I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
Then you will thoroughly deserve the Farage premiership you will get.
When you are then in jail for tweeting and posting unpatriotic wokeism don't come crying to me!
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
I too think Reform would crush a Conservative Party led by Cleverly.
I don’t think Badenoch can win, but she may keep the Conservatives in contention.
Reform are doing a good job right now of crushing a Conservative Party led by Badenoch. Following the worst defeat in its 200 year history, Badenoch has taken the party to even lower depths. It has lost multiple by-elections in recent months.
I don't know if Cleverly would do better than Badenoch but it's not all obvious he would do worse.
Keir Starmer’s latest nominee for the House of Lords falsely claimed to have a PhD Ann Limb is chair of the King’s flagship charity But her CV as an educationalist contains falsehoods she has repeated in writing and speeches"
Gabriel Pogrund is Whitehall editor for the Sunday Times.
Rather sadly, appointees by the party leaders to the House of Lords need not have any merit at all. The appointments committee is an effort to give spurious respectability to what is an arbitrary partisan process.
Even if she claimed to have a PhD from Oxford signed by Socrates himself, she would still be more honest than Amanda Spielman.
Looks like there is no deal, as Russia is demanding things Ukraine won't be able to sign up to still, namely the total occupation of the five oblasts and no ceasefire, no referendums and no DMZ.
If there is a deal from here it will be one imposed by Trump based on an addled assessment of how much money he can screw out of everyone and will on past form last about a week.
The Ukrainians seem to be upbeat about the meeting.
"The meeting between Zelensky and Trump was highly substantive, with more work to follow, but it's considered one of the most important meetings to date, a source from the Ukrainian president’s team told RBC-Ukraine."
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
Don't rule out Cleverly, Tory MPs will coalesce around a stop Jenrick candidate, that may well be Cleverly.
I think other fresher faces will end up becoming that candidate. Katie Lam seems the most likely at the moment if she chooses to run. Whatever she may or may not have done as a SpAd taking orders from ministers is much less relevant than actual decisions taken by former ministers. They have actual records they will need to disown or defend, she has a few position papers that those ministers made her write even if she didn't personally agree with them.
'She became a special adviser to Boris Johnson in 2019 after meeting Andrew Griffith at the Conservative Party conference.[4] Working as Johnson's deputy Chief of Staff[6] she became known for her work ethic and regularly slept at her desk during the COVID-19 pandemic.[4] She left the Johnson administration in early 2021 after an incident where Carrie Johnson's dog, Dilyn was about to urinate on Lam's handbag and Lam had to intervene.[9' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Lam
That sounds like she kicked the dog?
Seems reasonable, assuming it was more of a push than a full-blooded shot on goal. Is "regularly slept at desk during the pandemic" a euphemism for a drinking problem?
Looks like there is no deal, as Russia is demanding things Ukraine won't be able to sign up to still, namely the total occupation of the five oblasts and no ceasefire, no referendums and no DMZ.
If there is a deal from here it will be one imposed by Trump based on an addled assessment of how much money he can screw out of everyone and will on past form last about a week.
The Ukrainians seem to be upbeat about the meeting.
"The meeting between Zelensky and Trump was highly substantive, with more work to follow, but it's considered one of the most important meetings to date, a source from the Ukrainian president’s team told RBC-Ukraine."
Sadly I'd put that down to .r Zelensky being the most recent person to speak to Mr Trump. How long that will last, is another matter.
Mr Starmer's Government are planning a Coup de Kent.
They say the aim is to create a pretext for ministers to send in a central government commissioner to take over all or part of its operations.
Mr Tice said: “We have strong reason to believe what they’re trying to do is sow a loss of confidence in one of our councils and they’ve targeted Kent.
Assuming Tice is right where is the justification with Kent compared to the other councils who had clear issues ?
It would be just politics based on political opponents.
For me the logical political position for Labour to take is to let Reform get on with their business of demolishing Kent, as an exhibition of how they will run the country.
I think Tice is making up gripping yarns in the hope that his siloed supporters will take it. The evidence is "but they have been criticising Kent CC in the House of Commons", and a couple of other bits.
Nigel Farage could ask a question about it at PMQ, but he has taken to watching it from the Public Gallery.
I fucking hate Christmas. Honestly, same idiocy every year. Absurd pressure on people to buy presents to give to people who don't want them. What a waste of time.
You need fluffy dice, fluffy sheep and fluffy angels in your merch shop .
Looks like there is no deal, as Russia is demanding things Ukraine won't be able to sign up to still, namely the total occupation of the five oblasts and no ceasefire, no referendums and no DMZ.
If there is a deal from here it will be one imposed by Trump based on an addled assessment of how much money he can screw out of everyone and will on past form last about a week.
The Ukrainians seem to be upbeat about the meeting.
"The meeting between Zelensky and Trump was highly substantive, with more work to follow, but it's considered one of the most important meetings to date, a source from the Ukrainian president’s team told RBC-Ukraine."
Sadly I'd put that down to .r Zelensky being the most recent person to speak to Mr Trump. How long that will last, is another matter.
We'll see, and it's sensible not to hope for anything good from Trump, but that there's apparently now an agreement between Ukraine and the US on security guarantees - which were previously said to be intended to be passed by Congress - is a step forward for Ukraine.
I think society is changing. The combination of the JMarriott death-of-reading and reward-for-outrage-engagement and silos and, and, and, and (waves arm at all this) is leading to a population with low attention spans, high propensity to outrage, and difficulty in conceptualising the universe in anything other than the most simplistic terms. Look at how easily the terms "capitalism", "fascism" and "communism" have become degraded.
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
I don't think he really understands that for left wing voters they will see this as their chance to extinguish the Tories once and for all consequences be damned.
Well as a counterpoint to Sandy (and to up the sample size from 1 to 2) in a Con/Ref marginal I would vote for the Tory (so long as it wasn't a really nasty reactionary one) to stop Farage. Although it's something of a philosophical nullity as a statement since if I lived in that sort of place I wouldn't be me.
Looks like there is no deal, as Russia is demanding things Ukraine won't be able to sign up to still, namely the total occupation of the five oblasts and no ceasefire, no referendums and no DMZ.
If there is a deal from here it will be one imposed by Trump based on an addled assessment of how much money he can screw out of everyone and will on past form last about a week.
The Ukrainians seem to be upbeat about the meeting.
"The meeting between Zelensky and Trump was highly substantive, with more work to follow, but it's considered one of the most important meetings to date, a source from the Ukrainian president’s team told RBC-Ukraine."
Sadly I'd put that down to .r Zelensky being the most recent person to speak to Mr Trump. How long that will last, is another matter.
We'll see, and it's sensible not to hope for anything good from Trump, but that there's apparently now an agreement between Ukraine and the US on security guarantees - which were previously said to be intended to be passed by Congress - is a step forward for Ukraine.
To be honest I think this press conference with Trump and Zelensky is all hot air and no substance
I simply do not think Putin wants peace and intends continuing in his war against Ukraine
It is all so depressing with never ending talking with no positive outcomes in sight
The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.
Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?
My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
I don't think it's anything to do with the ideas particularly. The Right have simply been better, more imaginative, while the Left have been stuck obsessing over the defeats of the 70s and 80s, and so they haven't argued their case well, or adjusted their ideas to fit the modern world.
You think anti-capitalism is as easy a sell in developed western societies as anti-immigration? I don't. I think without that identity and nationalism angle you're left with something that has quite a low ceiling of electoral support. But I could be wrong. Hope I am actually. Polanski will provide some evidence either way. He's charismatic and slick on the comms. Definitely a 'today' politician not stuck in a past era like eg Corbyn. So let's see where he polls compared to Farage at the GE.
A more imaginative left would have more to say about the future they want to create, rather than what they oppose in the status quo.
For example, the Right aren't simply anti-immigration. They are also selling an idealised vision of the past that has been lost and can be regained.
So in very simple terms I would say that the battle between the populist right and left would be between nostalgia and utopia - but the utopia is largely missing from the left's offer at the moment.
Yes, nice way of expressing it. And to tie back to my thesis, it takes an enormous amount of effort, skill, imagination and intellect to conceptualise and present a viable anti-capitalist model as the basis for economic life. That's why powerful critiques of capitalism are ten a penny but successful alternatives are hens teeth. It's a very high bar (once you've exhausted the rhetorical appeal of 'tax the rich'). The 'nostalgia' offer (with notes of xenophobia and parochialism) is much easier to formulate and get across. Make XYZ great again. Our country. Us v them. Borders. The flag. Our people. Charity begins at Home etc etc. It's not hard to promote all that stuff when there's dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Too many people do sufficiently well out of capitalism, tempered by social democracy, to make anti-capitalism electorally viable.
If you rent your property and work in the public sector or live on benefits and don't have wealthy parents though, why wouldn't you vote for socialism? Plenty of those voters in inner cities and hence socialists win there.
Other than schoolboy politician Zack, and he will just accidentally deliver (like Corbyn before him) Conservative Governments, how do I vote to achieve my socialist panacea? Red-Tory Labour certainly aren't the answer.
Perhap enough voters understand that your "socialist panacea" is far more dangerous than well meaning - and ensure it never gets a chance to prove how disastrous it would be?
My question was somewhat rhetorical. Although driving around Havana in 1950s Americana has a certain romance to it.
I doubt we will ever see the likes of the Little World of Don Camillo in the UK, although I have a growing concern that we might see the extreme right wing alternative under Comrade Farage.
Would I be about right to describe Don Camillo as a Whiskey Priest (Italian Version)?
At least a couple of the diaspora of half a dozen or so "Chaplains to Tommy Robinson", who get spots on GB News, Talk TV and their own Youtube, were rejected for Church of England ministry, or ejected since or resigned when under potential discipline, or are aligned with "continuing Anglican" sects, from which at least one and perhaps more have been further ejected.
So it could be the other way round - eg Calvin Robinson vs the Lib Dem Mayor of Walmington-on-Sea .
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
I don't think he really understands that for left wing voters they will see this as their chance to extinguish the Tories once and for all consequences be damned.
Well as a counterpoint to Sandy (and to up the sample size from 1 to 2) in a Con/Ref marginal I would vote for the Tory (so long as it wasn't a really nasty reactionary one) to stop Farage. Although it's something of a philosophical nullity as a statement since if I lived in that sort of place I wouldn't be me.
To paraphrase Jennifer Lopez, "Don't be fooled by the MP that I've got. I'm still Glenny from the block."
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
Then you will thoroughly deserve the Farage premiership you will get.
When you are then in jail for tweeting and posting unpatriotic wokeism don't come crying to me!
We'll be sharing a cell. Plaid voters will also be on the list.
The Government has scheduled the Third Reading and final vote just TWO days after the Report Stage on 7 January
A major injustice was done to the Chagossians, in 1967, and the proposed agreement with Mauritius cements that injustice.
But, international law … or something.
Given that Starmer has gone from outrage about someone "jailed for the crime of posting on social media" to pleading ignorance about what he posted on social media, can we be sure that he's on top of the detail regarding the Chagos deal or anything else? Maybe he's simply incompetent.
Looks like there is no deal, as Russia is demanding things Ukraine won't be able to sign up to still, namely the total occupation of the five oblasts and no ceasefire, no referendums and no DMZ.
If there is a deal from here it will be one imposed by Trump based on an addled assessment of how much money he can screw out of everyone and will on past form last about a week.
The Ukrainians seem to be upbeat about the meeting.
"The meeting between Zelensky and Trump was highly substantive, with more work to follow, but it's considered one of the most important meetings to date, a source from the Ukrainian president’s team told RBC-Ukraine."
Sadly I'd put that down to .r Zelensky being the most recent person to speak to Mr Trump. How long that will last, is another matter.
We'll see, and it's sensible not to hope for anything good from Trump, but that there's apparently now an agreement between Ukraine and the US on security guarantees - which were previously said to be intended to be passed by Congress - is a step forward for Ukraine.
To be honest I think this press conference with Trump and Zelensky is all hot air and no substance
I simply do not think Putin wants peace and intends continuing in his war against Ukraine
It is all so depressing with never ending talking with no positive outcomes in sight
This is the most succinct (and accurate) description of the peace negotiations that I have seen.
I still can't quite believe that Ukraine has had to spend most of 2025 negotiating with the US, their own ally, because the US keeps trying to force them to surrender to russia. https://x.com/ManiamAkash/status/2005351215518134592
I fucking hate Christmas. Honestly, same idiocy every year. Absurd pressure on people to buy presents to give to people who don't want them. What a waste of time.
You need fluffy dice, fluffy sheep and fluffy angels in your merch shop .
In your part of the world, especially fluffy sheep!
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
Then you will thoroughly deserve the Farage premiership you will get.
When you are then in jail for tweeting and posting unpatriotic wokeism don't come crying to me!
We'll be sharing a cell. Plaid voters will also be on the list.
I voted for all Tory candidates on that ballot paper and on a forced choice would probably prefer Farage to Starmer unlike you, though I would prefer neither.
A Farage government would be more rightwing than any Tory government we have had or are ever likely to have, certainly on social and cultural issues
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
I don't think he really understands that for left wing voters they will see this as their chance to extinguish the Tories once and for all consequences be damned.
Well as a counterpoint to Sandy (and to up the sample size from 1 to 2) in a Con/Ref marginal I would vote for the Tory (so long as it wasn't a really nasty reactionary one) to stop Farage. Although it's something of a philosophical nullity as a statement since if I lived in that sort of place I wouldn't be me.
I would only vote Tory if it was necessary to keep Reform out, but it would be pointless if the Tory was a Jenrick type. How do you know whether you’re getting a Cleverley type and not a Jenrick type?
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
I fucking hate Christmas. Honestly, same idiocy every year. Absurd pressure on people to buy presents to give to people who don't want them. What a waste of time.
You need fluffy dice, fluffy sheep and fluffy angels in your merch shop .
In your part of the world, especially fluffy sheep!
In Notts we tend to be arable, I think.
Derbyshire Peaks are more sheepish, but Lincs the other way is veggies and cereals.
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I've been saying for ages that this is a possibility.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.
Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?
My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
I don't think it's anything to do with the ideas particularly. The Right have simply been better, more imaginative, while the Left have been stuck obsessing over the defeats of the 70s and 80s, and so they haven't argued their case well, or adjusted their ideas to fit the modern world.
You think anti-capitalism is as easy a sell in developed western societies as anti-immigration? I don't. I think without that identity and nationalism angle you're left with something that has quite a low ceiling of electoral support. But I could be wrong. Hope I am actually. Polanski will provide some evidence either way. He's charismatic and slick on the comms. Definitely a 'today' politician not stuck in a past era like eg Corbyn. So let's see where he polls compared to Farage at the GE.
A more imaginative left would have more to say about the future they want to create, rather than what they oppose in the status quo.
For example, the Right aren't simply anti-immigration. They are also selling an idealised vision of the past that has been lost and can be regained.
So in very simple terms I would say that the battle between the populist right and left would be between nostalgia and utopia - but the utopia is largely missing from the left's offer at the moment.
Yes, nice way of expressing it. And to tie back to my thesis, it takes an enormous amount of effort, skill, imagination and intellect to conceptualise and present a viable anti-capitalist model as the basis for economic life. That's why powerful critiques of capitalism are ten a penny but successful alternatives are hens teeth. It's a very high bar (once you've exhausted the rhetorical appeal of 'tax the rich'). The 'nostalgia' offer (with notes of xenophobia and parochialism) is much easier to formulate and get across. Make XYZ great again. Our country. Us v them. Borders. The flag. Our people. Charity begins at Home etc etc. It's not hard to promote all that stuff when there's dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Too many people do sufficiently well out of capitalism, tempered by social democracy, to make anti-capitalism electorally viable.
If you rent your property and work in the public sector or live on benefits and don't have wealthy parents though, why wouldn't you vote for socialism? Plenty of those voters in inner cities and hence socialists win there.
Other than schoolboy politician Zack, and he will just accidentally deliver (like Corbyn before him) Conservative Governments, how do I vote to achieve my socialist panacea? Red-Tory Labour certainly aren't the answer.
Perhap enough voters understand that your "socialist panacea" is far more dangerous than well meaning - and ensure it never gets a chance to prove how disastrous it would be?
My question was somewhat rhetorical. Although driving around Havana in 1950s Americana has a certain romance to it.
I doubt we will ever see the likes of the Little World of Don Camillo in the UK, although I have a growing concern that we might see the extreme right wing alternative under Comrade Farage.
Would I be about right to describe Don Camillo as a Whiskey Priest (Italian Version)?
At least a couple of the diaspora of half a dozen or so "Chaplains to Tommy Robinson", who get spots on GB News, Talk TV and their own Youtube, were rejected for Church of England ministry, or ejected since or resigned when under potential discipline, or are aligned with "continuing Anglican" sects, from which at least one and perhaps more have been further ejected.
So it could be the other way round - eg Calvin Robinson vs the Lib Dem Mayor of Walmington-on-Sea .
Don Camillo lived in a Communist town. He was forever fighting the madness of local Italian Communism, particularly the corrupt Mayor.
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
Then you will thoroughly deserve the Farage premiership you will get.
When you are then in jail for tweeting and posting unpatriotic wokeism don't come crying to me!
We'll be sharing a cell. Plaid voters will also be on the list.
I voted for all Tory candidates on that ballot paper and on a forced choice would probably prefer Farage to Starmer unlike you, though I would prefer neither.
A Farage government would be more rightwing than any Tory government we have had or are ever likely to have, certainly on social and cultural issues
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
I don't think he really understands that for left wing voters they will see this as their chance to extinguish the Tories once and for all consequences be damned.
Well as a counterpoint to Sandy (and to up the sample size from 1 to 2) in a Con/Ref marginal I would vote for the Tory (so long as it wasn't a really nasty reactionary one) to stop Farage. Although it's something of a philosophical nullity as a statement since if I lived in that sort of place I wouldn't be me.
I would only vote Tory if it was necessary to keep Reform out, but it would be pointless if the Tory was a Jenrick type. How do you know whether you’re getting a Cleverley type and not a Jenrick type?
Let's accept the premise that the Tory candidate is a better person to be an MP than the Reform candidate.
It only makes mathematical sense to vote tactically for the Tory if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The combined Tory+Reform vote will be greater than two-thirds, making it impossible for a different candidate to come through the middle and win on a split right-wing vote. 2. The Reform-Tory gap is small enough to be bridged by tactical voters.
Set against that, there's also the factor that voting for a party earns them Short money (if they're not in government and they win enough MPs/votes), and has a moral/morale component in indicating how many people support a particular party, even if they don't elect an MP in your constituency.
Plus, of course, all this is based on guesswork, because some of your fellow constituents won't have made up their mind how they will vote, and you can't be sure how the numbers will play out given large swings from the previous rejection.
And then, of course, a substantial proportion of Tory MPs would be pretty comfortable with Farage's agenda, in which case there's little distinction to be made.
You don't even need to be all that rabidly anti-Tory to not be convinced by tactical voting (and these factors are also why I think arguments about tactical voting riding to the rescue of a split Left vote are rather overdone).
Tactical voting is much more likely to be a factor in the election after next, when people have a chance to consider how the lack of tactical voting resulted in Farage becoming PM, and they developed a determination to bring that to an end, with also clearer information about where and how to do so.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
I demand that no one posts anything that raises issues I don't want to deal with.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
I demand that no one posts anything that raises issues I don't want to deal with.
Did I suggest that? It just seems an odd thing to want to flag up on this site.
I think in general tactical voting is much, much more likely to happen against an unpopular incumbent government, or recent government party, rather than to prevent an opposition party that is increasing in support from winning seats.
I've no idea which seats are 200th or 300th on the Reform target list, and I would guess that most voters at the next election won't know either. But when you're trying to chuck out an incumbent it's much easier to see, because the relevant constituencies are the ones which have the MPs you wish to turf out.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
What's the difference between Boxer and Ajax?
(Apologies if this is equivalent to asking if either of them are a tank...)
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
I demand that no one posts anything that raises issues I don't want to deal with.
Did I suggest that? It just seems an odd thing to want to flag up on this site.
It was discussed on Sky paper review with both contributors condemning the charity's position
Not sure why you are so sensitive to it being raised
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It consists of bolting a slightly modified version of an existing SPG turret to the Boxer modular battlefield vehicle. The original turrets were original designed and tested about 20 years ago. The Boxer has been around a while - it works, doesn't attack its own crew and everything.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Times mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
What's the difference between Boxer and Ajax?
(Apologies if this is equivalent to asking if either of them are a tank...)
Boxer = wheels, Ajax = tracks. This is very, very important according to a military forum rabbit hole I scarcely escaped from.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Times mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
A bit like Stonewall, who like to teach people their own interpretation of what the law says, rather than what the law actually says.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Times mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
A bit like Stonewall, who like to teach people their own interpretation of what the law says, rather than what the law actually says.
That was the example I had in mind but thought it unhelpful to specifically highlight
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
What's the difference between Boxer and Ajax?
(Apologies if this is equivalent to asking if either of them are a tank...)
Boxer = wheels, Ajax = tracks. This is very, very important according to a military forum rabbit hole I scarcely escaped from.
There is a actually a variant of Boxer with tracks - think it is still a prototype.
The Boxer idea is that a base vehicle (which comes in a few sizes)
has a mission module added to it
The tracked version means that you'd be able to add the modules to a tracked "base"
Avoiding hideous vibration (to the point of vehicles destroying themselves) has been an issue with tracked vehicles since Little Willie.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
I think this is the weirdest thing Trump has just said:
"President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding, including supplying energy, electricity, and other things at very low prices,"
The only reason for Putin to supply Ukraine with cheap energy is so that he can threaten to turn off supplies if Ukraine does something he doesn't like.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
No and that is state assisted murder. Attitudes like that and potential slippery slopes coming from legal assisted dying are why many UK legislators have reservations even about approving it for those with terminal illnesses and 6 months or less left to live
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
You seem to be the one triggered. I suspect it is quite newsworthy to many.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
I think in general tactical voting is much, much more likely to happen against an unpopular incumbent government, or recent government party, rather than to prevent an opposition party that is increasing in support from winning seats.
I've no idea which seats are 200th or 300th on the Reform target list, and I would guess that most voters at the next election won't know either. But when you're trying to chuck out an incumbent it's much easier to see, because the relevant constituencies are the ones which have the MPs you wish to turf out.
And if you want to stop the leading opposition party, voting for the incumbent representative is the best way to do it too see the tactical votes that won it for the Liberal government earlier this year for example against a populist rightwing opposition
I think in general tactical voting is much, much more likely to happen against an unpopular incumbent government, or recent government party, rather than to prevent an opposition party that is increasing in support from winning seats.
I've no idea which seats are 200th or 300th on the Reform target list, and I would guess that most voters at the next election won't know either. But when you're trying to chuck out an incumbent it's much easier to see, because the relevant constituencies are the ones which have the MPs you wish to turf out.
And if you want to stop the leading opposition party, voting for the incumbent representative is the best way to do it too see the tactical votes that won it for the Liberal government earlier this year for example against a populist rightwing opposition
But that would require Conservative voters to vote for Labour to keep Farage out. A touch unlikely I would suggest.
I think in general tactical voting is much, much more likely to happen against an unpopular incumbent government, or recent government party, rather than to prevent an opposition party that is increasing in support from winning seats.
I've no idea which seats are 200th or 300th on the Reform target list, and I would guess that most voters at the next election won't know either. But when you're trying to chuck out an incumbent it's much easier to see, because the relevant constituencies are the ones which have the MPs you wish to turf out.
And if you want to stop the leading opposition party, voting for the incumbent representative is the best way to do it too see the tactical votes that won it for the Liberal government earlier this year for example against a populist rightwing opposition
But that would require Conservative voters to vote for Labour to keep Farage out. A touch unlikely I would suggest.
No LD and Green voters to Labour, much as the NDP and Green vote collapsed in Canada in the Liberals favour.
We also still have a more centrist Tory Party and populist right Reform Party much like Canada did until 2003
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Times mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
A bit like Stonewall, who like to teach people their own interpretation of what the law says, rather than what the law actually says.
Even if they do not intend to do that, it's a fundamental risk for any campaigning/lobbying organisation to be treated as some ultimate authority on a subject where they do a lot of campaigning/lobbying for specific outcomes, rather than as a potentially very knowledgable but invested entity. Even innocently they will see what they want to see, and others have to be cautious about that possibility (it won't always occur).
I have written to @ShabanaMahmood urging her to rescind the citizenship of Alaa Abd el-Fattah and deport him from the country.
I've written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley to ask him to investigate a series of breaches of the Race Relations Act 1976 by a student at Dulwich College in 1981.
I have written to @ShabanaMahmood urging her to rescind the citizenship of Alaa Abd el-Fattah and deport him from the country.
I've written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley to ask him to investigate a series of breaches of the Race Relations Act 1976 by a student at Dulwich College in 1981.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
No and that is state assisted murder. Attitudes like that and potential slippery slopes coming from legal assisted dying are why many UK legislators have reservations even about approving it for those with terminal illnesses and 6 months or less left to live
Many, but a minority. Notwithstanding outright opposition or efforts to strengthen safeguards in the Lords, I cannot ultimately see anything other than delay occurring, when the general principle is accepted by a majority of MPs - even if the still have some issues over details.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
I demand that no one posts anything that raises issues I don't want to deal with.
Did I suggest that? It just seems an odd thing to want to flag up on this site.
Compared to what? The range of topics discussed here is vast. That is one of the site's great attractions. Why are you so bothered by this particular topic?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
Is it your contention that racism is worse than sexism?
BTW, I'm the only Indian-born person in the PB Village!
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
No and that is state assisted murder. Attitudes like that and potential slippery slopes coming from legal assisted dying are why many UK legislators have reservations even about approving it for those with terminal illnesses and 6 months or less left to live
It is not murder if it is the patients choice.
Murder is killing people against their will, because you want to kill them, not because they wish to end their own life.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Fatal crash risk ‘three times higher’ in hybrid cars than petrol
Experts believe the higher death rates could be explained by hybrid cars’ combination of petrol engines and electric motors, which can be more prone to fires
Number of vehicles might be the wrong measure. Hybrids are very popular with cab drivers so will be used several hours a day rather than a short commute or weekly trip to the supermarket.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
Can you not think of a hypothetical case where that wouldn't be a sufficient safeguard?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Circles back to what I said before, this is not about safeguarding to ensure that the person's choice is actually their own, but about satisfying those who object to the very principle.
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
Can you not think of a hypothetical case where that wouldn't be a sufficient safeguard?
No.
I believe in free choice. If you can come up with such a hypothetical case, I am willing to ponder it, but no, as far as I am concerned if someone is able to communicate their free choice, then their free choice should be respected.
Indeed, I have said before I'd go considerably further, and let people set up 'living wills' as advanced directives saying that in certain circumstances, eg dementia, where they can't express their will any more, then they pre-determine under what circumstances they'd rather die than continue living. With the safeguard then being has the conditions that they signed while they were able to do so been met, if so, respect their choice.
Fatal crash risk ‘three times higher’ in hybrid cars than petrol
Experts believe the higher death rates could be explained by hybrid cars’ combination of petrol engines and electric motors, which can be more prone to fires
Number of vehicles might be the wrong measure. Hybrids are very popular with cab drivers so will be used several hours a day rather than a short commute or weekly trip to the supermarket.
That's a very good point I hadn't considered.
---
Edit to add: I remember seeing some interesting statistics in the US, that the average age of a car in the US is 12.9 years (really), but that a car will have driven half the miles it will ever drive by the time it gets to being about seven years old. In other words: newer cars appear more deadly than old ones because they are driven a lot more.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
Can you not think of a hypothetical case where that wouldn't be a sufficient safeguard?
No.
I believe in free choice. If you can come up with such a hypothetical case, I am willing to ponder it, but no, as far as I am concerned if someone is able to communicate their free choice, then their free choice should be respected.
Indeed, I have said before I'd go considerably further, and let people set up 'living wills' as advanced directives saying that in certain circumstances, eg dementia, where they can't express their will any more, then they pre-determine under what circumstances they'd rather die than continue living. With the safeguard then being has the conditions that they signed while they were able to do so been met, if so, respect their choice.
Could not possibly agree more. This is about fear of edge cases not the general principle. I would like to set the parameters to have a good death. I don't want the State (or potentially well meaning, or perhaps not, members of my family), interfering in my choices
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
I genuinely do not have an answer on this topic.
I recognise that it is cruel and degrading to prevent someone from ending their life when they wish to do so because they find their life intolerable, and there is no prospect of it becoming less intolerable.
And yet, as someone being treated for depression, and who has experienced several periods of disturbing suicidal ideation, I worry about what the consequences might be to make suicide a more easily achieved option. I worry about people being, or feeling, coerced due to being, or at least feeling that they are being, a burden on others. Particularly at a time when social and hospice care is so badly underfunded. And then, of course, there is the risk of a Harold Shipman exploiting the law.
I think that a lot of the more strident advocates for the change cannot see beyond the exercise of their personal choice and are dismissive of the effects that the law change might have on others.
I don't know where the balance should lie. I can only hope that Parliament will come to a careful, considered, compromise.
Your simplistic arguments are not at all convincing.
The strongest argument in favor of assisted dying (in general, rather than this specific bill) is that legal assisted dying exists for the moderately well off today, whether they have six months to live or sixty.
If we believe that it is in an evil that should not be allowed to exist, then we need to prevent people traveling to Switzerland to commit suicide. And if we do not, then we should probably simply copy the Swiss system.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
I genuinely do not have an answer on this topic.
I recognise that it is cruel and degrading to prevent someone from ending their life when they wish to do so because they find their life intolerable, and there is no prospect of it becoming less intolerable.
And yet, as someone being treated for depression, and who has experienced several periods of disturbing suicidal ideation, I worry about what the consequences might be to make suicide a more easily achieved option. I worry about people being, or feeling, coerced due to being, or at least feeling that they are being, a burden on others. Particularly at a time when social and hospice care is so badly underfunded. And then, of course, there is the risk of a Harold Shipman exploiting the law.
I think that a lot of the more strident advocates for the change cannot see beyond the exercise of their personal choice and are dismissive of the effects that the law change might have on others.
I don't know where the balance should lie. I can only hope that Parliament will come to a careful, considered, compromise.
Your simplistic arguments are not at all convincing.
Suicide is the number one cause of death of males under 50 in the UK today.
Not under my proposed law, with safeguards, and cooling off periods. Today. Now.
Would I have a suicide option for those with suicidal tendencies that have met the safeguards and conditions such as cooling off period and clearly and unambiguously communicating their desires? Yes.
Would I think it sad if someone makes that choice? Yes.
Would I prefer that choice, if made, be respected safely and humanely rather than via undignified and dangerous means such as stepping in front of a train or jumping off a bridge? Also yes.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
I genuinely do not have an answer on this topic.
I recognise that it is cruel and degrading to prevent someone from ending their life when they wish to do so because they find their life intolerable, and there is no prospect of it becoming less intolerable.
And yet, as someone being treated for depression, and who has experienced several periods of disturbing suicidal ideation, I worry about what the consequences might be to make suicide a more easily achieved option. I worry about people being, or feeling, coerced due to being, or at least feeling that they are being, a burden on others. Particularly at a time when social and hospice care is so badly underfunded. And then, of course, there is the risk of a Harold Shipman exploiting the law.
I think that a lot of the more strident advocates for the change cannot see beyond the exercise of their personal choice and are dismissive of the effects that the law change might have on others.
I don't know where the balance should lie. I can only hope that Parliament will come to a careful, considered, compromise.
Your simplistic arguments are not at all convincing.
Suicide is the number one cause of death of males under 50 in the UK today.
Not under my proposed law, with safeguards, and cooling off periods. Today. Now.
Would I have a suicide option for those with suicidal tendencies that have met the safeguards and conditions such as cooling off period and clearly and unambiguously communicating their desires? Yes.
Would I think it sad if someone makes that choice? Yes.
Would I prefer that choice, if made, be respected safely and humanely rather than via undignified and dangerous means such as stepping in front of a train or jumping off a bridge? Also yes.
If you make something easier it will generally happen more often.
I might not be alive to argue the point with you today. I would not have enjoyed the dinner that I cooked today. I would not have felt the joy of making my wife laugh this evening.
I have told medical professionals in the past that I wanted to die. What might have happened to me if they could make that happen?
This, also, applies to the Dignitas option. Perhaps having to travel to another country is just enough of a barrier to create a safeguard. It makes it just hard enough that someone has to genuinely want it enough. Perhaps a better option would be to pay travel costs and Dignitas fees?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
I genuinely do not have an answer on this topic.
I recognise that it is cruel and degrading to prevent someone from ending their life when they wish to do so because they find their life intolerable, and there is no prospect of it becoming less intolerable.
And yet, as someone being treated for depression, and who has experienced several periods of disturbing suicidal ideation, I worry about what the consequences might be to make suicide a more easily achieved option. I worry about people being, or feeling, coerced due to being, or at least feeling that they are being, a burden on others. Particularly at a time when social and hospice care is so badly underfunded. And then, of course, there is the risk of a Harold Shipman exploiting the law.
I think that a lot of the more strident advocates for the change cannot see beyond the exercise of their personal choice and are dismissive of the effects that the law change might have on others.
I don't know where the balance should lie. I can only hope that Parliament will come to a careful, considered, compromise.
Your simplistic arguments are not at all convincing.
Suicide is the number one cause of death of males under 50 in the UK today.
Not under my proposed law, with safeguards, and cooling off periods. Today. Now.
Would I have a suicide option for those with suicidal tendencies that have met the safeguards and conditions such as cooling off period and clearly and unambiguously communicating their desires? Yes.
Would I think it sad if someone makes that choice? Yes.
Would I prefer that choice, if made, be respected safely and humanely rather than via undignified and dangerous means such as stepping in front of a train or jumping off a bridge? Also yes.
If you make something easier it will generally happen more often.
I might not be alive to argue the point with you today. I would not have enjoyed the dinner that I cooked today. I would not have felt the joy of making my wife laugh this evening.
I have told medical professionals in the past that I wanted to die. What might have happened to me if they could make that happen?
This, also, applies to the Dignitas option. Perhaps having to travel to another country is just enough of a barrier to create a safeguard. It makes it just hard enough that someone has to genuinely want it enough. Perhaps a better option would be to pay travel costs and Dignitas fees?
Its swings and roundabouts.
How many people might be alive today if they'd gone and spoken to a medical professional instead of going to step in front of trains?
Canada has a much more liberal assisted dying law than what is being proposed by Parliament here. The suicide rate in Canada is not much higher or trending higher than it is in the UK, despite that.
The safeguards behind going through multiple steps of checks before death can be assisted means that it is not a go-to for those who want to die on a whim.
But for those who wish to die as a concerted choice, anyone who speaks to a doctor about that rather than going to the train tracks is a win in my book. Whether that doctor assists them or is able to offer them counselling, either way it is better than the alternative.
I have written to @ShabanaMahmood urging her to rescind the citizenship of Alaa Abd el-Fattah and deport him from the country.
I've written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley to ask him to investigate a series of breaches of the Race Relations Act 1976 by a student at Dulwich College in 1981.
Presumably out of the statute of limitations?
There is no statute of limitations for "serious" offences. For "minor" offences isn't it is six months? So I guess if neither offence is "serious", both Farage and myself have wasted our time.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
I genuinely do not have an answer on this topic.
I recognise that it is cruel and degrading to prevent someone from ending their life when they wish to do so because they find their life intolerable, and there is no prospect of it becoming less intolerable.
And yet, as someone being treated for depression, and who has experienced several periods of disturbing suicidal ideation, I worry about what the consequences might be to make suicide a more easily achieved option. I worry about people being, or feeling, coerced due to being, or at least feeling that they are being, a burden on others. Particularly at a time when social and hospice care is so badly underfunded. And then, of course, there is the risk of a Harold Shipman exploiting the law.
I think that a lot of the more strident advocates for the change cannot see beyond the exercise of their personal choice and are dismissive of the effects that the law change might have on others.
I don't know where the balance should lie. I can only hope that Parliament will come to a careful, considered, compromise.
Your simplistic arguments are not at all convincing.
Suicide is the number one cause of death of males under 50 in the UK today.
Not under my proposed law, with safeguards, and cooling off periods. Today. Now.
Would I have a suicide option for those with suicidal tendencies that have met the safeguards and conditions such as cooling off period and clearly and unambiguously communicating their desires? Yes.
Would I think it sad if someone makes that choice? Yes.
Would I prefer that choice, if made, be respected safely and humanely rather than via undignified and dangerous means such as stepping in front of a train or jumping off a bridge? Also yes.
If you make something easier it will generally happen more often.
I might not be alive to argue the point with you today. I would not have enjoyed the dinner that I cooked today. I would not have felt the joy of making my wife laugh this evening.
I have told medical professionals in the past that I wanted to die. What might have happened to me if they could make that happen?
This, also, applies to the Dignitas option. Perhaps having to travel to another country is just enough of a barrier to create a safeguard. It makes it just hard enough that someone has to genuinely want it enough. Perhaps a better option would be to pay travel costs and Dignitas fees?
Its swings and roundabouts.
How many people might be alive today if they'd gone and spoken to a medical professional instead of going to step in front of trains?
Comments
When you are then in jail for tweeting and posting unpatriotic wokeism don't come crying to me!
I don't know if Cleverly would do better than Badenoch but it's not all obvious he would do worse.
"The meeting between Zelensky and Trump was highly substantive, with more work to follow, but it's considered one of the most important meetings to date, a source from the Ukrainian president’s team told RBC-Ukraine."
Is "regularly slept at desk during the pandemic" a euphemism for a drinking problem?
I have written to @ShabanaMahmood urging her to rescind the citizenship of Alaa Abd el-Fattah and deport him from the country.
I think Tice is making up gripping yarns in the hope that his siloed supporters will take it. The evidence is "but they have been criticising Kent CC in the House of Commons", and a couple of other bits.
Nigel Farage could ask a question about it at PMQ, but he has taken to watching it from the Public Gallery.
I simply do not think Putin wants peace and intends continuing in his war against Ukraine
It is all so depressing with never ending talking with no positive outcomes in sight
At least a couple of the diaspora of half a dozen or so "Chaplains to Tommy Robinson", who get spots on GB News, Talk TV and their own Youtube, were rejected for Church of England ministry, or ejected since or resigned when under potential discipline, or are aligned with "continuing Anglican" sects, from which at least one and perhaps more have been further ejected.
So it could be the other way round - eg Calvin Robinson vs the Lib Dem Mayor of Walmington-on-Sea
But, international law … or something.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/2005398111670419659
International law is far from perfect, but it’s a lot better than no international law.
I still can't quite believe that Ukraine has had to spend most of 2025 negotiating with the US, their own ally, because the US keeps trying to force them to surrender to russia.
https://x.com/ManiamAkash/status/2005351215518134592
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15417599/Keir-Starmer-left-red-faced-PM-says-unaware-abhorrent-posts-Egyptian-extremist-welcomed-Britain-furious-backlash.html
A Farage government would be more rightwing than any Tory government we have had or are ever likely to have, certainly on social and cultural issues
What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ?
(If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
UK and Germany sign £52m contract for cutting-edge artillery
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-germany-sign-52m-contract-for-cutting-edge-artillery
Derbyshire Peaks are more sheepish, but Lincs the other way is veggies and cereals.
It only makes mathematical sense to vote tactically for the Tory if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The combined Tory+Reform vote will be greater than two-thirds, making it impossible for a different candidate to come through the middle and win on a split right-wing vote.
2. The Reform-Tory gap is small enough to be bridged by tactical voters.
Set against that, there's also the factor that voting for a party earns them Short money (if they're not in government and they win enough MPs/votes), and has a moral/morale component in indicating how many people support a particular party, even if they don't elect an MP in your constituency.
Plus, of course, all this is based on guesswork, because some of your fellow constituents won't have made up their mind how they will vote, and you can't be sure how the numbers will play out given large swings from the previous rejection.
And then, of course, a substantial proportion of Tory MPs would be pretty comfortable with Farage's agenda, in which case there's little distinction to be made.
You don't even need to be all that rabidly anti-Tory to not be convinced by tactical voting (and these factors are also why I think arguments about tactical voting riding to the rescue of a split Left vote are rather overdone).
Tactical voting is much more likely to be a factor in the election after next, when people have a chance to consider how the lack of tactical voting resulted in Farage becoming PM, and they developed a determination to bring that to an end, with also clearer information about where and how to do so.
* It looks like a media confection to me, but hats off to Jenrick for blowing the bloody doors off.
Organisation criticised over its advice on ‘sex-selective’ terminations amid fears they are on the rise in Britain’s Indian community" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/abortion-sex-selective-terminations-p9xq5tj3s
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
Genuine question.
I've no idea which seats are 200th or 300th on the Reform target list, and I would guess that most voters at the next election won't know either. But when you're trying to chuck out an incumbent it's much easier to see, because the relevant constituencies are the ones which have the MPs you wish to turf out.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
(Apologies if this is equivalent to asking if either of them are a tank...)
Not sure why you are so sensitive to it being raised
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Times mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
Chubby Checker (b.1941), Bob Dylan (b.1941), Bernie Goetz (b.1947).
https://x.com/jonhollis9/status/2005280246443258284
The Boxer idea is that a base vehicle (which comes in a few sizes)
has a mission module added to it
The tracked version means that you'd be able to add the modules to a tracked "base"
Avoiding hideous vibration (to the point of vehicles destroying themselves) has been an issue with tracked vehicles since Little Willie.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
"President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding, including supplying energy, electricity, and other things at very low prices,"
The only reason for Putin to supply Ukraine with cheap energy is so that he can threaten to turn off supplies if Ukraine does something he doesn't like.
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/06/05/the-stunning-decline-of-the-preference-for-having-boys
We also still have a more centrist Tory Party and populist right Reform Party much like Canada did until 2003
😉
BTW, I'm the only Indian-born person in the PB Village!
Murder is killing people against their will, because you want to kill them, not because they wish to end their own life.
Their life, their choice. Not a murderers choice.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
I believe in free choice. If you can come up with such a hypothetical case, I am willing to ponder it, but no, as far as I am concerned if someone is able to communicate their free choice, then their free choice should be respected.
Indeed, I have said before I'd go considerably further, and let people set up 'living wills' as advanced directives saying that in certain circumstances, eg dementia, where they can't express their will any more, then they pre-determine under what circumstances they'd rather die than continue living. With the safeguard then being has the conditions that they signed while they were able to do so been met, if so, respect their choice.
---
Edit to add: I remember seeing some interesting statistics in the US, that the average age of a car in the US is 12.9 years (really), but that a car will have driven half the miles it will ever drive by the time it gets to being about seven years old. In other words: newer cars appear more deadly than old ones because they are driven a lot more.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/28/successive-uk-governments-face-questions-over-support-for-activist-alaa-abd-el-fattah
This is about fear of edge cases not the general principle. I would like to set the parameters to have a good death. I don't want the State (or potentially well meaning, or perhaps not, members of my family), interfering in my choices
I recognise that it is cruel and degrading to prevent someone from ending their life when they wish to do so because they find their life intolerable, and there is no prospect of it becoming less intolerable.
And yet, as someone being treated for depression, and who has experienced several periods of disturbing suicidal ideation, I worry about what the consequences might be to make suicide a more easily achieved option. I worry about people being, or feeling, coerced due to being, or at least feeling that they are being, a burden on others. Particularly at a time when social and hospice care is so badly underfunded. And then, of course, there is the risk of a Harold Shipman exploiting the law.
I think that a lot of the more strident advocates for the change cannot see beyond the exercise of their personal choice and are dismissive of the effects that the law change might have on others.
I don't know where the balance should lie. I can only hope that Parliament will come to a careful, considered, compromise.
Your simplistic arguments are not at all convincing.
If we believe that it is in an evil that should not be allowed to exist, then we need to prevent people traveling to Switzerland to commit suicide. And if we do not, then we should probably simply copy the Swiss system.
Not under my proposed law, with safeguards, and cooling off periods. Today. Now.
Would I have a suicide option for those with suicidal tendencies that have met the safeguards and conditions such as cooling off period and clearly and unambiguously communicating their desires? Yes.
Would I think it sad if someone makes that choice? Yes.
Would I prefer that choice, if made, be respected safely and humanely rather than via undignified and dangerous means such as stepping in front of a train or jumping off a bridge? Also yes.
I might not be alive to argue the point with you today. I would not have enjoyed the dinner that I cooked today. I would not have felt the joy of making my wife laugh this evening.
I have told medical professionals in the past that I wanted to die. What might have happened to me if they could make that happen?
This, also, applies to the Dignitas option. Perhaps having to travel to another country is just enough of a barrier to create a safeguard. It makes it just hard enough that someone has to genuinely want it enough. Perhaps a better option would be to pay travel costs and Dignitas fees?
How many people might be alive today if they'd gone and spoken to a medical professional instead of going to step in front of trains?
The safeguards behind going through multiple steps of checks before death can be assisted means that it is not a go-to for those who want to die on a whim.
But for those who wish to die as a concerted choice, anyone who speaks to a doctor about that rather than going to the train tracks is a win in my book. Whether that doctor assists them or is able to offer them counselling, either way it is better than the alternative.