Howdy, Stranger!

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

Vox populi, vox Dei – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,529
edited June 19 in General
Vox populi, vox Dei – politicalbetting.com

73% of Britons support the assisted dying bill as it stands, ahead of its final Commons vote tomorrowSupport: 73% (no change from 19-20 Nov 2024 to 15-16 May 2025)Oppose: 16% (+3)yougov.co.uk/health/artic…

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,196
    Vox populi, mors adiuta
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,611
    Looks like it's going to pass to me.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,650
    Hopefully once theyve passed it, the provisions can be utilised by those that want it and those of us not in favour never have to hear any more about it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,455
    The half dozen most prolific PB posters don't agree with the assisted dying bill. That is the only opinion that counts.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,293
    If what that tweet says are the actual provisions, I have no problem with it whatsoever and hope the bill passes tomorrow.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,744
    "Using ChatGPT for work? It might make you stupid
    A study by MIT academics detected reduced brain activity in students who used AI tools for help with writing essays" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/technology-uk/article/using-chatgpt-for-work-it-might-make-you-more-stupid-dtvntprtk
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246
    edited June 19
    I think the population should be allowed to vote on the voluntary euthanizing of politicians. And when I say "voluntary", I mean it's voluntary for the population, not the poltician.

    It would really concentrate the minds of politicians if they knew they were just a simple vote away from the needle.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,540
    What % have read the bill?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,810
    Absurdly far, far, far too many "safeguards" there, but if that's what's needed to get the principle across the line then I'd accept that compromise.

    Hopefully after a good few years of it operating without the roof caving in then it can be amended to a far more liberal application.

    Anyone claiming they oppose this bill due to a lack of safeguards wouldn't accept any bill.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,455
    RobD said:

    What % have read the bill?

    I hope you are not asking for voters to be reasonably informed before reaching a conclusion.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,368
    Trawlerman!!! :smiley:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,368
    Thanks to the PBers who tipped the Gold Cup winner this morning.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,540

    RobD said:

    What % have read the bill?

    I hope you are not asking for voters to be reasonably informed before reaching a conclusion.
    I'm hoping they aren't, otherwise we'll never get back in.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,650
    edited June 19
    Kendalls punching down on the disabled bill will have second reading July 1, we will see if Labour have the balls to make it a three line whip and the size of rebellion or, fingers crossed, defeat (no chance and masssssssive)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,206
    rcs1000 said:

    I think the population should be allowed to vote on the voluntary euthanizing of politicians. And when I say "voluntary", I mean it's voluntary for the population, not the poltician.

    It would really concentrate the minds of politicians if they knew they were just a simple vote away from the needle.

    Is that why there is such strict gun control in the United States?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,455

    Absurdly far, far, far too many "safeguards" there, but if that's what's needed to get the principle across the line then I'd accept that compromise.

    Hopefully after a good few years of it operating without the roof caving in then it can be amended to a far more liberal application.

    Anyone claiming they oppose this bill due to a lack of safeguards wouldn't accept any bill.

    What with a demand for the flattening of Gaza and Tehran and a desire to euthanise pensioners you are the Grim Reaper and I claim my £5.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,383
    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,222
    CatMan said:

    If what that tweet says are the actual provisions, I have no problem with it whatsoever and hope the bill passes tomorrow.

    Pretty close to push polling
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246
    rcs1000 said:

    I think the population should be allowed to vote on the voluntary euthanizing of politicians. And when I say "voluntary", I mean it's voluntary for the population, not the poltician.

    It would really concentrate the minds of politicians if they knew they were just a simple vote away from the needle.

    Yes, yes, yes, I know that many politicians do not have minds.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,401
    Selebian said:

    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?

    people should be free to choose what they want. Ban the zealots and do gooders.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,188
    edited June 19
    Abortion is in principle a bad thing, but isn't in practice.
    Banning things you don't approve of leads to all manner of negative outcomes.
    Many of which you may approve of even less.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246

    rcs1000 said:

    I think the population should be allowed to vote on the voluntary euthanizing of politicians. And when I say "voluntary", I mean it's voluntary for the population, not the poltician.

    It would really concentrate the minds of politicians if they knew they were just a simple vote away from the needle.

    Is that why there is such strict gun control in the United States?
    To be fair, I'm not in favour of one man, one bullet, one politician. I would have strict safeguards. So, a politician could only be euthanzied if a reasonable proportion of their constituants called for it via, say, text.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,455
    malcolmg said:

    Selebian said:

    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?

    people should be free to choose what they want. Ban the zealots and do gooders.
    Does that include Independent Scotland zealots?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246
    dixiedean said:

    Abortion is in principle a bad thing, but isn't in practice.
    Banning things you don't approve of leads to all manner of negative outcomes.
    Many of which you may approve of even less.

    The goal of a civilized society should be to make abortion unnecessary.

    It is a terrible shame that many of the opponents of abortion are also so vehmently against -say- sex education or support for single parents.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,206
    Re last thread.

    Think of money as time.

    One million seconds = 11 days.
    200 million seconds = six years.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,737
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    What % have read the bill?

    I hope you are not asking for voters to be reasonably informed before reaching a conclusion.
    I asked ChatGPT for reasons to support it, and it replied "@Leon opposes it, so the only logical conclusion is that you must be in favour of it".
    And I thought people were claiming ChatGPT wasn't any good.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,768
    edited June 19
    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,166
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    What % have read the bill?

    I hope you are not asking for voters to be reasonably informed before reaching a conclusion.
    I'm hoping they aren't, otherwise we'll never get back in.
    Those polled or MPs?
    Presumably those polled were asked to read the provisos in the polling question.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,206

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    No because Trump is a reluctant player. There's Bibi, and the GOP hawks with Trump caught in the middle.

    As previous thread, my best guess is Trump signs off on a whole load of missiles to shore up Iron Dome, because even Netanyahu can see that blowing up a mountain will not stop missiles landing in Tel Aviv.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,589
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    What % have read the bill?

    I hope you are not asking for voters to be reasonably informed before reaching a conclusion.
    I asked ChatGPT for reasons to support it, and it replied "@Leon opposes it, so the only logical conclusion is that you must be in favour of it".
    Is Leon against it? That's reassuring. When I saw the public was so much in favour I was starting to question my previous support.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,561

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    The fact is that if the US decides to do it we will clearly give them access to our bases, if requested. No matter of discussions, requests to de-escalate etc will change that - Starmer will jump if pushed.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,650
    Selebian said:

    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?

    Presumably those that are against it for themselves but can understand why others mignt choose to.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,768

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    No because Trump is a reluctant player. There's Bibi, and the GOP hawks with Trump caught in the middle.

    As previous thread, my best guess is Trump signs off on a whole load of missiles to shore up Iron Dome, because even Netanyahu can see that blowing up a mountain will not stop missiles landing in Tel Aviv.
    It is still the case that Trump and Netanyahu will decide, without resorting to permission or consutation with European leaders
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,650

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,969

    Absurdly far, far, far too many "safeguards" there, but if that's what's needed to get the principle across the line then I'd accept that compromise.

    Hopefully after a good few years of it operating without the roof caving in then it can be amended to a far more liberal application.

    Anyone claiming they oppose this bill due to a lack of safeguards wouldn't accept any bill.

    Bingo
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 968

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    No because Trump is a reluctant player. There's Bibi, and the GOP hawks with Trump caught in the middle.

    As previous thread, my best guess is Trump signs off on a whole load of missiles to shore up Iron Dome, because even Netanyahu can see that blowing up a mountain will not stop missiles landing in Tel Aviv.
    If Trump won't do it, will there be regime change so Vance can. Doesn't Vance have a couple of hard-line Zionists as backers?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,383

    Selebian said:

    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?

    Presumably those that are against it for themselves but can understand why others mignt choose to.
    That would make sense, although it seems to me a strange way of wording it. The second part might better be 'support the bill'. The first part is also maybe poorly worded.

    To take a different topic, I support abortion in principle and in practice (within limits) but I don't think it's a choice I would ever have made for myself (being a man this doesn't apply - I don't think it's a choice I would have ever wanted a partner to make, while respecting that her wishes would overrule mine).
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,642
    rcs1000 said:

    I think the population should be allowed to vote on the voluntary euthanizing of politicians. And when I say "voluntary", I mean it's voluntary for the population, not the poltician.

    It would really concentrate the minds of politicians if they knew they were just a simple vote away from the needle.

    I gave that a Like assuming you were joking .....
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,391
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?

    Presumably those that are against it for themselves but can understand why others mignt choose to.
    That would make sense, although it seems to me a strange way of wording it. The second part might better be 'support the bill'. The first part is also maybe poorly worded.

    To take a different topic, I support abortion in principle and in practice (within limits) but I don't think it's a choice I would ever have made for myself (being a man this doesn't apply - I don't think it's a choice I would have ever wanted a partner to make, while respecting that her wishes would overrule mine).
    On abortion that's essentially my position, although I recognise it's easy for me to say that given that I don't have to go through pregnancy and birth, and so the impact on me would be much less.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,744
    If you want cooler weather St Andrews in Scotland is often a good bet. Funny because it's south of places that are often warmer like Elgin.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    I don't think it will make any difference to anything whatsoever.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,969

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,650
    Find Out Now for this week
    Ref 31 (+1)
    Lab 23 (-1)
    Con 16 (=)
    LD 12 (-1)
    Green 11 (=)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,620

    Find Out Now for this week
    Ref 31 (+1)
    Lab 23 (-1)
    Con 16 (=)
    LD 12 (-1)
    Green 11 (=)

    Broken, sleazy Labour and LibDems on the slide!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,999
    edited June 19
    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?
  • vikvik Posts: 516


    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    There's also Russia & China:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, about the situation in the Middle East and condemned Israeli attacks on Iran, a top Russian official said Thursday.

    Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters that “both sides have identical approaches — strongly condemning Israel’s actions that violate the U.N. charter and other norms of international law.” He added that the two leaders say the issue of Iran’s nuclear program “does not have a forceful solution.”

    In its summary of the phone call, Chinese state media reported that Xi said a ceasefire was imperative and that “the parties to the conflict, especially Israel, should cease fire as soon as possible to prevent the situation from escalating in turn and resolutely avoid the spillover of war.”


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/19/israel-iran-strikes-live-us-trump/#link-GMOT72MYJBAB7MEMWXFVUX6LWY
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246
    edited June 19
    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    Oh, there's a perfectly good reason to try and stop Iran getting nuclear capability.

    The problem is that every time you bomb them, you make it even more clear to the Iranian leadership that they need nuclear weapons, because that's the only way they can ensure they don't get bombed again in the future.

    So, the question becomes, is it possible to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Or are we just slowing them down.

    My gut is that we're doing the second.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,949
    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    We've spent at least a couple of decades trying to divert North Korea and Iran from building a bomb. We failed in NK's case, and Iran has shown very poor faith.

    Does anyone (aside from @Roger) believe that Iran doesn't want to build a nuclear weapon?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,642
    Selebian said:

    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?

    It might possibly mean that whilst they oppose the principle, they're supportive of people who currently break the law to benefit a loved one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246
    Leon said:

    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?

    Errr, is there someone trapped inside it?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,293

    Find Out Now for this week
    Ref 31 (+1)
    Lab 23 (-1)
    Con 16 (=)
    LD 12 (-1)
    Green 11 (=)

    That Green score is insane
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,408
    edited June 19

    The half dozen most prolific PB posters don't agree with the assisted dying bill. That is the only opinion that counts.

    Wait until you see the abortion polling…

    MPs are set to vote next week to decriminalise abortions that take place outside of set rules - in 2023 we found that 52% of Britons agreed that women should not face criminal prosecution in such cases

    Results link in next tweet


    https://x.com/yougov/status/1932705753560646106?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,944
    I don't support the bill, but despite attempts from various anti-bill figures on twitter trying to suggest the vote will be close I don't buy that and think it will pass relatively comfortably.

    There's a pretty clear majority in the House in favour of the principle, and I don't think enough MPs who support the principle but might have concerns with the particulars of the bill will want to risk it failing as a result. They might suggest the Lords can address concerns, which is a bit of a flippant approach, or conclude the negatives of the bill are not significant enough, but I think it will get through easily enough.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,949
    Leon said:

    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?

    If a person's trapped, then they'l use the Jaws of Life to rip open the car to get the person out without causing back injuries.

    (There have been cases where there's been a crash, and a passing motorist has let a victim sit in their car. Only for the victim to complain of back/neck injuries, and therefore the roof being cut off a perfectly good car. I've no idea what the insurance says about that...)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,944

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    I don't think either of us are particularly relevant in this fight. Iran is not some small player which Europe might have more pull with.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,944
    CatMan said:

    Find Out Now for this week
    Ref 31 (+1)
    Lab 23 (-1)
    Con 16 (=)
    LD 12 (-1)
    Green 11 (=)

    That Green score is insane
    I'm a bit unclear on their future direction given their success in some shire counties at the election. The more left than Labour, gaza bro approach has a following but might not play as well in those areas, but for now they seem to still be regarded as pleasant and unthreatening.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,999
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?

    Errr, is there someone trapped inside it?
    No. This is the bonnet they’re ripping off. And the wheel casing. No space for a person

    Drugs? Guns?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,949
    Andy_JS said:

    If you want cooler weather St Andrews in Scotland is often a good bet. Funny because it's south of places that are often warmer like Elgin.

    In the really hot summer of 2003, I was walking the coast. I was in the north of Scotland, and it was brilliant weather for hiking. Another walker - Graham - was on the south coast, and he was having to set off at five in the morning because of the heat.

    For any other coastal walkers - do the south coast in winter, and the north coast in summer...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,017

    CatMan said:

    If what that tweet says are the actual provisions, I have no problem with it whatsoever and hope the bill passes tomorrow.

    Pretty close to push polling
    God forbid people should be given accurate information.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,969
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    Oh, there's a perfectly good reason to try and stop Iran getting nuclear capability.

    The problem is that every time you bomb them, you make it even more clear to the Iranian leadership that they need nuclear weapons, because that's the only way to ensure that you don't get bombed again in the future.

    So, the question becomes, is it possible to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Or are we just slowing them down.

    My gut is that we're doing the second.
    Of course neither of us know the process of making a nuclear bomb so I couldn't comment (while not dismissing your gut).

    But if every five years they are put back five years I can live with that and, more importantly, is worth doing.

    For some unknown reason I was listening to a bit of James O'Brien this morning and he was wittering on about MAD and how Iran wouldn't bomb Israel even with a nuke because it would invite retaliation.

    Perhaps ignoring the well documented difference in approach to dying for your cause between some elements of Islam (those in charge for example) and the West.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,650
    CatMan said:

    Find Out Now for this week
    Ref 31 (+1)
    Lab 23 (-1)
    Con 16 (=)
    LD 12 (-1)
    Green 11 (=)

    That Green score is insane
    The LDs seem to be dropping back a little lately to where they were pre Local Elections perhaps, opinium have them below their GE 24 score too .
    Tories unmoved with FoN since 8 May. Do they actually change their panel??
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,610
    Minutes of MPC refer to a “material further loosening in labour market conditions.”

    Or an increase in unemployment for those not as immune to such things. Another appalling euphemism from those who don’t feel the pain.

    Once again the Bank is too slow in cutting interest rates making growth harder. Add in the malign policies of Reeves and we are struggling to get any growth at all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,949
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?

    Errr, is there someone trapped inside it?
    No. This is the bonnet they’re ripping off. And the wheel casing. No space for a person

    Drugs? Guns?
    Perhaps getting at airbags and other dangerous items that need to be disabled. Car manufacturers give fire brigades special cars to show them what to disable.

    But there's an expert on such matters on PB...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,999

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?

    Errr, is there someone trapped inside it?
    No. This is the bonnet they’re ripping off. And the wheel casing. No space for a person

    Drugs? Guns?
    Perhaps getting at airbags and other dangerous items that need to be disabled. Car manufacturers give fire brigades special cars to show them what to disable.

    But there's an expert on such matters on PB...
    Ah. A good guess. Yes
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,589
    Andy_JS said:

    If you want cooler weather St Andrews in Scotland is often a good bet. Funny because it's south of places that are often warmer like Elgin.

    I grew up in St Andrews and can confirm this. There were vanishingly few genuinely hot days grwing up. The wind blows in from the North Sea and if you get a warm day it often precipitates a haar (sea mist) the next day. I still marvel at London's tropical climate.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,589
    DavidL said:

    Minutes of MPC refer to a “material further loosening in labour market conditions.”

    Or an increase in unemployment for those not as immune to such things. Another appalling euphemism from those who don’t feel the pain.

    Once again the Bank is too slow in cutting interest rates making growth harder. Add in the malign policies of Reeves and we are struggling to get any growth at all.

    Too slow? With services inflation at 4.7% and regular pay growth at 5%...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,969
    For goodness sake don't tell Dura that HMS QE is crossing the Suez Canal rn chugging towards the coalition forces. I hope they have packed enough combat Raleigh Choppers.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,999

    Andy_JS said:

    If you want cooler weather St Andrews in Scotland is often a good bet. Funny because it's south of places that are often warmer like Elgin.

    I grew up in St Andrews and can confirm this. There were vanishingly few genuinely hot days grwing up. The wind blows in from the North Sea and if you get a warm day it often precipitates a haar (sea mist) the next day. I still marvel at London's tropical climate.
    My older daughter (now at St Andrews uni) says she really likes the climate. She’s not a sun lover

    Mind you, having recently experienced the Faroes even St Andrews seems balmy, at least conceptually

    Couldn’t live there tho. London is bad enough in winter
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,246
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    Oh, there's a perfectly good reason to try and stop Iran getting nuclear capability.

    The problem is that every time you bomb them, you make it even more clear to the Iranian leadership that they need nuclear weapons, because that's the only way to ensure that you don't get bombed again in the future.

    So, the question becomes, is it possible to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Or are we just slowing them down.

    My gut is that we're doing the second.
    Of course neither of us know the process of making a nuclear bomb so I couldn't comment (while not dismissing your gut).

    But if every five years they are put back five years I can live with that and, more importantly, is worth doing.

    For some unknown reason I was listening to a bit of James O'Brien this morning and he was wittering on about MAD and how Iran wouldn't bomb Israel even with a nuke because it would invite retaliation.

    Perhaps ignoring the well documented difference in approach to dying for your cause between some elements of Islam (those in charge for example) and the West.
    Making a nuclear bomb is not complicated, assuming you have enough enriched uranium.

    Ultimately, you need about 40kg of 80+% enriched U235, and some shaped explosive charges.

    It really isn't beyond the ability of any middle income country.

    The difficult bit is enriching the uranium, which requires centrifuges to seperate the lighter uranium isotopes from the heavier ones. You need hundreds of the buggers, each of which enriches a bit of uranium by just a few percent.

    Messing with the centrifuges has been a core tenet of Israeli and US actions for two decades (see Stuxnet).

    But the fundamental problem is that Iran keeps adding to it stockpile of enriched Uranium. If you believe the Israelis, they now have more than 400kg of 60+% enriched uranium. That's not enriched enough for a bomb*, but it's not far off.

    And unless you actually deplete the amount of enriched uranium, then you never really push them back in time. I guess that's my issue: how do we reduce the amount of enriched uranium they have, because if we don't reduce that, then all we're doing is hoping and praying for regime change before they get those 40kg of 80+% enriched uranium.

    * @Malmesbury notes it is enough to achieve a chain reaction, but the yields would be very low compared to an 80+% bomb.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,669
    Sir Keir Starmer says the government will explore whether further protective measures can be put in place on social media platforms after tennis player Katie Boulter highlighted the sickening abuse she received.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,561

    Sir Keir Starmer says the government will explore whether further protective measures can be put in place on social media platforms after tennis player Katie Boulter highlighted the sickening abuse she received.

    I look forward to a considered, well-thought through approach being proposed. (Nope, it’ll be knee-jerk, poorly thought through and legally problematic).
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,348
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?

    Errr, is there someone trapped inside it?
    No. This is the bonnet they’re ripping off. And the wheel casing. No space for a person

    Drugs? Guns?
    Maybe making crashed electric cars safe is harder? Need to make sure everything's disconnected?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,969
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    Oh, there's a perfectly good reason to try and stop Iran getting nuclear capability.

    The problem is that every time you bomb them, you make it even more clear to the Iranian leadership that they need nuclear weapons, because that's the only way to ensure that you don't get bombed again in the future.

    So, the question becomes, is it possible to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Or are we just slowing them down.

    My gut is that we're doing the second.
    Of course neither of us know the process of making a nuclear bomb so I couldn't comment (while not dismissing your gut).

    But if every five years they are put back five years I can live with that and, more importantly, is worth doing.

    For some unknown reason I was listening to a bit of James O'Brien this morning and he was wittering on about MAD and how Iran wouldn't bomb Israel even with a nuke because it would invite retaliation.

    Perhaps ignoring the well documented difference in approach to dying for your cause between some elements of Islam (those in charge for example) and the West.
    Making a nuclear bomb is not complicated, assuming you have enough enriched uranium.

    Ultimately, you need about 40kg of 80+% enriched U235, and some shaped explosive charges.

    It really isn't beyond the ability of any middle income country.

    The difficult bit is enriching the uranium, which requires centrifuges to seperate the lighter uranium isotopes from the heavier ones. You need hundreds of the buggers, each of which enriches a bit of uranium by just a few percent.

    Messing with the centrifuges has been a core tenet of Israeli and US actions for two decades (see Stuxnet).

    But the fundamental problem is that Iran keeps adding to it stockpile of enriched Uranium. If you believe the Israelis, they now have more than 400kg of 60+% enriched uranium. That's not enriched enough for a bomb*, but it's not far off.

    And unless you actually deplete the amount of enriched uranium, then you never really push them back in time. I guess that's my issue: how do we reduce the amount of enriched uranium they have, because if we don't reduce that, then all we're doing is hoping and praying for regime change before they get those 40kg of 80+% enriched uranium.

    * @Malmesbury notes it is enough to achieve a chain reaction, but the yields would be very low compared to an 80+% bomb.
    I suppose the question is (how) has their capability changed over the years. Assuming it is simple to do as per your description, what has changed now such that there is a need to inhibit it big style. Have they quietly been centrifuging away while everyone was diverted with Hamas/Hezbollah. And what do we know there were at five, 10 years ago, etc.

    Questions, questions...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,944

    Sir Keir Starmer says the government will explore whether further protective measures can be put in place on social media platforms after tennis player Katie Boulter highlighted the sickening abuse she received.

    I look forward to a considered, well-thought through approach being proposed. (Nope, it’ll be knee-jerk, poorly thought through and legally problematic).
    Everyone to obtain a social media licence before they can use twitter and facebook, proving they can conduct themselves with civility and with socially approved opinions. You get points for every hetereodox view expressed or slur made, and lose the right to post after enough points accrued.

    I jest, but I can see some activist or mandarin proposing it right now.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,206

    Sir Keir Starmer says the government will explore whether further protective measures can be put in place on social media platforms after tennis player Katie Boulter highlighted the sickening abuse she received.

    Too bleeding obvious for sports people not to read this abuse? That's the other side of the problem. Because social media is so addictive, sports people can't stay off it even when they expect abuse. Yes, give them tools to block or filter abuse but they will still be tempted to read it because it is about them.

    There was a report on jockeys saying they'd be straight on TwiX after a bad ride. Bernard Ingham used to lament that John Major insisted on reading the newspapers that had turned on him, rather than the filtered press reports that Mrs Thatcher had favoured.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,775

    DavidL said:

    Minutes of MPC refer to a “material further loosening in labour market conditions.”

    Or an increase in unemployment for those not as immune to such things. Another appalling euphemism from those who don’t feel the pain.

    Once again the Bank is too slow in cutting interest rates making growth harder. Add in the malign policies of Reeves and we are struggling to get any growth at all.

    Too slow? With services inflation at 4.7% and regular pay growth at 5%...
    Are the first to be made redundant or employed really going to influence inflation stats? They must skew insecure and low paid, not the income group with the most surplus income for niceties.

    As always my 50% levy on long distance air travel, golf clubs, Glyndebourne, river cruises and expensive London hotels is still available for any adventurous chancellor wishing to reduce the amount of money sloshing around.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,589
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If you want cooler weather St Andrews in Scotland is often a good bet. Funny because it's south of places that are often warmer like Elgin.

    I grew up in St Andrews and can confirm this. There were vanishingly few genuinely hot days grwing up. The wind blows in from the North Sea and if you get a warm day it often precipitates a haar (sea mist) the next day. I still marvel at London's tropical climate.
    My older daughter (now at St Andrews uni) says she really likes the climate. She’s not a sun lover

    Mind you, having recently experienced the Faroes even St Andrews seems balmy, at least conceptually

    Couldn’t live there tho. London is bad enough in winter
    St Andrews is bleak in the winter. Sun setting at teatime. The wind off the North Sea, blowing down the Scores. Your daughter only has to survive four years of it, though. Plenty of warm pubs to shelter in, too!
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 968
    edited June 19
    DavidL said:

    Minutes of MPC refer to a “material further loosening in labour market conditions.”

    Or an increase in unemployment for those not as immune to such things. Another appalling euphemism from those who don’t feel the pain.

    Once again the Bank is too slow in cutting interest rates making growth harder. Add in the malign policies of Reeves and we are struggling to get any growth at all.

    Or they are clearing out the detritus of companies that should have gone long ago but are propped up by taxpayer subsidy. Think of it as Corporate Assisted Dying. Odd that people are in favour of humans being exited but will still pay through the nose for companies that should have gone long ago.

    Universal Credit says 38% of the 6.3mn UC claimants have jobs. That's a lot of subsidised employment.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,737
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    Oh, there's a perfectly good reason to try and stop Iran getting nuclear capability.

    The problem is that every time you bomb them, you make it even more clear to the Iranian leadership that they need nuclear weapons, because that's the only way to ensure that you don't get bombed again in the future.

    So, the question becomes, is it possible to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Or are we just slowing them down.

    My gut is that we're doing the second.
    Of course neither of us know the process of making a nuclear bomb so I couldn't comment (while not dismissing your gut).

    But if every five years they are put back five years I can live with that and, more importantly, is worth doing.

    For some unknown reason I was listening to a bit of James O'Brien this morning and he was wittering on about MAD and how Iran wouldn't bomb Israel even with a nuke because it would invite retaliation.

    Perhaps ignoring the well documented difference in approach to dying for your cause between some elements of Islam (those in charge for example) and the West.
    Hmm. Making a simple nuclear bomb is actually very easy. In fact you can look it up on the internet. Wikipedia has the designs for the two used in WW2 and that uranium bomb is very simple.The Plutonium bomb was more complicated.

    Now getting enriched uranium, that is another matter. That is the difficult bit. And then you need some way of delivering it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,834
    dixiedean said:

    Abortion is in principle a bad thing, but isn't in practice.
    Banning things you don't approve of leads to all manner of negative outcomes.
    Many of which you may approve of even less.

    Early abortion (which is a large majority of all abortion) is not a bad thing. It is a neutral thing. It is a normal part of the healthcare choices available to women.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,834
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Abortion is in principle a bad thing, but isn't in practice.
    Banning things you don't approve of leads to all manner of negative outcomes.
    Many of which you may approve of even less.

    The goal of a civilized society should be to make abortion unnecessary.

    It is a terrible shame that many of the opponents of abortion are also so vehmently against -say- sex education or support for single parents.
    A goal of a civilised society should ne to allow people to have full control over their fertility. Abortion is, with current technology, a necessary part of achieving that aim.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,663

    dixiedean said:

    Abortion is in principle a bad thing, but isn't in practice.
    Banning things you don't approve of leads to all manner of negative outcomes.
    Many of which you may approve of even less.

    Early abortion (which is a large majority of all abortion) is not a bad thing. It is a neutral thing. It is a normal part of the healthcare choices available to women.
    Do you really mean that?
    Abortion is absolutely shit for the woman. Some bounce back from it okay, but for many it is a trauma that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
    I'm not for a minute arguing against it, but it's not a neutral thing in any way.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,744
    edited June 19
    "Find Out Now
    @FindoutnowUK

    🟦 Reform UK: 31% (+1)
    🔴 Labour: 23% (-1)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-1)
    🟢 Greens: 11% (-)

    Changes from 11th June
    [Find Out Now, 18th June, N=2,628]"

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1935729120669007926
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,969
    kjh said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    Oh, there's a perfectly good reason to try and stop Iran getting nuclear capability.

    The problem is that every time you bomb them, you make it even more clear to the Iranian leadership that they need nuclear weapons, because that's the only way to ensure that you don't get bombed again in the future.

    So, the question becomes, is it possible to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Or are we just slowing them down.

    My gut is that we're doing the second.
    Of course neither of us know the process of making a nuclear bomb so I couldn't comment (while not dismissing your gut).

    But if every five years they are put back five years I can live with that and, more importantly, is worth doing.

    For some unknown reason I was listening to a bit of James O'Brien this morning and he was wittering on about MAD and how Iran wouldn't bomb Israel even with a nuke because it would invite retaliation.

    Perhaps ignoring the well documented difference in approach to dying for your cause between some elements of Islam (those in charge for example) and the West.
    Hmm. Making a simple nuclear bomb is actually very easy. In fact you can look it up on the internet. Wikipedia has the designs for the two used in WW2 and that uranium bomb is very simple.The Plutonium bomb was more complicated.

    Now getting enriched uranium, that is another matter. That is the difficult bit. And then you need some way of delivering it.
    Well you can't say "oh it's very easy" but this bit is very difficult. Because without "this bit" then you can't do it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,834

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    What's "oppose principle, support practice"?

    I get the reverse - support the principle, but oppose in practice, e.g. if thinking there should be assisted dying but the bill has too many issues - but who thinks assisted dying is, in principle a bad thing, but nonetheless supports it happening in practice?

    Presumably those that are against it for themselves but can understand why others mignt choose to.
    That would make sense, although it seems to me a strange way of wording it. The second part might better be 'support the bill'. The first part is also maybe poorly worded.

    To take a different topic, I support abortion in principle and in practice (within limits) but I don't think it's a choice I would ever have made for myself (being a man this doesn't apply - I don't think it's a choice I would have ever wanted a partner to make, while respecting that her wishes would overrule mine).
    On abortion that's essentially my position, although I recognise it's easy for me to say that given that I don't have to go through pregnancy and birth, and so the impact on me would be much less.
    Didn't you go through birth? Probably when you were quite young?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,834
    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    No one should or would believe that Trump or Netanyahu would negotiate in good faith either. This presents challenges for negotiations unfortunately.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,179
    edited June 19
    Unsurprisingly though some political divide.

    80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs back assisted dying, while only 64% of Reform voters and 71% of Conservative voters do.

    Interestingly only 64% of 18-24s in favour though
    https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate?utm_source=website_article&utm_medium=bluesky&utm_campaign=52413
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,774

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Abortion is in principle a bad thing, but isn't in practice.
    Banning things you don't approve of leads to all manner of negative outcomes.
    Many of which you may approve of even less.

    The goal of a civilized society should be to make abortion unnecessary.

    It is a terrible shame that many of the opponents of abortion are also so vehmently against -say- sex education or support for single parents.
    A goal of a civilised society should ne to allow people to have full control over their fertility. Abortion is, with current technology, a necessary part of achieving that aim.
    What possible technology could supersede the need for abortion?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,834

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    We've spent at least a couple of decades trying to divert North Korea and Iran from building a bomb. We failed in NK's case, and Iran has shown very poor faith.

    Does anyone (aside from @Roger) believe that Iran doesn't want to build a nuclear weapon?
    I think that, for many years, Iran has not wanted to build a nuclear weapon, but has wanted to be close to be able to build a nuclear weapon. That almost zone has worked well for them. As @rcs1000 suggests, are actions now pushing them (and indeed other countries) into wanting a nuclear weapon now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,403

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate...

    You can't bomb the bastards - that would be an illegitimate target ?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,834
    CatMan said:

    Find Out Now for this week
    Ref 31 (+1)
    Lab 23 (-1)
    Con 16 (=)
    LD 12 (-1)
    Green 11 (=)

    That Green score is insane
    Crossover coming!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,401
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Big car crash on parkway, Camden

    Hardly unknown


    What makes this special: it looks like some kind of very high spec BMW. Almost a super car. And there’s two fire engines and several cop cars. For one crash?

    And they are dismembering the vehicle in the street. Huge tools ripping open the engine etc. Why on earth would they do that?

    Why not just lift and tow it?

    Errr, is there someone trapped inside it?
    No. This is the bonnet they’re ripping off. And the wheel casing. No space for a person

    Drugs? Guns?
    Perhaps getting at airbags and other dangerous items that need to be disabled. Car manufacturers give fire brigades special cars to show them what to disable.

    But there's an expert on such matters on PB...
    Ah. A good guess. Yes
    could easily be someone stuck inside and they need front off to get at stuff holding his legs, steering column , etc
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,744
    edited June 19

    Andy_JS said:

    If you want cooler weather St Andrews in Scotland is often a good bet. Funny because it's south of places that are often warmer like Elgin.

    I grew up in St Andrews and can confirm this. There were vanishingly few genuinely hot days grwing up. The wind blows in from the North Sea and if you get a warm day it often precipitates a haar (sea mist) the next day. I still marvel at London's tropical climate.
    I've only been there once, between two of the lockdown periods when we weren't allowed to visit the botanical gardens but were allowed to go in shops as long as had a mask on, which seems like a bizarre combination now of course.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,610

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    We've spent at least a couple of decades trying to divert North Korea and Iran from building a bomb. We failed in NK's case, and Iran has shown very poor faith.

    Does anyone (aside from @Roger) believe that Iran doesn't want to build a nuclear weapon?
    Of course they do. How the hell else are they going to stop the Israelis bombing the hell out of them whenever it suits their domestic politics?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,744
    HYUFD said:
    Everyone criticised this pollster when they were the first one to put Reform on 28-30% but a couple of weeks later most of the other pollsters followed suit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,179
    edited June 19
    Battlebus said:

    DavidL said:

    Minutes of MPC refer to a “material further loosening in labour market conditions.”

    Or an increase in unemployment for those not as immune to such things. Another appalling euphemism from those who don’t feel the pain.

    Once again the Bank is too slow in cutting interest rates making growth harder. Add in the malign policies of Reeves and we are struggling to get any growth at all.

    Or they are clearing out the detritus of companies that should have gone long ago but are propped up by taxpayer subsidy. Think of it as Corporate Assisted Dying. Odd that people are in favour of humans being exited but will still pay through the nose for companies that should have gone long ago.

    Universal Credit says 38% of the 6.3mn UC claimants have jobs. That's a lot of subsidised employment.
    Which would those be? There may have been many in the 1970s, there haven't been since Thatcher, Major and Cameron privatised most nationalised industry and even the bailed out banks have largely returned to the private sector.

    Better getting people some work, even if subsidised, than have them sitting at home all day on benefits if of working age
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,737
    edited June 19
    TOPPING said:

    kjh said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I expect the bill to pass tomorrow, but am I correct that it will not come in for 4 years ?

    Also Beth Rigby of Sky on Iran:

    'I have just spoken to the French ambassador to the UK - who very rarely does anything on camera - to talk about the need for de-escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict amid growing concerns the US will get involved.

    It's a moment of great jeopardy for all European allies, our prime minister, and all European leaders pushing for de-escalation.

    The message from the French ambassador today is to step back and de-escalate.

    There will be talks in Geneva tomorrow between Iranian officials and Europe's leading politicians - David Lammy, as well as the foreign ministers of France, Germany, although no country formally confirming.

    It is all an attempt to find a solution.

    The big question is: will Donald Trump listen?'


    Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Europe, including Starmer have ever looked so out of their depths and impotent ?

    The only players in this are Trump and Netanyahu and the danger for these leaders is they will look utterly helpless if US and Israel do take out
    Iran's nuclear capability

    Utterly pathetic response from the UK and EU.
    Talking to Iran will embolden them to dig in
    Ex-head of MI6 this morning said a negotiated solution would not be possible as no one should or would believe the Iranians would negotiate in good faith.

    And there was a good case for the US to bomb the facility.

    But of course what would he know.
    Oh, there's a perfectly good reason to try and stop Iran getting nuclear capability.

    The problem is that every time you bomb them, you make it even more clear to the Iranian leadership that they need nuclear weapons, because that's the only way to ensure that you don't get bombed again in the future.

    So, the question becomes, is it possible to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Or are we just slowing them down.

    My gut is that we're doing the second.
    Of course neither of us know the process of making a nuclear bomb so I couldn't comment (while not dismissing your gut).

    But if every five years they are put back five years I can live with that and, more importantly, is worth doing.

    For some unknown reason I was listening to a bit of James O'Brien this morning and he was wittering on about MAD and how Iran wouldn't bomb Israel even with a nuke because it would invite retaliation.

    Perhaps ignoring the well documented difference in approach to dying for your cause between some elements of Islam (those in charge for example) and the West.
    Hmm. Making a simple nuclear bomb is actually very easy. In fact you can look it up on the internet. Wikipedia has the designs for the two used in WW2 and that uranium bomb is very simple.The Plutonium bomb was more complicated.

    Now getting enriched uranium, that is another matter. That is the difficult bit. And then you need some way of delivering it.
    Well you can't say "oh it's very easy" but this bit is very difficult. Because without "this bit" then you can't do it.
    You said @rcs1000 probably didn't know the process. I was just pointing out he probably did because it isn't difficult.

    And the difficult bit isn't lack of knowledge it is the resources neede to produce the fuel.

    Your argument is like saying you don't know how to build a car because drilling for oil and turning into petrol is difficult.

    PS I couldn't do it, but then I can't put a bird box on a wall.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,610

    dixiedean said:

    Abortion is in principle a bad thing, but isn't in practice.
    Banning things you don't approve of leads to all manner of negative outcomes.
    Many of which you may approve of even less.

    Early abortion (which is a large majority of all abortion) is not a bad thing. It is a neutral thing. It is a normal part of the healthcare choices available to women.

    No. Abortion is a terrible thing. But sometimes it is the least worst alternative for the woman concerned and I believe that she has the right to make that choice, at least to the point the foetus is viable. But it’s a long long way from neutral.
Sign In or Register to comment.