Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
I thought the convention was that it would only be invoked on things in the government's manifesto - to avoid parties doing radical things with no consent.
I think you are conflating with the Salisbury convention - the lords doesn’t block manifesto commitments
Possibly I am, but that implies they are able block anything else.
Shouldn't the reverse apply in that that the Commons shouldn't force through non-manifesto (and non-government) business?
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Thank you William. I suppose that makes it a legitimate state execution then.
I have seen the stories that Pretti was on an ICE "kill list", presumably for spitting on an ICE guy. Stephen Miller explained that ICE agents have "full immunity" for dealing with left wing agitators.
Yes, presumably William was trying to make us sympathize with Trump and ICE, but he's achieved the opposite effect: Pretti looks to have been the victim of a targeted revenge killing. That must explain why, at the later event, he was shot dead in the most emphatic fashion having seemingly done not much at all. They must have picked him out and made their move.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
John Crace echoing the observations some of us made earlier today:
Title: "Badenoch shoots herself in the foot on the Tories’ long march to the right. Not content with haemorrhaging MPs to Reform, Kemi decides to drive others into the arms of the Lib Dems"
Kemi made a well received speech where she welcomed the new prosper input to her policies on the economy but ended speculation she may move back to a pro EU stance that some in prosper may have hoped
At present she is distancing herself from Farage but also she is not moving towards a lib dem offer
Well received by Andy Street and Ruth Davidson. Really?
I expect so and Crace is not her target audience
And I should say I have joined prosper
Is squeezing your voter base from both the left and the right wise?
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
It's very strange that the BBC makes no mention of this.
Sorry for the name dropping but a two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
There is some talk of a royal commission from "government sources" so perhaps this is not a hill they wish to die on.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Thank you William. I suppose that makes it a legitimate state execution then.
I have seen the stories that Pretti was on an ICE "kill list", presumably for spitting on an ICE guy. Stephen Miller explained that ICE agents have "full immunity" for dealing with left wing agitators.
Yes, presumably William was trying to make us sympathize with Trump and ICE, but he's achieved the opposite effect: Pretti looks to have been the victim of a targeted revenge killing. That must explain why, at the later event, he was shot dead in the most emphatic fashion having seemingly done not much at all. They must have picked him out and made their move.
According to CNN he had his rib broken last week.
It would appear he was targeted, executed (Gestapo style) and the evidence allegedly destroyed.
Looks like the stars are aligning for the US strike on the ayatollah this weekend
It's a bit late. Thousands of Iranians are dead because America had their back, only it didn't. The fireworks will come too late for them and are unlikely to achieve regime change on their own.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
It's very strange that the BBC makes no mention of this.
They've just shown all the footage. It doesn't help though. Unless you think it's reasonabhle to shoot someone several times for spitting
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
The AD bill is a conscience vote rather than one on party lines. It shouldn't be forced through.
John Crace echoing the observations some of us made earlier today:
Title: "Badenoch shoots herself in the foot on the Tories’ long march to the right. Not content with haemorrhaging MPs to Reform, Kemi decides to drive others into the arms of the Lib Dems"
Kemi made a well received speech where she welcomed the new prosper input to her policies on the economy but ended speculation she may move back to a pro EU stance that some in prosper may have hoped
At present she is distancing herself from Farage but also she is not moving towards a lib dem offer
Well received by Andy Street and Ruth Davidson. Really?
I expect so and Crace is not her target audience
And I should say I have joined prosper
Is squeezing your voter base from both the left and the right wise?
You make a choice and Kemi is attacking Farage and not looking over her shoulder to the EU debate
As a member of prosper I am looking forward to how Kemi' s policy offers develop
Looks like the stars are aligning for the US strike on the ayatollah this weekend
It's a bit late. Thousands of Iranians are dead because America had their back, only it didn't. The fireworks will come too late for them and are unlikely to achieve regime change on their own.
Palmerston gunboat diplomacy? Trump gets his nuclear disarmament treaty and the Ayatollahs keep their country?
Bari laid out her vision to all CBS News employees this morning (leaked to CNN's Brian Stelter immediately): We will no longer tell viewers what happened. We present argument and opinion about what happened. We expect that to offend many of our viewers, and we don't care. 4/
Bari laid out her vision to all CBS News employees this morning (leaked to CNN's Brian Stelter immediately): We will no longer tell viewers what happened. We present argument and opinion about what happened. We expect that to offend many of our viewers, and we don't care. 4/
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Thank you William. I suppose that makes it a legitimate state execution then.
I have seen the stories that Pretti was on an ICE "kill list", presumably for spitting on an ICE guy. Stephen Miller explained that ICE agents have "full immunity" for dealing with left wing agitators.
I try not to read William's posts if I can avoid it or I end up losing faith in human nature
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
But that's with commitments in the government's manifesto, this not a manifesto pledge, this would be as scandalous as the prorogation crisis.
The 1911Act, a mended by the Parliament Act 1949, which reduced the Lords' delaying power to one year, makes no mention of a manifesto pledge. That's just made up.
It is scandalous that the unelected body can frustrate the will of Parliament and of the large majority of voters. And it's a small minority in that unelected body that is doing the delaying.
We're in the Salisbury-Addison convention territory now.
The public support the death penalty in certain circumstances but I'm not seeing you advocate that.
I am sure you'd be raging if a Reform government tried this kind of shithousery with the death penalty.
The Salisbury-Addison Convention is a constitutional rule where the House of Lords does not oppose, delay, or block legislation that was promised in the governing party's election manifesto. It ensures the elected Commons can pass core policies.
It does not refer to legislation that is not in the manifesto. That is covered by the 1911 and 1949 Acts.
The Salisbury-Addison Convention is irrelevant in this case as it does not involve manifesto pledges.
If the Commons passed legislation on the death penalty with the support of a large majority of voters, and the Lords blocked it, I would not complain if the government used the 1911/1947 Acts to force it through after a year. It would be the democratic thing to do.
Bari laid out her vision to all CBS News employees this morning (leaked to CNN's Brian Stelter immediately): We will no longer tell viewers what happened. We present argument and opinion about what happened. We expect that to offend many of our viewers, and we don't care. 4/
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over "Crazy Stephen Miller".
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over Miller.
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
He's gonna be bigly pissed off when it doesn't get a load of Oscars next year.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
The AD bill is a conscience vote rather than one on party lines. It shouldn't be forced through.
Labour are so ham-fisted.
It should if an unelected chamber are unwilling to let the bill pass no matter what.
Only qualm, categorising it as a South Manchester seat, when it just about creeps into the South due to the boundary changes. No, both Gorton and Denton were always East Manchester, and Ford looks from his academic neighbourhood at the bit nearest him.
I agree broadly with the conclusions, I pretty much came to this conclusion, but can also see the possibility of Reform being beaten into third place by either Green-Lab or Lab-Green.
Denton isn't even Manchester. It's in Tameside.
Not altogether surprising on your definition since Manchester City Council is only half the size of Birmingham, in terms of population. Yet Birmingham is little more than 1/3 of the size of Greater Manchester. And no-one ever refers to the West Midlands conurbation as "Greater Birmingham", even in Birmingham.
Yes but. The City of Manchester is a place. (Burnham isn't the Mayor). Greater Manchester is also a place. (Burnham is the Mayor). Both have exact boundaries. Many on here clearly don't fully understand the difference.
Bari laid out her vision to all CBS News employees this morning (leaked to CNN's Brian Stelter immediately): We will no longer tell viewers what happened. We present argument and opinion about what happened. We expect that to offend many of our viewers, and we don't care. 4/
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Deserved to have been shot eleven times for that.
William's response will be that you are exaggerating with fake news and that it was alright since it was only ten times.
also that if democrat politicians criticise ICE they should be careful of their tone but when democratic politicians get attacked by the public it's fake news
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over "Crazy Stephen Miller".
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
The reviews of Melania are in
"If you showed this on an airplane, people would walk out"
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over Miller.
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
He's gonna be bigly pissed off when it doesn't get a load of Oscars next year.
The Grim Reaper* might have done his work by then.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
Bari laid out her vision to all CBS News employees this morning (leaked to CNN's Brian Stelter immediately): We will no longer tell viewers what happened. We present argument and opinion about what happened. We expect that to offend many of our viewers, and we don't care. 4/
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
Bari laid out her vision to all CBS News employees this morning (leaked to CNN's Brian Stelter immediately): We will no longer tell viewers what happened. We present argument and opinion about what happened. We expect that to offend many of our viewers, and we don't care. 4/
Wow. Niall Ferguson doesn't come out well on that thread. From being the only person Leon had met who was more intelligent than himself to being described as a Trump 'bootlicker'. What went wrong?
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
The AD bill is a conscience vote rather than one on party lines. It shouldn't be forced through.
Labour are so ham-fisted.
It should if an unelected chamber are unwilling to let the bill pass no matter what.
It looks as if it may fail even when it returns to the HOC
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over Miller.
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
He's gonna be bigly pissed off when it doesn't get a load of Oscars next year.
The Grim Reaper* might have done his work by then.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
A friend of mine -in his late 40s- died of pancreatic cancer in the middle of last year. The last two weeks were beyond awful. If I knew I was facing that, I would be on the first flight to Switzerland.
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over "Crazy Stephen Miller".
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
It's not an overwhelming success though I susoect it is not because of Minneapolis.
"Just one ticket was sold for the first 3.10pm screening on Friday at Vue's flagship Islington branch in London, while two have been booked for 6pm. The picture was slightly rosier at the Cineworld in Wandsworth, which had sold four tickets, while five backrow seats were also booked at the Cineworld in Broughton."
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over Miller.
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
He's gonna be bigly pissed off when it doesn't get a load of Oscars next year.
The Grim Reaper* might have done his work by then.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
A friend of mine -in his late 40s- died of pancreatic cancer in the middle of last year. The last two weeks were beyond awful. If I knew I was facing that, I would be on the first flight to Switzerland.
Well you would certainly get a full throated send off from all on here. But there is no denying that this is a major deviation from our societal norms, most especially when combined with the casual nature of digital communications.
It’s one thing for nearest and dearest to make a heart felt in person final visit. But a steady ping of emails and WhatsApps on your final day on earth feels dystopian to me. I know there will be many who disagree but that’s where I’m at.
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
Have we noted this high quality contribution to the G and D by election from Rob Ford. Conclusion: tends towards Green with lots of qualifications. If looking for the punters's case against Reform winning, you will find it here. He invites his audience to take account of the fact that he and Goodwin are no longer bezzies.
Makes it sound like the Greens could not just win, but win comfortably. A 13% starting point from the last election, a collapse in the Labour vote to fall to them, a big Muslim/Gaza vote to target.. should be more than enough.
The key, as I said yesterday, is a local poll that shows Labour unable to win. I am not sure the one we have so far, fits the bill. A lot hangs on the Greens ability to put together a dynamic campaign and hit the ground running
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
But that's with commitments in the government's manifesto, this not a manifesto pledge, this would be as scandalous as the prorogation crisis.
The 1911Act, a mended by the Parliament Act 1949, which reduced the Lords' delaying power to one year, makes no mention of a manifesto pledge. That's just made up.
It is scandalous that the unelected body can frustrate the will of Parliament and of the large majority of voters. And it's a small minority in that unelected body that is doing the delaying.
We're in the Salisbury-Addison convention territory now.
The public support the death penalty in certain circumstances but I'm not seeing you advocate that.
I am sure you'd be raging if a Reform government tried this kind of shithousery with the death penalty.
The Salisbury-Addison Convention is a constitutional rule where the House of Lords does not oppose, delay, or block legislation that was promised in the governing party's election manifesto. It ensures the elected Commons can pass core policies.
It does not refer to legislation that is not in the manifesto. That is covered by the 1911 and 1949 Acts.
The Salisbury-Addison Convention is irrelevant in this case as it does not involve manifesto pledges.
If the Commons passed legislation on the death penalty with the support of a large majority of voters, and the Lords blocked it, I would not complain if the government used the 1911/1947 Acts to force it through after a year. It would be the democratic thing to do.
The only excuse for the HoL continuing existence is that it is a scrutinizing body, it should not be obstructing the elected HoC. This is only the start of the obstruction, they'll do the same for votes at 16 and undoubtedly for any attempt to reform/abolish themselves. The "shithousery" is being conducted by the HoL. Starmer should have appointed several hundred temporary peers and passed legislation setting an end date for the HoL as an immediate priority, that would have hurried up discussion of the replacement second chamber.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
The AD bill is a conscience vote rather than one on party lines. It shouldn't be forced through.
Labour are so ham-fisted.
It should if an unelected chamber are unwilling to let the bill pass no matter what.
It looks as if it may fail even when it returns to the HOC
If it does fail in the HOC, that's fair enough. But the unelected Lords is tolerated because its role is to improve legislation, not to block the will of the elected house.
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
Is it merely a coincidence that it's a change of Labour PM that has provoked this insight?
I would have thought the main beneficiaries of such a rule would be PMs in Starmer's position. Potentially Farage after the next election too if his MPs decide they want his job.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
A friend of mine -in his late 40s- died of pancreatic cancer in the middle of last year. The last two weeks were beyond awful. If I knew I was facing that, I would be on the first flight to Switzerland.
The original 1911 bill was brought in because the backwoods men of the conservative blocked the elected Liberal agenda in the HoL.
Here we are again with backwoods men led by Gove blocking the Commons.
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
I think that such a pledge would simply mean that parties wouldn't change leaders in government as a result.
While a government changing leader sounds undemocratic, in practice it is the exact opposite. Governments only change leaders when that leader has a sustained period of unpopularity that they cannot recover from. It happens because of listening to the people, generally as expressed in both opinion polls and in other elections.
The first time this happened in my voting lifetime was when Thatcher was defenestrated over the shambles of forcing the poll tax through.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
A friend of mine -in his late 40s- died of pancreatic cancer in the middle of last year. The last two weeks were beyond awful. If I knew I was facing that, I would be on the first flight to Switzerland.
Well you would certainly get a full throated send off from all on here. But there is no denying that this is a major deviation from our societal norms, most especially when combined with the casual nature of digital communications.
It’s one thing for nearest and dearest to make a heart felt in person final visit. But a steady ping of emails and WhatsApps on your final day on earth feels dystopian to me. I know there will be many who disagree but that’s where I’m at.
Ultimately, whether it's good or bad, it's none of my business.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over Miller.
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
He's gonna be bigly pissed off when it doesn't get a load of Oscars next year.
The Grim Reaper* might have done his work by then.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
The current situation is that the well off - like most members of this board - have legal access to assisted dying, while poorer people do not.
If we genuinely oppose AD, then those who assist people flying to Switzerland need to be prosecuted, credit card companies and banks need to be prohibited from allowing Brits to send money to Dignitas and co, and there needs to be a duty to report anyone who is about to fly to Zurich.
Have we noted this high quality contribution to the G and D by election from Rob Ford. Conclusion: tends towards Green with lots of qualifications. If looking for the punters's case against Reform winning, you will find it here. He invites his audience to take account of the fact that he and Goodwin are no longer bezzies.
Makes it sound like the Greens could not just win, but win comfortably. A 13% starting point from the last election, a collapse in the Labour vote to fall to them, a big Muslim/Gaza vote to target.. should be more than enough.
The key, as I said yesterday, is a local poll that shows Labour unable to win. I am not sure the one we have so far, fits the bill. A lot hangs on the Greens ability to put together a dynamic campaign and hit the ground running
Labour should make it obvious that they are only defending the seat half heartedly and as long as it doesn't fall to Farage they can live with it. They don't need the seat and the Greens are more effective at pointing out the short comings of Farage and his followers.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
The current situation is that the well off - like most members of this board - have legal access to assisted dying, while poorer people do not.
If we genuinely oppose AD, then those who assist people flying to Switzerland need to be prosecuted, credit card companies and banks need to be prohibited from allowing Brits to send money to Dignitas and co, and there needs to be a duty to report anyone who is about to fly to Zurich.
Personally I would support that. Anyway that’s enough of this subject for me for the week.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
How on earth have the supporters of assisted dying managed to mess it all up when they started off with a substantial majority?
Wrong on both counts.
It didn't have a substantial majority in the HOC. It was 23. But it was a majority. The supporters of AD haven't messed it up. It is a small minority in the unelected house that have deliberately messed it up.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
The current situation is that the well off - like most members of this board - have legal access to assisted dying, while poorer people do not.
If we genuinely oppose AD, then those who assist people flying to Switzerland need to be prosecuted, credit card companies and banks need to be prohibited from allowing Brits to send money to Dignitas and co, and there needs to be a duty to report anyone who is about to fly to Zurich.
And. It frankly isn't anyone's duty to keep living in excruciating agony, to the distress of close family and at great expense to the individual or the State, merely to salve the feelings of those who know of them a little and might be offended to hear that they are about to die.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
Yet we do it for our pets all the time because we don't like watching them suffering in pain..
So why do we insist that we can't make the same decision for ourselves
Have we noted this high quality contribution to the G and D by election from Rob Ford. Conclusion: tends towards Green with lots of qualifications. If looking for the punters's case against Reform winning, you will find it here. He invites his audience to take account of the fact that he and Goodwin are no longer bezzies.
Makes it sound like the Greens could not just win, but win comfortably. A 13% starting point from the last election, a collapse in the Labour vote to fall to them, a big Muslim/Gaza vote to target.. should be more than enough.
The key, as I said yesterday, is a local poll that shows Labour unable to win. I am not sure the one we have so far, fits the bill. A lot hangs on the Greens ability to put together a dynamic campaign and hit the ground running
Labour should make it obvious that they are only defending the seat half heartedly and as long as it doesn't fall to Farage they can live with it. They don't need the seat and the Greens are more effective at pointing out the short comings of Farage and his followers.
What? This poll says it's a toss up between Reform and Labour. With the Greens some way third.
Max Kendix @MaxKendix · 1h Exc: Starmer has vetoed plans for a fresh attempt to reform Britain’s welfare system as No10 seeks to avoid another confrontation with Labour MPs
DWP told it will not be given time in parliament to introduce any new changes to the benefits system until next year at the earliest
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
A friend of mine -in his late 40s- died of pancreatic cancer in the middle of last year. The last two weeks were beyond awful. If I knew I was facing that, I would be on the first flight to Switzerland.
Dignitas requires that you join as a member first, then you must persuade them of the need for your death. It's not a turn-up-and-die service.
The United State state that it is easiest to purchase a gun from is Montana. If you get a concealed carry licence now, you can fly to Montana and buy a gun immediately after it becomes valid. Sightings of Beth Dutton are unlikely.
PBers with means and residency can buy a gun relatively easy in Switzerland.
I don't know countries with no laws about this: I should imagine gun purchase in, say, Somaliland would be easy.
It is not widely known but gun ownership is legal in the UK, although the type of gun and its storage is constrained and you have to pass background and police checks to get a licence.
In short, fantasies of an instant painless death are just that: fantasies. However if you plan ahead within a 6-18 month timeframe, it's doable.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It is done regularly in Holland. My Brother's mother-in-law chose to do it when she had terminal cancer. I was rather shocked when I was told after the event but it is treated in a very matter of fact way as are most things in Holland.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
The current situation is that the well off - like most members of this board - have legal access to assisted dying, while poorer people do not.
If we genuinely oppose AD, then those who assist people flying to Switzerland need to be prosecuted, credit card companies and banks need to be prohibited from allowing Brits to send money to Dignitas and co, and there needs to be a duty to report anyone who is about to fly to Zurich.
And. It frankly isn't anyone's duty to keep living in excruciating agony, to the distress of close family and at great expense to the individual or the State, merely to salve the feelings of those who know of them a little and might be offended to hear that they are about to die.
That is an argument for better resourced and availible Palliative Care.
A cousin died 2 years ago at the age of 50 something from metastatic cancer. She had wonderful and compassionate care from her hospice in Dorset and died with dignity with her family around her, in no pain.
It is the way that I would want to go if I were in similar circumstances, yet hospice care falls outside the NHS and is funded by charity. There were no flowers at her funeral, but a lot of generous donations to the hospice in their place.
How on earth have the supporters of assisted dying managed to mess it all up when they started off with a substantial majority?
Wrong on both counts.
It didn't have a substantial majority in the HOC. It was 23. But it was a majority. The supporters of AD haven't messed it up. It is a small minority in the unelected house that have deliberately messed it up.
You are blaming the wrong side Andy.
For what it's worth, I think the UK's Assisted Dying Bill stinks, and I would vote against it.
However, I also believe that done right it could be an entirely positive thing, enabling people to die with dignity rather than agony, and also acting as a funnel for people into mental health treatment if need be.
Only qualm, categorising it as a South Manchester seat, when it just about creeps into the South due to the boundary changes. No, both Gorton and Denton were always East Manchester, and Ford looks from his academic neighbourhood at the bit nearest him.
I agree broadly with the conclusions, I pretty much came to this conclusion, but can also see the possibility of Reform being beaten into third place by either Green-Lab or Lab-Green.
Denton isn't even Manchester. It's in Tameside.
Not altogether surprising on your definition since Manchester City Council is only half the size of Birmingham, in terms of population. Yet Birmingham is little more than 1/3 of the size of Greater Manchester. And no-one ever refers to the West Midlands conurbation as "Greater Birmingham", even in Birmingham.
Yes but. The City of Manchester is a place. (Burnham isn't the Mayor). Greater Manchester is also a place. (Burnham is the Mayor). Both have exact boundaries. Many on here clearly don't fully understand the difference.
What Rob Ford is looking for is a convenient geographical moniker to describe a constituency that straddles this boundary. He comes up with South Manchester and I'd regard East Manchester as better, without specifying council area or metropolitan county.
I think despite the fully independent municipal history of Denton, they have a Manchester postcode, Manchester posttown, and would broadly regard themselves as Mancunian (Tamesiders as a whole would broadly regard ourselves as Mancunian), so I'm not going to worry too much more about the imprecision of an informal usage, and I'll close my engagement of the topic here.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
Do we really want to turn a parliamentary system into a de facto presidential one?
It already is. How can it be right that we can elect a government fronted by Keir Starmer and be governed by John McDonnell & Diane Abbott without the public being consulted?
I've just listened to this, and read the lyrics - easy to google. It's fabulous! And yes, it will piss off Trump, Miller, Noem etc. A renaissance of political protest music is well overdue.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
A friend of mine -in his late 40s- died of pancreatic cancer in the middle of last year. The last two weeks were beyond awful. If I knew I was facing that, I would be on the first flight to Switzerland.
Dignitas requires that you join as a member first, then you must persuade them of the need for your death. It's not a turn-up-and-die service.
The United State state that it is easiest to purchase a gun from is Montana. If you get a concealed carry licence now, you can fly to Montana and buy a gun immediately after it becomes valid. Sightings of Beth Dutton are unlikely.
PBers with means and residency can buy a gun relatively easy in Switzerland.
I don't know countries with no laws about this: I should imagine gun purchase in, say, Somaliland would be easy.
It is not widely known but gun ownership is legal in the UK, although the type of gun and its storage is constrained and you have to pass background and police checks to get a licence.
In short, fantasies of an instant painless death are just that: fantasies. However if you plan ahead within a 6-18 month timeframe, it's doable.
The first point is key: available medical suicide can also save people, because it means that rather than swallowing 100 paracetamol they go somewhere and end up with proper mental health treatment.
Have we noted this high quality contribution to the G and D by election from Rob Ford. Conclusion: tends towards Green with lots of qualifications. If looking for the punters's case against Reform winning, you will find it here. He invites his audience to take account of the fact that he and Goodwin are no longer bezzies.
Makes it sound like the Greens could not just win, but win comfortably. A 13% starting point from the last election, a collapse in the Labour vote to fall to them, a big Muslim/Gaza vote to target.. should be more than enough.
The key, as I said yesterday, is a local poll that shows Labour unable to win. I am not sure the one we have so far, fits the bill. A lot hangs on the Greens ability to put together a dynamic campaign and hit the ground running
Labour should make it obvious that they are only defending the seat half heartedly and as long as it doesn't fall to Farage they can live with it. They don't need the seat and the Greens are more effective at pointing out the short comings of Farage and his followers.
What? This poll says it's a toss up between Reform and Labour. With the Greens some way third.
I wouldn't put much weight on a small sample poll in a byelection when people want to kick the government up the arse.
Good value on Labour if you do believe it. I do not.
John Crace echoing the observations some of us made earlier today:
Title: "Badenoch shoots herself in the foot on the Tories’ long march to the right. Not content with haemorrhaging MPs to Reform, Kemi decides to drive others into the arms of the Lib Dems"
Kemi made a well received speech where she welcomed the new prosper input to her policies on the economy but ended speculation she may move back to a pro EU stance that some in prosper may have hoped
At present she is distancing herself from Farage but also she is not moving towards a lib dem offer
Well received by Andy Street and Ruth Davidson. Really?
I expect so and Crace is not her target audience
And I should say I have joined prosper
Is squeezing your voter base from both the left and the right wise?
You make a choice and Kemi is attacking Farage and not looking over her shoulder to the EU debate
As a member of prosper I am looking forward to how Kemi' s policy offers develop
In that case didn't she just tell you to join the Lib Dems in a roundabout way.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
When I was working in the Netherlands I had a colleague whose mother went through a very similar journey. There was a strong sense of release at being able to take control to end such a shitty situation.
John Crace echoing the observations some of us made earlier today:
Title: "Badenoch shoots herself in the foot on the Tories’ long march to the right. Not content with haemorrhaging MPs to Reform, Kemi decides to drive others into the arms of the Lib Dems"
Kemi made a well received speech where she welcomed the new prosper input to her policies on the economy but ended speculation she may move back to a pro EU stance that some in prosper may have hoped
At present she is distancing herself from Farage but also she is not moving towards a lib dem offer
Well received by Andy Street and Ruth Davidson. Really?
I expect so and Crace is not her target audience
And I should say I have joined prosper
Is squeezing your voter base from both the left and the right wise?
You make a choice and Kemi is attacking Farage and not looking over her shoulder to the EU debate
As a member of prosper I am looking forward to how Kemi' s policy offers develop
In that case didn't she just tell you to join the Lib Dems in a roundabout way.
How on earth have the supporters of assisted dying managed to mess it all up when they started off with a substantial majority?
Wrong on both counts.
It didn't have a substantial majority in the HOC. It was 23. But it was a majority. The supporters of AD haven't messed it up. It is a small minority in the unelected house that have deliberately messed it up.
You are blaming the wrong side Andy.
For what it's worth, I think the UK's Assisted Dying Bill stinks, and I would vote against it.
However, I also believe that done right it could be an entirely positive thing, enabling people to die with dignity rather than agony, and also acting as a funnel for people into mental health treatment if need be.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even of the fairly poor. It is a step forward.
That's how we ended up with a hard Brexit because many Remainers held out for a second referendum rather than supporting May's bill.
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
The market for next Tory leader is insane. The top 6 (with Hills): Cleverley Lam - reported to be going Reform Coutinho - literally almost no-one has heard of her apart from anoraks and her mum Boris - not an MP Farage - not a Conservative Lowe - not a Conservative.
So basically Cleverly by coronation
No idea, but if Kemi carries on as she has today (see John Crace in the Guardian, who can be read fairly straight despite being very funny) it will need someone and soon.
Kemi certainly needs to ensure the Tories are at least second in the May local and devolved elections
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
But that's with commitments in the government's manifesto, this not a manifesto pledge, this would be as scandalous as the prorogation crisis.
The 1911Act, a mended by the Parliament Act 1949, which reduced the Lords' delaying power to one year, makes no mention of a manifesto pledge. That's just made up.
It is scandalous that the unelected body can frustrate the will of Parliament and of the large majority of voters. And it's a small minority in that unelected body that is doing the delaying.
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. You've just said the Lords can delay (for one year), and is that not what they are doing? The Commons then has the option, if it wants, to push through their will if they think the Lords are unreasonably delaying, and they probably will.
I think the Commons has made its will clear on this issue and so will have its will be done, one way or another. But that the Lords rarely delay, and the Commons rarely needs to use the Parliament Acts, doesn't make it 'scandalous' for either body to actually use those options does it?
Why does the right of the Lords to delay things exist if they cannot use it? Why does the Commons have the right to push past the Lords if it was not sometimes going to be reasonable to do so?
John Crace echoing the observations some of us made earlier today:
Title: "Badenoch shoots herself in the foot on the Tories’ long march to the right. Not content with haemorrhaging MPs to Reform, Kemi decides to drive others into the arms of the Lib Dems"
Kemi made a well received speech where she welcomed the new prosper input to her policies on the economy but ended speculation she may move back to a pro EU stance that some in prosper may have hoped
At present she is distancing herself from Farage but also she is not moving towards a lib dem offer
Well received by Andy Street and Ruth Davidson. Really?
I expect so and Crace is not her target audience
And I should say I have joined prosper
Is squeezing your voter base from both the left and the right wise?
You make a choice and Kemi is attacking Farage and not looking over her shoulder to the EU debate
As a member of prosper I am looking forward to how Kemi' s policy offers develop
In that case didn't she just tell you to join the Lib Dems in a roundabout way.
On topic, yes the sample size is teensy but also this is also a pretty big gap between Lab and Green. Claude tells me (and I believe it) that the probability that the lead is a product of sampling error and Green is actually ahead of Labour is only 4%. And this is when the Burnham business is still fresh in people's minds so you're probably losing some Labour votes who liked him, but you'll get them back when the voters have the actual issues the parties run on in their faces.
I think this is very much not the kind of thing we were hearing from The Discourse.
How on earth have the supporters of assisted dying managed to mess it all up when they started off with a substantial majority?
Wrong on both counts.
It didn't have a substantial majority in the HOC. It was 23. But it was a majority. The supporters of AD haven't messed it up. It is a small minority in the unelected house that have deliberately messed it up.
You are blaming the wrong side Andy.
For what it's worth, I think the UK's Assisted Dying Bill stinks, and I would vote against it.
However, I also believe that done right it could be an entirely positive thing, enabling people to die with dignity rather than agony, and also acting as a funnel for people into mental health treatment if need be.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even of the fairly poor. It is a step forward.
That's how we ended up with a hard Brexit because many Remainers held out for a second referendum rather than supporting May's bill.
There's a majority in the Commons for the principle of the bill, it's not as though this is a 'do now or never' situation.
I expect it will get through, as although I personally am against it I don't think the Lords want to have the Commons use the nuclear option on them, but contitutionally they could delay it, as you've said yourself, and I don't see how that is squared with outrage at the very idea they might do so - it would probably be a mistake to push it that far, when the Commons want it through, but proponents in the Lords have laid it on a bit thick that it would be almost impermissable.
I'm sure that is in frustration at implacable opponents always intending to block it, but it doesn't make it less untrue to say it would improper to delay (unwise to is a different question).
Have we noted this high quality contribution to the G and D by election from Rob Ford. Conclusion: tends towards Green with lots of qualifications. If looking for the punters's case against Reform winning, you will find it here. He invites his audience to take account of the fact that he and Goodwin are no longer bezzies.
Makes it sound like the Greens could not just win, but win comfortably. A 13% starting point from the last election, a collapse in the Labour vote to fall to them, a big Muslim/Gaza vote to target.. should be more than enough.
The key, as I said yesterday, is a local poll that shows Labour unable to win. I am not sure the one we have so far, fits the bill. A lot hangs on the Greens ability to put together a dynamic campaign and hit the ground running
Labour should make it obvious that they are only defending the seat half heartedly and as long as it doesn't fall to Farage they can live with it. They don't need the seat and the Greens are more effective at pointing out the short comings of Farage and his followers.
What? This poll says it's a toss up between Reform and Labour. With the Greens some way third.
It's a poll of 143 people with 18% don't knows, it's about as reliable as a daytime news vox pop
Have we noted this high quality contribution to the G and D by election from Rob Ford. Conclusion: tends towards Green with lots of qualifications. If looking for the punters's case against Reform winning, you will find it here. He invites his audience to take account of the fact that he and Goodwin are no longer bezzies.
Makes it sound like the Greens could not just win, but win comfortably. A 13% starting point from the last election, a collapse in the Labour vote to fall to them, a big Muslim/Gaza vote to target.. should be more than enough.
The key, as I said yesterday, is a local poll that shows Labour unable to win. I am not sure the one we have so far, fits the bill. A lot hangs on the Greens ability to put together a dynamic campaign and hit the ground running
Labour should make it obvious that they are only defending the seat half heartedly and as long as it doesn't fall to Farage they can live with it. They don't need the seat and the Greens are more effective at pointing out the short comings of Farage and his followers.
What? This poll says it's a toss up between Reform and Labour. With the Greens some way third.
It's a poll of 143 people with 18% don't knows, it's about as reliable as a daytime news vox pop
Nevertheless. It's the only poll there is. Seems a very shaky basis to predict an easy Green win to me.
OK. I'm going to go out on a limb here. Humanoid robots are stupid.
We can build self driving cars. Why would we want to build a regular car and put a humanoid robot in it? What jobs would a humanoid robot be better at than something specialised for a particular task?
On topic, yes the sample size is teensy but also this is also a pretty big gap between Lab and Green. Claude tells me (and I believe it) that the probability that the lead is a product of sampling error and Green is actually ahead of Labour is only 4%. And this is when the Burnham business is still fresh in people's minds so you're probably losing some Labour votes who liked him, but you'll get them back when the voters have the actual issues the parties run on in their faces.
I think this is very much not the kind of thing we were hearing from The Discourse.
Ah hem; if the sample is balanced, then it is a 4% chance that the Greens are leading.
The probability of the sample (which comes from a gambling website) is balanced is less than 4%.
Absolutely bang on the money from Daniel Finkelstein.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
Do we really want to turn a parliamentary system into a de facto presidential one?
It already is. How can it be right that we can elect a government fronted by Keir Starmer and be governed by John McDonnell & Diane Abbott without the public being consulted?
I don't have a problem with it. A lot of the time successful campaigns are pretty vague on what they plan to do, they have no obligation to do it if they are specific, and circumstances might require a change to intentions anyway, so although we know the person we've no certainty on their plans anyway.
Seems to me making it a rule that you have to go back to the country if there is a change in PM adds strength to the existing leader's whipping hand by making a challenge that much more risky for the party
In practice elections come along reasonably quickly anyway - of the last five times a new PM went on to fight an election we had GEs within a year with two, within 2 years for two more, and the other one just under three years.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Traditionally, when name dropping, you are expected to drop a name
OK. I'm going to go out on a limb here. Humanoid robots are stupid.
We can build self driving cars. Why would we want to build a regular car and put a humanoid robot in it? What jobs would a humanoid robot be better at than something specialised for a particular task?
AI is amazing. Humanoid robots are not.
There may be specific tasks than a humanoid robot might be better for, but I'd think for vast majority of cases anthropomorphic designs won't help and just make things overcomplicated to make (turns out the human knee is a bugger to replicate).
I saw an image once of a humanoid robot sitting at a desk typing on a keyboard, which just seems like a really inefficient way for a robot to work.
The market for next Tory leader is insane. The top 6 (with Hills): Cleverley Lam - reported to be going Reform Coutinho - literally almost no-one has heard of her apart from anoraks and her mum Boris - not an MP Farage - not a Conservative Lowe - not a Conservative.
So basically Cleverly by coronation
No idea, but if Kemi carries on as she has today (see John Crace in the Guardian, who can be read fairly straight despite being very funny) it will need someone and soon.
I am not reading Crace - he is the lefts Lord Haw Haw.
But if Big G’s and HY’s posts are accurate, and Kemi actually said, taking the party more right wing day by day, there’s no place for centrists in the Conservative Party any more, and Britain is not broke, it just needs repairing, then it just doesn’t remotely sound like leadership material or heading in the right direction. She sounds like she doesn’t understand - sounds like she only reads echo chamber X not political biographies and political histories. Sounds like she is badly advised by her Generals and strategists.
The opportunity here is two fold, Reform cannot fight from the centre right like the Conservatives can, Reform is simply of the right, Reform cannot hit the heights from broad appeal, the differentials in values and policy, the Conservatives can. And Reform is populist right - Conservatism is a completely different thing, for example Populism is always wild and flaky on economics, Conservatism Strong & Stable on economics.
Kemi Badenoch and the wonks around her are stupid, pig headed, useless people.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
This is novel (to me, at least). The extent to which US privatised means testing for benefits like Medicare is a profit centre.
THE MEANS-TESTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX https://lpeproject.org/blog/the-means-testing-industrial-complex/ Just days after President Trump signed the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill into law, Equifax’s CEO Mark Begor celebrated its passage on the company’s earnings call. The windfall he expected from the law was “just massive,” but he was not celebrating the bill’s lavish corporate tax breaks. He was applauding new rules that will make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to receive their healthcare and food benefits – and eager for the opportunity to profit from them:
…increasing the frequency of CMS redeterminations from annually to semiannually, adding community engagement or work requirements for certain Medicaid recipients, and in SNAP, tying federal funding to error rates and enforcing work requirements. These changes are all positives for our EWS (Equifax Workforce Solution) core government business...
..Since the United States, unlike many of our peer nations, has opted to means-test core government programs like healthcare, the government has become a huge buyer of this income data. In order to prove that a person is eligible for Medicaid, an Affordable Care Act Marketplace subsidy, or any number of safety net programs, state governments and federal agencies pay Equifax for data to verify that person’s income.
Siloed federal and state agencies will often pay Equifax half a dozen times for the same piece of income data about the same individual. For example, if a recently laid off worker applies for Medicaid, SNAP, and home heating assistance (HEAP) at the same time, a state’s Medicaid agency, human services agency and a local social services department may each pay Equifax (often a different price) for the same worker’s income data.
How on earth have the supporters of assisted dying managed to mess it all up when they started off with a substantial majority?
As noted it was comfortable but not substantial, and I don't think they've messed it up precisely - there do appear to have been some serious issues with the drafting which they've not always dealt with very well, in part because they seem to see any pushback as being from the not insubstantial number of peers who do want to derail it entirely, so they've probably tactically played it not as well as they could. But I think the direction of travel is clear, even if it takes a bit longer than they wanted.
OK. I'm going to go out on a limb here. Humanoid robots are stupid.
We can build self driving cars. Why would we want to build a regular car and put a humanoid robot in it? What jobs would a humanoid robot be better at than something specialised for a particular task?
AI is amazing. Humanoid robots are not.
It'll take them quite a while to unionise though. That aside, it's not that they are necessarily better - but can they do something in parallel? Or overnight?
I'm 'busy' posting on PB while a humanoid robot takes the kitchen bin out and puts a laundry on while I bravely defend a Scottish sub-sample? Can you really put a price on that?
Comments
Shouldn't the reverse apply in that that the Commons shouldn't force through non-manifesto (and non-government) business?
Otherwise we might as well abolish the Lords...
the next stage will be the HoL saying it's not in the manifesto and the Government replying well the Commons has voted for it...
If you wanted to push through a radical change that is the justification the Government would look to use..
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr57j47811yo
It would appear he was targeted, executed (Gestapo style) and the evidence allegedly destroyed.
Labour are so ham-fisted.
As a member of prosper I am looking forward to how Kemi' s policy offers develop
It does not refer to legislation that is not in the manifesto. That is covered by the 1911 and 1949 Acts.
The Salisbury-Addison Convention is irrelevant in this case as it does not involve manifesto pledges.
If the Commons passed legislation on the death penalty with the support of a large majority of voters, and the Lords blocked it, I would not complain if the government used the 1911/1947 Acts to force it through after a year. It would be the democratic thing to do.
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
Greater Manchester is also a place. (Burnham is the Mayor).
Both have exact boundaries.
Many on here clearly don't fully understand the difference.
"If you showed this on an airplane, people would walk out"
* or Stephen Miller
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
Want a change of leader? Call an election
It is time it became a rule that if the prime minister departs, the governing party should go to the country. Politics has changed and the rules need to reflect that. If Starmer falls, it will mean that five of the past six prime ministers have been pushed out between elections. It is at least arguable that the only exception, Sunak, simply ran out of time to be ousted.
In other words, it is becoming a standard pattern for parties to be elected largely because of the personal appeal of their leaders and then govern under the leadership of someone else. And not just because of illness or retirement but because parties wanted to change direction.
[…]
So, in future, we should press parties to include in their manifestos a pledge that if they are victorious and then change their leader, they will hold a fresh election within six months. I think this is quite a practical suggestion as most party leaders will be keen to oblige.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/b7c3529d-6cc7-4389-8e7f-826c7f6a31e8?shareToken=761643e9803e6df7c661067972b2235b
"Just one ticket was sold for the first 3.10pm screening on Friday at Vue's flagship Islington branch in London, while two have been booked for 6pm.
The picture was slightly rosier at the Cineworld in Wandsworth, which had sold four tickets, while five backrow seats were also booked at the Cineworld in Broughton."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/26/melania-trump-documentary-uk-cinemas-vue-soft-sales
It’s one thing for nearest and dearest to make a heart felt in person final visit. But a steady ping of emails and WhatsApps on your final day on earth feels dystopian to me. I know there will be many who disagree but that’s where I’m at.
Starmer should have appointed several hundred temporary peers and passed legislation setting an end date for the HoL as an immediate priority, that would have hurried up discussion of the replacement second chamber.
https://www.thecut.com/article/mom-healthy-person-assisted-suicide-dying-pegasos.html
(Or maybe disturbing is not the right word. Worth reading.)
But the unelected Lords is tolerated because its role is to improve legislation, not to block the will of the elected house.
The people who exercise force on behalf of the government need to be trusted. And the best disinfectant is sunlight.
Here we are again with backwoods men led by Gove blocking the Commons.
Plus ca change.
While a government changing leader sounds undemocratic, in practice it is the exact opposite. Governments only change leaders when that leader has a sustained period of unpopularity that they cannot recover from. It happens because of listening to the people, generally as expressed in both opinion polls and in other elections.
The first time this happened in my voting lifetime was when Thatcher was defenestrated over the shambles of forcing the poll tax through.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
Actually, they are probably on tour again...
If we genuinely oppose AD, then those who assist people flying to Switzerland need to be prosecuted, credit card companies and banks need to be prohibited from allowing Brits to send money to Dignitas and co, and there needs to be a duty to report anyone who is about to fly to Zurich.
It didn't have a substantial majority in the HOC. It was 23. But it was a majority.
The supporters of AD haven't messed it up. It is a small minority in the unelected house that have deliberately messed it up.
You are blaming the wrong side Andy.
It frankly isn't anyone's duty to keep living in excruciating agony, to the distress of close family and at great expense to the individual or the State, merely to salve the feelings of those who know of them a little and might be offended to hear that they are about to die.
So why do we insist that we can't make the same decision for ourselves
This poll says it's a toss up between Reform and Labour. With the Greens some way third.
@MaxKendix
·
1h
Exc: Starmer has vetoed plans for a fresh attempt to reform Britain’s welfare system as No10 seeks to avoid another confrontation with Labour MPs
DWP told it will not be given time in parliament to introduce any new changes to the benefits system until next year at the earliest
- Dignitas requires that you join as a member first, then you must persuade them of the need for your death. It's not a turn-up-and-die service.
- The United State state that it is easiest to purchase a gun from is Montana. If you get a concealed carry licence now, you can fly to Montana and buy a gun immediately after it becomes valid. Sightings of Beth Dutton are unlikely.
- PBers with means and residency can buy a gun relatively easy in Switzerland.
- I don't know countries with no laws about this: I should imagine gun purchase in, say, Somaliland would be easy.
- It is not widely known but gun ownership is legal in the UK, although the type of gun and its storage is constrained and you have to pass background and police checks to get a licence.
In short, fantasies of an instant painless death are just that: fantasies. However if you plan ahead within a 6-18 month timeframe, it's doable.A cousin died 2 years ago at the age of 50 something from metastatic cancer. She had wonderful and compassionate care from her hospice in Dorset and died with dignity with her family around her, in no pain.
It is the way that I would want to go if I were in similar circumstances, yet hospice care falls outside the NHS and is funded by charity. There were no flowers at her funeral, but a lot of generous donations to the hospice in their place.
However, I also believe that done right it could be an entirely positive thing, enabling people to die with dignity rather than agony, and also acting as a funnel for people into mental health treatment if need be.
I think despite the fully independent municipal history of Denton, they have a Manchester postcode, Manchester posttown, and would broadly regard themselves as Mancunian (Tamesiders as a whole would broadly regard ourselves as Mancunian), so I'm not going to worry too much more about the imprecision of an informal usage, and I'll close my engagement of the topic here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWR13BAIEs
A renaissance of political protest music is well overdue.
Good value on Labour if you do believe it. I do not.
And, Labour should not be throwing in the towel.
That's how we ended up with a hard Brexit because many Remainers held out for a second referendum rather than supporting May's bill.
Then again, perhaps you won't.
I think the Commons has made its will clear on this issue and so will have its will be done, one way or another. But that the Lords rarely delay, and the Commons rarely needs to use the Parliament Acts, doesn't make it 'scandalous' for either body to actually use those options does it?
Why does the right of the Lords to delay things exist if they cannot use it? Why does the Commons have the right to push past the Lords if it was not sometimes going to be reasonable to do so?
I think this is very much not the kind of thing we were hearing from The Discourse.
I expect it will get through, as although I personally am against it I don't think the Lords want to have the Commons use the nuclear option on them, but contitutionally they could delay it, as you've said yourself, and I don't see how that is squared with outrage at the very idea they might do so - it would probably be a mistake to push it that far, when the Commons want it through, but proponents in the Lords have laid it on a bit thick that it would be almost impermissable.
I'm sure that is in frustration at implacable opponents always intending to block it, but it doesn't make it less untrue to say it would improper to delay (unwise to is a different question).
It's the only poll there is.
Seems a very shaky basis to predict an easy Green win to me.
Though there's this headline.
False information about Minneapolis shooting victim Alex Pretti spreading online
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3942ddg3zjt
We can build self driving cars. Why would we want to build a regular car and put a humanoid robot in it? What jobs would a humanoid robot be better at than something specialised for a particular task?
AI is amazing. Humanoid robots are not.
The probability of the sample (which comes from a gambling website) is balanced is less than 4%.
Seems to me making it a rule that you have to go back to the country if there is a change in PM adds strength to the existing leader's whipping hand by making a challenge that much more risky for the party
In practice elections come along reasonably quickly anyway - of the last five times a new PM went on to fight an election we had GEs within a year with two, within 2 years for two more, and the other one just under three years.
I saw an image once of a humanoid robot sitting at a desk typing on a keyboard, which just seems like a really inefficient way for a robot to work.
But if Big G’s and HY’s posts are accurate, and Kemi actually said, taking the party more right wing day by day, there’s no place for centrists in the Conservative Party any more, and Britain is not broke, it just needs repairing, then it just doesn’t remotely sound like leadership material or heading in the right direction. She sounds like she doesn’t understand - sounds like she only reads echo chamber X not political biographies and political histories. Sounds like she is badly advised by her Generals and strategists.
The opportunity here is two fold, Reform cannot fight from the centre right like the Conservatives can, Reform is simply of the right, Reform cannot hit the heights from broad appeal, the differentials in values and policy, the Conservatives can. And Reform is populist right - Conservatism is a completely different thing, for example Populism is always wild and flaky on economics, Conservatism Strong & Stable on economics.
Kemi Badenoch and the wonks around her are stupid, pig headed, useless people.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
The extent to which US privatised means testing for benefits like Medicare is a profit centre.
THE MEANS-TESTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
https://lpeproject.org/blog/the-means-testing-industrial-complex/
Just days after President Trump signed the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill into law, Equifax’s CEO Mark Begor celebrated its passage on the company’s earnings call. The windfall he expected from the law was “just massive,” but he was not celebrating the bill’s lavish corporate tax breaks. He was applauding new rules that will make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to receive their healthcare and food benefits – and eager for the opportunity to profit from them:
…increasing the frequency of CMS redeterminations from annually to semiannually, adding community engagement or work requirements for certain Medicaid recipients, and in SNAP, tying federal funding to error rates and enforcing work requirements. These changes are all positives for our EWS (Equifax Workforce Solution) core government business...
..Since the United States, unlike many of our peer nations, has opted to means-test core government programs like healthcare, the government has become a huge buyer of this income data. In order to prove that a person is eligible for Medicaid, an Affordable Care Act Marketplace subsidy, or any number of safety net programs, state governments and federal agencies pay Equifax for data to verify that person’s income.
Siloed federal and state agencies will often pay Equifax half a dozen times for the same piece of income data about the same individual. For example, if a recently laid off worker applies for Medicaid, SNAP, and home heating assistance (HEAP) at the same time, a state’s Medicaid agency, human services agency and a local social services department may each pay Equifax (often a different price) for the same worker’s income data.
.
I'm 'busy' posting on PB while a humanoid robot takes the kitchen bin out and puts a laundry on while I bravely defend a Scottish sub-sample? Can you really put a price on that?