanks then runs away.
Will that stand the external pressures of a failed-region Middle East, and an Israeli regimes that may intervene to keep it as such? I have no idea.
As least Esther Rantzens daughter will be happy.
There are a number of parallels with the discussion around decriminalising abortion - difficult options, many considerations, hard cases at the edges, and no easy answer.
On the ADB, it may be that to come to a consensus we will need more than one debate process in Parliament. That is, this may need to fail, and we collectively learn the lessons for next time. That might not be convenient as we all need an answer, but stiff necks may need to be tenderised on all sides.
Before an even unsatisfactory agreement can be reached, there needs to be a basis and common principles / values well enough established to make a consensus possible. That can take time, and several trips round the houses.
Things like cardinal principles, "obvious" things to do, "Inalienable Rights", and mental assumptions, are all themselves cultural artefacts.
What would that look like?
(That's half-rhetorical and half-serious.)
Sample size is no cure for a non-representative sample (until you approach population size and it necessarily becomes more representative). You could pick a poor 200k+ sample from the 1 January 2020 UK population and conclude that the entire UK population was wiped out by COVID.
ETA: But I kind of think from your posting history that you know this and there's maybe sarcasm here?
As a crass example, simply by giving such a prominent role to Doctors, we are placing a huge reliance on their ethics and judgement to be "reasonable" and "compassionate" and "principled" in edge cases.
Most Conservative and DUP MPs will vote against though, as might most Reform MPs now. At first reading they were split but most Reform MPs voted against abortion decriminalisation
One of the issues for me is how the person can be judged to have only 6 month's of life remaining
Indeed Esther Rantzen herself has lived beyond her expected demise
And a good morning to all
I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach at what this country is becoming. This parliament seems energised by every possible opportunity to boost their own egos while casting aside the rights of the most vulnerable.
Aside: An excellent edition of the Telegraph's Battle Lines podcast with a deep dive into the Israel/Iran situation - talking to Iranians and Iranian commentators. I hour 10 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBIzg9ht30Y
The state giving itself the power to punish people caught doing something is not the same as the state preventing something happening.
I presume the pause in escalation is to ratchet up the fear and tension and give those who wish to achieve some sort of internal regime change the opportunity to act.
I could envisage the theocracy diminished - recognising and retaining the spiritual role of the mullahs but taking the political and social aspects under a more recognisably civilian/democratic administration.
There has to be a recognition part of Iranian independence and identity is its religion and trying to mandate a wholly secular state may not be ideal. That being said, theocracy isn't the answer but a religious element can and does co-exist with democratic institutions in many other countries.
In that context, I'd rather see economic and social policies which protect and ensure adequate service provision for the "most vulnerable" as you put it whether that means adequate welfare spending, including pensions, and adequate and reliable Police coverage and provision to support those in danger of falling victim to crime as well as properly funded programmes to support those who are vulnerable to or suffering from addiction and that's before we get on to supporting unpaid carers back into work.
The trouble is that's the difficult stuff which only needs Parliament to agree on measures and then let the public (and private) sectors deliver.
Democracy is ultimately predicated on delivery - faith in democracy and the attraction of "radical" and often authoritarian alternatives is predicated on perceived and actual failures to deliver services and improvements to people's daily lives. "Things can only get better" as someone once said - it's when things don't that those peddling unpleasant but superficially attractive alternatives get a hearing.
There has not been a thorough debate at all. Leadbetter did not want even to hear evidence from psychiatrists then backed down and now has given them a central role in her proposed law, despite them saying they cannot support it. The law will come automatically into force in 2029 regardless of whether there has been adequate training and preparation and funding, unlike with all other laws. This is crass, incompetent law-making.
With good palliative care there is no need for unnecessary pain and suffering, as palliative care specialists have explained. See also this from Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the hospice movement - https://x.com/treesey/status/1934969805510963675?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA.
The really difficult issue which this Bill does not even attempt to address is when you have someone with dementia who cannot possibly be assisted to commit suicide. Or people with locked in syndromes where they cannot do anything for themselves but do wish to die. In both cases someone else would have to kill them. Is this really a taboo we want to break by making it lawful rather than applying mercy in very hard cases?
People who wish to decide when to die are already free to do so. It is those who do not want to be pressured we should be thinking about. If this law passes, the below describes perfectly what will forever be in the corner of the mind of every vulnerable person, every disabled person, every sick person, every old person.
1. The Bill does not permit pain to be a reason for AD. Being a financial burden is, however.
2. Proper palliative care can deal with pain, as palliative care specialists have said. But the government and the Bill's sponsors have determinedly set their face against funding such palliative care. Ask yourself what that these two factors say about their motives.
And 3. people can find a way out now, if they want.
Here's the map of the latest reported strikes:
https://iran.liveuamap.com/
You don't have to look for work to receive benefits for example.
I am wary of the current bill. I think it has been rushed and some safeguards that were promised seem to have been removed. But I think the principle is right.
And what about improper palliative care?
I say go for both: improved funding for palliative care, and AD for those who want it, and the conditions apply to.
Which raises questions regarding its future viability.
The Saab is less than half the price, so in theory at least would provide the capacity to have an eye in the sky continuously, which the 3 semi-operative Wedgetails don't.
Maybe we could flog them to the Aussies ?
As far as European customers are concerned, there's also Ukraine and Poland, who are likely to order more units.
And another argument in favour is that it provides some degree of autonomy from the US, who aren't exactly reliable at the moment.
I haven't really had time to read and digest the header arguments, but at first glance there seems to be an element of throwing in the kitchen sink, combining arguments against the principle of assisted dying itself, together with the "unintended consequences", practicalities associated with, and lacunae in this particular piece of legislation.
Like you, I'm wary about the bill - but I'm also wary of the effort to end completely the whole effort to introduce a right to assisted dying, which like you I support.
Annoyingly I have work to do, so will have to leave it at that for now.
Striking the similarities between Mohammad Reza and Nicholas II (paranoia, absence of self awareness, lurching between repression and watery reform, blaming everyone else for his woes), though MR's sense of self preservation and greed somewhat more developed.
But, given the endless scandals and cover
ups that the current political establishment are guilty of (ably detailed by Cyclefree, over the years), I find it hard to care if they get swept out of Parliament.
Selections – Day Three:
Norfolk Stakes: COMICAL POINT (each way)
Ribblesdale Stakes: SERENITY PRAYER
Gold Cup: TRAWLERMAN
Hampton Court Stakes: JACKKNIFE (each way)
Some sort of 'implaccably opposed' marker?
Never intentionally allow someone to die has a powerful moral clarity. Now we are saying there are circumstances where it is better to die than to live, and so we muddy the waters very quickly when deciding what those circumstances are.
Rightly or wrongly we have through parliament accepted that there are circumstances where it is better to die than to live. There is definitely a risk that needs to be addressed of shortcuts being taken, particularly concerning poorer and less well protected people.
There is however another risk that doesn't seem to be articulated very much at all where the Assisted Dying act becomes another tool of the wealthy and well connected, who have the means and the skills to navigate the many hurdles put in place, while people without those resources have to suffer as they always have done.
I am defining that as someone who is apolitical and no democratic mandate holding the fundamental reserve powers of the state (eg to dissolve parliament, to deploy the military internally, etc) to prevent them being misused by an individual with a political/power-seeking agenda
Netanyahu has locked Trump into an escalaton funnel, and Trump is the kind of stunted human being who does not know how to back down when circumstances and common sense indicate, and is now surrounded by mushrooms dedicated to feeding his madness.
That won't create a future for Israel.
Another thoughtful and informative piece, many thanks!
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
Is one innocent killed by the acceptable to allow the state to execute 9 guilty parties?Most people say “no”.
So why does that principle not hold true here?
More fundamentally this is a huge change in the role of the state and the nature of our society. It feels like process has been hikacked and the change pushed through with a stacked committee etc. This should have been handled via a Royal Commission to come up with a recommendation that had broad based support.
Fly Fishing by....J.....R.....HARTLEY....
Ultimately, if you're opposed to assisted dying then you are happy for people to go to jail for helping a loved one who is begging them to assist them end their life. I don't think that is a morally tenable position. But like I say, it's a complex issue and I understand why others come to a different view.
I prefer Alistair Meeks’ argument that unquestionably, there are people who merit execution, but in peacetime, it is almost impossible to determine who they should be. So, execution becomes pretty arbitrary.
The death penalty is, like "lock 'em up and throw away they key" and "whole life terms without possibility of parole" is about satisfying the psychological desires of those who want to impose it, with little consideration as to whether it works.
King George V Stakes: SERIOUS CONTENDER
Ribblesdale Stakes: GARDEN OF EDEN
Gold Cup: TRAWLERMAN
Britannia Stakes: BRAVE MISSION
Hampton Court Stakes: GREAT DAVID
Buckingham Palace Stakes: NEVER SO BRAVE
The two North Sea sites, which were once described as “climate vandalism” by Mr Miliband, were blocked after environmentalists successfully challenged their oil and gas production licences.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/19/ed-miliband-open-door-to-north-sea-drilling/
Will this mean we get Phoebe Waller Symthe back throwing orange paint everywhere?
I also suspect that there is a lot of unofficial assisted dying. I think it happened to my mother. Liverpool pathway. She didn't want to go on.
This bill introduces some safeguards and controls where none currently exist. It is progress. It also helps those who are dying to get help to die early.
I am lobbying my MP to vote for the Bill tomorrow.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But that is the problem with all issues of conscience. They too often come down to imposing one's own morality, often derived from whatever religion one was raised in, on others. Suicide is wrong therefore assisted suicide is wrong therefore assisted dying is wrong. Oh, and abortion and prostitution.
https://x.com/itsalexvacca/status/1935343874421178762
My handwriting is terrible now that I hardly ever write anything and when I do it is on an iPad which is different to putting an actual pen to paper.
One thing that we could be sure of I think is that something which lasts just say 30-50 years would be a major achievement.
In secularist Turkey a state organisation employed the Imams in Mosques, and also drafted sermons for Mosques. That is the Diyanet, "Presidency of Religious Affairs", which is still in place. Without reading up I'm not sure what Erdogan has done wrt the content they teach. Was it a means of control, or a means of neutering - maintaining the underlying culture enough to prevent extremist movements emerging which could challenge the state?
There are similar contrasts and comparisons and ambiguities everywhere - eg in Europe between dogmatically secularist France, and more the nebulous UK setup. Guess which one spends more money on looking after church buildings?
This is absolutely an issue which should be decided on its merits, without trying to make political capital out of it.
https://youtu.be/IEnuDHC-qh8?si=JlJqVk1OB6XXfm2x
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter