Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
Us too. We will be fascinated to see how it pans out.
And us; I'm considering setting a Do Not Resuscitate entry of the local surgery's medical notes. The GP isn't too keen!
My late sister had a DNR notice and I was called to her nursing home as they had called an ambulance
She was clearly in her final hours but the paramedics said they would take her to hospital
I told them about the DNR and they said it was my decision to make
I felt I had no choice but to agree and she died in hospital 5 hours later
I was told I would be interviewed by the police and needed to formally identify the body
The police interview was staightforward, but I could not get away from my decision as it would have been better she had passed in the nursing home with her family present
Why is it your decision if she has set up a DNR notice?
Because the law is an ass. Which is why is needs reforming.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
A generation dying off from natural causes isn't unusual even if the size of the cohort is unusual. What is unusual is the rate at which we've been killing babies for decades, the present strong desire for severe bodily mutilation as the only possible route to happiness for some, and the equally strong desire to encourage suicide for people whose difficulties are quite likely to be temporary. Plus, of course, the associated view that other people's lives can't be worth living so they're best dead.
Temporary?
Only if you define "suffering until you eventually die naturally putting you out of your misery" as "temporary".
If assisted dying is legalised then nobody will be determining that other's lives can't be worth living so they're best dead.
Instead we'll be able to decide, as we should, that our own lives are not worth living so we're best off dead. Which we absolutely should be able to do.
The only thing wrong with this proposed bill is it does not go remotely far enough. The asinine 6 month rule means people with years of suffering ahead of them need to suffer on. And the lack of a living will proviso means that people with dementia need to suffer through until they die of natural causes.
Just like signing DNRs, we should be able to write living wills to state if we get severe dementia and are incapacitated and unable to decide at that point, whether we'd rather live or die in that state. And our living wills should be respected as our own choice, made freely, while we were able to do so.
I've received an email from Labour this morning saying:
"it’s going right down to the wire between Labour and Reform"
Also:
"we’ve built a team of over 1,000 volunteers, delivered nearly half a million leaflets, and spoken to 30,000 voters"
As I noted on the last thread, all that's missing is a positive reason to vote Labour.
The answer is in the email. If keeping Reform out isn't a positive enough reason to vote Labour then I can't think of anything that could be. What are you looking for? It sounds like one of those "How Green were the Nazis"
The one positive of a Reform win for me is it winds up sooo many here.
There are easier ways. You could say trans women aren't all rapists.....
Sorry, you lost me there Roger.
What is your Rogerdamus like prediction BtW ?
Greens to win. My prediction from day one. Who doesn't need a plumber?
I've have heard nothing about the quality of her work - can she solder joints to water tight without a second pass? Is she gas certified?
You will. I'm not up to speed on her technique but I'll speak to her agent and try to get better and further particulars. I'm sure all of us with daughters will want them to follow her career path into parliament
IIRC it turned on whether fitting heat pumps is a fully-qualified gas certified plumber's job. No detriment to her or her work if it isn't.
A couple of the media profiles on her mention that her certificates were put on display in the Green campaign HQ, as a response to the social media stuff questioning her bona fides.
My current prediction is a Green win at the by-election.
Andy_JS. Given your excellent record in predicting election outcomes it would be interesting to know how likely you think a victory is for the Greens, Labour and Reform respectively and also the reasoning behind your prediction. The polls presumably?
Sorry for not replying earlier.
It's based on a combination of everything I've read, heard, seen, etc, and from having observed many by-elections over the years. Although I made this prediction before the constituency polls were released.
My prediction is a Green win, with Reform second and large amount of tactical voting by Labour (and other party) voters. It's just possible that Labour, having all the previous voting data, could hold on and it's also possible that Labour/Greens get roughly the same and Reform comes through to win on a small percentage. However I'm sticking with a Green win and the lesson being that anti-Reform voting will be a major factor in future elections IF the main challenger is easy to identify.
Labour. By a whisker.
Followed by massive row about postal ballots.
Hodges says it is pouring down in Manchester this morning.
It was quite heavy when I started my lunch break but has since stopped. Showers with some more persistent spells.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Hopefully every Lord gets turfed out one day, the Commons voted for this and the undemocratic, unelected arses who can't accept others deciding their own destiny have no place being in our Parliament.
And it was a very small number of Lords iirc who blocked this.
Has lower turnout in the rain ever been a real thing?
Most definitely it was in the Sixties and Seventies. Rain depressed Labour turnout as they didn't have cars. But that, like class based voting, has been declining for sixty years.
BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘The Many’ slate wins Your Party internal elections, meaning he is set to be elected parliamentary leader by new central exec committee.
The Corbyn slate won 14 seats to seven for the Grassroots Left, Zarah Sultana’s outfit, alongside 3 independents.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
Which would slightly set on fire his claim that this is just a private members bill.
Though, on the upside, attempting to abolish the Lords would give him another opportunity to do a 180. Followed by a 360. Followed by a 540.
I can only imagine the hurt on Charles Dance's face.
What Starmer should do is say that the Lords have a choice, accept the primacy of the Commons and pass the bill with amendments (subject to Commons acceptance) . . . or if an identical PMB passes the Commons next time then then Parliament Act will be invoked so the Lords don't get any say or any amendments.
My prediction is a Green win, with Reform second and large amount of tactical voting by Labour (and other party) voters. It's just possible that Labour, having all the previous voting data, could hold on and it's also possible that Labour/Greens get roughly the same and Reform comes through to win on a small percentage. However I'm sticking with a Green win and the lesson being that anti-Reform voting will be a major factor in future elections IF the main challenger is easy to identify.
Labour. By a whisker.
Followed by massive row about postal ballots.
Hodges says it is pouring down in Manchester this morning.
Hodges is exaggerating. Light to persistent rain at most.
A person from the northwest and a London journalist have very different ideas of the heaviness of rain! And if folk from the northwest let rain prevent them from going out and doing things they'd never go out or do anything at all.
It's practically stopped now. Old Trafford in May and the covers would be coming off.
I've received an email from Labour this morning saying:
"it’s going right down to the wire between Labour and Reform"
Also:
"we’ve built a team of over 1,000 volunteers, delivered nearly half a million leaflets, and spoken to 30,000 voters"
As I noted on the last thread, all that's missing is a positive reason to vote Labour.
The answer is in the email. If keeping Reform out isn't a positive enough reason to vote Labour then I can't think of anything that could be. What are you looking for? It sounds like one of those "How Green were the Nazis"
The one positive of a Reform win for me is it winds up sooo many here.
There are easier ways. You could say trans women aren't all rapists.....
Sorry, you lost me there Roger.
What is your Rogerdamus like prediction BtW ?
Greens to win. My prediction from day one. Who doesn't need a plumber?
From a betting point of view I’d be happy with that Roger.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Starmer will need to expkain what manifesto commitment he is dumping to spend government time forcing through this non manifesto measure or find another shill like Leadbeater to waste their backbenchers lottery on it
BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘The Many’ slate wins Your Party internal elections, meaning he is set to be elected parliamentary leader by new central exec committee.
The Corbyn slate won 14 seats to seven for the Grassroots Left, Zarah Sultana’s outfit, alongside 3 independents.
14 proving more than enough for The Many.
Not very many...
Nevertheless sufficient to see off Sultana's few in this case.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
Us too. We will be fascinated to see how it pans out.
And us; I'm considering setting a Do Not Resuscitate entry of the local surgery's medical notes. The GP isn't too keen!
My late sister had a DNR notice and I was called to her nursing home as they had called an ambulance
She was clearly in her final hours but the paramedics said they would take her to hospital
I told them about the DNR and they said it was my decision to make
I felt I had no choice but to agree and she died in hospital 5 hours later
I was told I would be interviewed by the police and needed to formally identify the body
The police interview was staightforward, but I could not get away from my decision as it would have been better she had passed in the nursing home with her family present
Very unpleasant; every sympathy. It's what I'm afraid of. I don't want my wife having to follow the ambulance to hospital.
Thank you
With hindsight I would have exercised the DNA under my POA and kept her in the nursing home under their care
I think it is something you and your wife with your GP agree the process and do everything to avoid hospital
BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘The Many’ slate wins Your Party internal elections, meaning he is set to be elected parliamentary leader by new central exec committee.
The Corbyn slate won 14 seats to seven for the Grassroots Left, Zarah Sultana’s outfit, alongside 3 independents.
So this is what has been trolling Leon and several million other gulls for the last few years.
The WSJ published a blockbuster report: the Air Force ran a psyop on its own senior officers. Briefing them into a fake classified program about purported alien technology.
The WSJ stopped reporting the story. A promised Pentagon report never came.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Starmer will need to expkain what manifesto commitment he is dumping to spend government time forcing through this non manifesto measure or find another shill like Leadbeater to waste their backbenchers lottery on it
It is not a waste to pass something you believe in.
Considering a majority of the Commons voted for it, it would not remotely be a waste of time to get it through the Commons a second time and passed as law, especially if the Parliament Act were to be invoked if they passed it a second time, as it should be, if the Lords continue to play silly buggers.
Whichever backbencher who gets the lottery pick which goes along with that will have a far greater chance of going down as getting a law passed via that, than some other random backbench pick.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
Us too. We will be fascinated to see how it pans out.
And us; I'm considering setting a Do Not Resuscitate entry of the local surgery's medical notes. The GP isn't too keen!
My late sister had a DNR notice and I was called to her nursing home as they had called an ambulance
She was clearly in her final hours but the paramedics said they would take her to hospital
I told them about the DNR and they said it was my decision to make
I felt I had no choice but to agree and she died in hospital 5 hours later
I was told I would be interviewed by the police and needed to formally identify the body
The police interview was staightforward, but I could not get away from my decision as it would have been better she had passed in the nursing home with her family present
Why is it your decision if she has set up a DNR notice?
No - it was her decision in discussion with the GP and myself following her terminal cancer diagnosis and severe pain she was suffering
BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘The Many’ slate wins Your Party internal elections, meaning he is set to be elected parliamentary leader by new central exec committee.
The Corbyn slate won 14 seats to seven for the Grassroots Left, Zarah Sultana’s outfit, alongside 3 independents.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Starmer will need to expkain what manifesto commitment he is dumping to spend government time forcing through this non manifesto measure or find another shill like Leadbeater to waste their backbenchers lottery on it
It is not a waste to pass something you believe in.
Considering a majority of the Commons voted for it, it would not remotely be a waste of time to get it through the Commons a second time and passed as law, especially if the Parliament Act were to be invoked if they passed it a second time, as it should be, if the Lords continue to play silly buggers.
Whichever backbencher who gets the lottery pick which goes along with that will have a far greater chance of going down as getting a law passed via that, than some other random backbench pick.
Or they could propose something they believe in rather than Starmer using them to get his pet projects through
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Starmer will need to expkain what manifesto commitment he is dumping to spend government time forcing through this non manifesto measure or find another shill like Leadbeater to waste their backbenchers lottery on it
It is not a waste to pass something you believe in.
Considering a majority of the Commons voted for it, it would not remotely be a waste of time to get it through the Commons a second time and passed as law, especially if the Parliament Act were to be invoked if they passed it a second time, as it should be, if the Lords continue to play silly buggers.
Whichever backbencher who gets the lottery pick which goes along with that will have a far greater chance of going down as getting a law passed via that, than some other random backbench pick.
Or they could propose something they believe in rather than Starmer using them to get his pet projects through
Who says they don't believe in it?
Most MPs voted for this. A very significant majority of the public support this.
It is only a few arseholes in the Lords who are standing in the way of liberal democracy.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
Us too. We will be fascinated to see how it pans out.
And us; I'm considering setting a Do Not Resuscitate entry of the local surgery's medical notes. The GP isn't too keen!
My late sister had a DNR notice and I was called to her nursing home as they had called an ambulance
She was clearly in her final hours but the paramedics said they would take her to hospital
I told them about the DNR and they said it was my decision to make
I felt I had no choice but to agree and she died in hospital 5 hours later
I was told I would be interviewed by the police and needed to formally identify the body
The police interview was staightforward, but I could not get away from my decision as it would have been better she had passed in the nursing home with her family present
Why is it your decision if she has set up a DNR notice?
No - it was her decision in discussion with the GP and myself following her terminal cancer diagnosis and severe pain she was suffering
Sorry I misunderstood your question
As her POA I had the authority to make the decision but I was concerned that the paramedics had made it extremely difficult
My prediction is a Green win, with Reform second and large amount of tactical voting by Labour (and other party) voters. It's just possible that Labour, having all the previous voting data, could hold on and it's also possible that Labour/Greens get roughly the same and Reform comes through to win on a small percentage. However I'm sticking with a Green win and the lesson being that anti-Reform voting will be a major factor in future elections IF the main challenger is easy to identify.
Labour. By a whisker.
Followed by massive row about postal ballots.
Hodges says it is pouring down in Manchester this morning.
Hodges is exaggerating. Light to persistent rain at most.
A person from the northwest and a London journalist have very different ideas of the heaviness of rain! And if folk from the northwest let rain prevent them from going out and doing things they'd never go out or do anything at all.
It's practically stopped now. Old Trafford in May and the covers would be coming off.
Manchester was actually quite dry in January: (Rainfall for January)
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
Hopefully it won't need to.
Hopefully the Lords respects the primacy of the Commons.
If not, hopefully the Commons backs it again next session and the Parliament Act comes into play.
The Lords have no right to block something the Commons has backed in two consecutive sessions - and that has nothing to do with the Salisbury Doctrine so manifestos are neither here nor there.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
I’m actually pro the principle. I just think this bill, and the zeal of the vile MP sponsoring it (even wanting to get rid of the Lords for, checks notes, doing their job), make me wary of it as it stands.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
Which would slightly set on fire his claim that this is just a private members bill.
Though, on the upside, attempting to abolish the Lords would give him another opportunity to do a 180. Followed by a 360. Followed by a 540.
I can only imagine the hurt on Charles Dance's face.
What Starmer should do is say that the Lords have a choice, accept the primacy of the Commons and pass the bill with amendments (subject to Commons acceptance) . . . or if an identical PMB passes the Commons next time then then Parliament Act will be invoked so the Lords don't get any say or any amendments.
Sam Coates of Sky reckons that any reinstatement of the bill will see it in force post GE29 making it an election issue the Government does not want
US Vice Admiral Fred Kacher has been removed from his position as director of the Joint Staff after only taking the post in December, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters https://x.com/Reuters/status/2026874894550540510
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
I’m actually pro the principle. I just think this bill, and the zeal of the vile MP sponsoring it (even wanting to get rid of the Lords for, checks notes, doing their job), make me wary of it as it stands.
This bill does not go remotely far enough. It does not allow for living wills for those with dementia to have their recorded pre-dementia wishes respected, and it does not allow for those with capacity but years of suffering ahead of them to end it either.
What, precisely, in this bill is it that you oppose given how constrained it is already?
PS the Lords job is to respect the will of the Commons and propose sensible amendments to Commons votes, while accepting the primacy of the Commons. It is not the job of a mere 8 Lords to propose 700 amendments as a wrecking motion. That is not their job, and they were not elected to do that - or anything else.
"Dame Esther Rantzen accuses peers of 'blatant sabotage' of assisted dying bill She went on to say that she is "sad" to hear the bill will likely fail."
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Starmer will need to expkain what manifesto commitment he is dumping to spend government time forcing through this non manifesto measure or find another shill like Leadbeater to waste their backbenchers lottery on it
It is not a waste to pass something you believe in.
Considering a majority of the Commons voted for it, it would not remotely be a waste of time to get it through the Commons a second time and passed as law, especially if the Parliament Act were to be invoked if they passed it a second time, as it should be, if the Lords continue to play silly buggers.
Whichever backbencher who gets the lottery pick which goes along with that will have a far greater chance of going down as getting a law passed via that, than some other random backbench pick.
Or they could propose something they believe in rather than Starmer using them to get his pet projects through
Who says they don't believe in it?
Most MPs voted for this. A very significant majority of the public support this.
It is only a few arseholes in the Lords who are standing in the way of liberal democracy.
"Dame Esther Rantzen accuses peers of 'blatant sabotage' of assisted dying bill She went on to say that she is "sad" to hear the bill will likely fail."
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Starmer will need to expkain what manifesto commitment he is dumping to spend government time forcing through this non manifesto measure or find another shill like Leadbeater to waste their backbenchers lottery on it
It is not a waste to pass something you believe in.
Considering a majority of the Commons voted for it, it would not remotely be a waste of time to get it through the Commons a second time and passed as law, especially if the Parliament Act were to be invoked if they passed it a second time, as it should be, if the Lords continue to play silly buggers.
Whichever backbencher who gets the lottery pick which goes along with that will have a far greater chance of going down as getting a law passed via that, than some other random backbench pick.
Or they could propose something they believe in rather than Starmer using them to get his pet projects through
Who says they don't believe in it?
Most MPs voted for this. A very significant majority of the public support this.
It is only a few arseholes in the Lords who are standing in the way of liberal democracy.
It passed third reading with a majority of 23
The question now would be would it pass again ?
Hopefully.
If it does, and the terms of the Parliament Act are met, then the Parliament Act should be invoked.
The Commons is our elected chamber, not the Lords.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
I’m actually pro the principle. I just think this bill, and the zeal of the vile MP sponsoring it (even wanting to get rid of the Lords for, checks notes, doing their job), make me wary of it as it stands.
This bill does not go remotely far enough. It does not allow for living wills for those with dementia to have their recorded pre-dementia wishes respected, and it does not allow for those with capacity but years of suffering ahead of them to end it either.
What, precisely, in this bill is it that you oppose given how constrained it is already?
PS the Lords job is to respect the will of the Commons and propose sensible amendments to Commons votes, while accepting the primacy of the Commons. It is not the job of a mere 8 Lords to propose 700 amendments as a wrecking motion. That is not their job, and they were not elected to do that - or anything else.
If it doesn’t go far enough you should be happy too old chap 👍
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
I’m actually pro the principle. I just think this bill, and the zeal of the vile MP sponsoring it (even wanting to get rid of the Lords for, checks notes, doing their job), make me wary of it as it stands.
This bill does not go remotely far enough. It does not allow for living wills for those with dementia to have their recorded pre-dementia wishes respected, and it does not allow for those with capacity but years of suffering ahead of them to end it either.
What, precisely, in this bill is it that you oppose given how constrained it is already?
PS the Lords job is to respect the will of the Commons and propose sensible amendments to Commons votes, while accepting the primacy of the Commons. It is not the job of a mere 8 Lords to propose 700 amendments as a wrecking motion. That is not their job, and they were not elected to do that - or anything else.
If it doesn’t go far enough you should be happy too old chap 👍
Don't be silly.
This is better than nothing, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
This should be passed, now, since the Commons voted for it. Then in the future I would like to see the Commons vote again to further liberalise the law, to enable more sensible provisions like living wills.
"Prime ministers and heads of state come to the Knesset and it's always an exciting moment for all of us. But my dear friend Narendra, I'm especially moved by your visit. You are a great friend of Israel and a great leader at the world stage....Narendra, you are more than a friend. You are a brother," an emotional Netanyahu said at the beginning of his speech.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
Us too. We will be fascinated to see how it pans out.
And us; I'm considering setting a Do Not Resuscitate entry of the local surgery's medical notes. The GP isn't too keen!
My late sister had a DNR notice and I was called to her nursing home as they had called an ambulance
She was clearly in her final hours but the paramedics said they would take her to hospital
I told them about the DNR and they said it was my decision to make
I felt I had no choice but to agree and she died in hospital 5 hours later
I was told I would be interviewed by the police and needed to formally identify the body
The police interview was staightforward, but I could not get away from my decision as it would have been better she had passed in the nursing home with her family present
Why is it your decision if she has set up a DNR notice?
It is a common misconception that DNR notices mean Do Not Treat rather than Do Not Resuscitate (meaning Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation). A DNR notice doesn't exclude pain relief, or treatment of infections for example. This mistake explains the reluctance of some to have a DNR notice recorded.
In any case these are largely superceeded by RESPECT notices, which are a bit more detailed in outlining the limits of medical interventions. In the absence of such documentation the paramedics have to default to treatment.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
It is absolutely the right of everyone to have a view or not on this in my opinion.
It transcends Politics Nationally Religion Gender Sexuality
I respect rejection of it I simply want to have a personal choice.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Understood.
May be every Party should consider a manifesto commitment to put it up for debate and amendment for a binding free non whip vote at the next GE.
It is a topic that transcends Party Politics but the public in my opinion deserve a Commons Vote to decide the option or not.
I would declare I'm in favour My Partner is against My sister and husband a retired Dean are against
I am undecided but accept there are pros and cons
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
It is absolutely the right of everyone to have a view or not on this in my opinion.
It transcends Politics Nationally Religion Gender Sexuality
I respect rejection of it I simply want to have a personal choice.
This is PB. The only view you’re allowed is the majority one.
My prediction is a Green win, with Reform second and large amount of tactical voting by Labour (and other party) voters. It's just possible that Labour, having all the previous voting data, could hold on and it's also possible that Labour/Greens get roughly the same and Reform comes through to win on a small percentage. However I'm sticking with a Green win and the lesson being that anti-Reform voting will be a major factor in future elections IF the main challenger is easy to identify.
Labour. By a whisker.
Followed by massive row about postal ballots.
Hodges says it is pouring down in Manchester this morning.
Hodges is exaggerating. Light to persistent rain at most.
Also a mancunian definition of rain is likely different to those who live in dryer places. I can’t remember I time that I visited where it wasn’t raining
BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘The Many’ slate wins Your Party internal elections, meaning he is set to be elected parliamentary leader by new central exec committee.
The Corbyn slate won 14 seats to seven for the Grassroots Left, Zarah Sultana’s outfit, alongside 3 independents.
How long do we give it until Sultana quits?
Use By dates on sultanas tend to be about 6 months, and they last about 12 months beyond that if kept out of the way in a cool, dark cupboard.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Hopefully every Lord gets turfed out one day, the Commons voted for this and the undemocratic, unelected arses who can't accept others deciding their own destiny have no place being in our Parliament.
They'll reap the whirlwind eventually. It's coming and at some point someone will get enough of a bit between their teeth they'll ram through something that makes Canada look milquetoast. And it'll be entirely the fault of these obstructionist bastards playing King Cnut.
Alternatively if the Greens get in you'll be able to buy Pentobarb at your local newsagent, which should solve things another way...
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
The government will not be giving the landmark assisted dying legislation more time in the House of Lords, which means it almost certainly will fall, Sky News's deputy political correspondent Sam Coates understands
Of course if the Lords stop playing silly games, after all they've had a huge amount of silly game time it may pass in the House of Commons.
Whether it passes or not is a choice for public opinion and their elected representatives.
There is no whip, it would be a free vote. That is right and ethical.
It is cinstitutionalky wrong in my opinion for a few Lords to hold this up as they have.
What Starmer should do in my opinion is tell them that unless they allow it to pass back to the Commons that he will bring an immediate Bill to Abolish the Lords.
It is not as simple as that
It could be brought back but is unlikely
The government could bring it back but as it is not a manifesto commitment using the parliament act would make it controversial
Abolishing the lords will not save the act, but apparently even if it comes back it will not come into force before the next GE and which party wants a fight on this in an election
It is over for many years to come
Why would it be controversial to use the Parliament Act?
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
Starmer will need to expkain what manifesto commitment he is dumping to spend government time forcing through this non manifesto measure or find another shill like Leadbeater to waste their backbenchers lottery on it
It is not a waste to pass something you believe in.
Considering a majority of the Commons voted for it, it would not remotely be a waste of time to get it through the Commons a second time and passed as law, especially if the Parliament Act were to be invoked if they passed it a second time, as it should be, if the Lords continue to play silly buggers.
Whichever backbencher who gets the lottery pick which goes along with that will have a far greater chance of going down as getting a law passed via that, than some other random backbench pick.
Or they could propose something they believe in rather than Starmer using them to get his pet projects through
Who says they don't believe in it?
Most MPs voted for this. A very significant majority of the public support this.
It is only a few arseholes in the Lords who are standing in the way of liberal democracy.
It passed third reading with a majority of 23
The question now would be would it pass again ?
Hopefully.
If it does, and the terms of the Parliament Act are met, then the Parliament Act should be invoked.
The Commons is our elected chamber, not the Lords.
Lab - Playing with house money, Everyone expects them to lose. If they win its a huge boost for them - despite the fact they should never be in a position to lose this seat. Ref UK - Need to win - a reputation for coming second gets you nowhere. Greens - Need to win - its almost as good a seat as could come up for them. LD - Sitting this one out Cons - On a hiding to nothing when they should be where Ref UK is now.
I suspect both Lab and the Cons are crossing their fingers and hoping for a Ref UK win. I wouldn't be that surprised by either a slim Reform win or a comfortable Green one
Any word from the by-election? Turnout brisk? Greens still having tantric sex rather than voting? Rain stopping play?
Greens are dancing to bad rave music rather than doing GOTV.
So either very confident, or very naive.
I’m going to stick my head out and predict the Greens will underwhelm.
Quite how much they underwhelm will then determine whether Labour cling on or Reform come through the middle.
Historically, one of the reasons that Labour tended to underperform the opinion polls was that their voters tended to be younger and poorer - both groups with lower turnout.
Since Labour have now lost many young voters to the Greens, and lots of poorer voters to Reform, their remaining voters are older and in higher social classes. So we might expect Labour to outperform opinion polling at present, while the Greens and Reform underperform.
I've made this comment now, before Labour's collapsing vote in today's by-election makes it seem less credible.
Lab - Playing with house money, Everyone expects them to lose. If they win its a huge boost for them - despite the fact they should never be in a position to lose this seat. Ref UK - Need to win - a reputation for coming second gets you nowhere. Greens - Need to win - its almost as good a seat as could come up for them. LD - Sitting this one out Cons - On a hiding to nothing when they should be where Ref UK is now.
I suspect both Lab and the Cons are crossing their fingers and hoping for a Ref UK win. I wouldn't be that surprised by either a slim Reform win or a comfortable Green one
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
IIUC you are both "silent generation" not boomers
Big G's 70k+ posts on PB do not support your theory.
Lab - Playing with house money, Everyone expects them to lose. If they win its a huge boost for them - despite the fact they should never be in a position to lose this seat. Ref UK - Need to win - a reputation for coming second gets you nowhere. Greens - Need to win - its almost as good a seat as could come up for them. LD - Sitting this one out Cons - On a hiding to nothing when they should be where Ref UK is now.
I suspect both Lab and the Cons are crossing their fingers and hoping for a Ref UK win. I wouldn't be that surprised by either a slim Reform win or a comfortable Green one
Where would your money be ?
MY money is staying in my pocket or put another way I've had an ante post play on MONTEMARES at Kelso on Saturday in the hope the drying ground will help.
As to Gorton & Denton, as with most by-elections it's short term significance will be overstated and its long term significance understated.
That's easy for me to say but I'd ask the other question - not what if you win but what if you don't win. It's all about the methodone of publicity if you are successful. A positive moment in the public profile is always helpful especially if most of the time you are either vilified or, worse, ignored.
On that measure, I think it's slightly more damaging for the Greens not to win than it would be for Reform or Labour but just my view.
Lab - Playing with house money, Everyone expects them to lose. If they win its a huge boost for them - despite the fact they should never be in a position to lose this seat. Ref UK - Need to win - a reputation for coming second gets you nowhere. Greens - Need to win - its almost as good a seat as could come up for them. LD - Sitting this one out Cons - On a hiding to nothing when they should be where Ref UK is now.
I suspect both Lab and the Cons are crossing their fingers and hoping for a Ref UK win. I wouldn't be that surprised by either a slim Reform win or a comfortable Green one
Where would your money be ?
MY money is staying in my pocket or put another way I've had an ante post play on MONTEMARES at Kelso on Saturday in the hope the drying ground will help.
As to Gorton & Denton, as with most by-elections it's short term significance will be overstated and its long term significance understated.
That's easy for me to say but I'd ask the other question - not what if you win but what if you don't win. It's all about the methodone of publicity if you are successful. A positive moment in the public profile is always helpful especially if most of the time you are either vilified or, worse, ignored.
On that measure, I think it's slightly more damaging for the Greens not to win than it would be for Reform or Labour but just my view.
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
A generation dying off from natural causes isn't unusual even if the size of the cohort is unusual. What is unusual is the rate at which we've been killing babies for decades, the present strong desire for severe bodily mutilation as the only possible route to happiness for some, and the equally strong desire to encourage suicide for people whose difficulties are quite likely to be temporary. Plus, of course, the associated view that other people's lives can't be worth living so they're best dead.
Temporary?
Only if you define "suffering until you eventually die naturally putting you out of your misery" as "temporary".
If assisted dying is legalised then nobody will be determining that other's lives can't be worth living so they're best dead.
Instead we'll be able to decide, as we should, that our own lives are not worth living so we're best off dead. Which we absolutely should be able to do.
The only thing wrong with this proposed bill is it does not go remotely far enough. The asinine 6 month rule means people with years of suffering ahead of them need to suffer on. And the lack of a living will proviso means that people with dementia need to suffer through until they die of natural causes.
Just like signing DNRs, we should be able to write living wills to state if we get severe dementia and are incapacitated and unable to decide at that point, whether we'd rather live or die in that state. And our living wills should be respected as our own choice, made freely, while we were able to do so.
Yes. My reference is to collateral damage that has been observed in countries already practicing this.
Boomers vs Silent Generation. Silent Generation are now the over 80s (all pre end WW2 births) with a handful of the Greatest Generation left (born before 1927) Boomers run to about 1964 births folliwed by the perma awesome Gen X then a load of snot nosed brats
Sky News are reporting that the Govt will not give any extra time to the Assisted Dying Bill so it is almost certain to not become law.
Excellent news.
I'm saddened that it has come to this. The idea behind it, that people in intolerable pain and suffering can be helped to pass, just as we would take a sick cat or dog to the vet for the same, is something I support. At the moment if you have the money you can travel to Switzerland to do it. If you don't you can hope someone will be willing to risk prison time to help you.
The backers of the current law seem to have lost the plot. I am not sure what is behind their motivations, but so much is wrong with the current proposal that it has to fail.
I suspect it, in some form, will be in the manifesto of at least a couple of parties at the next election, and law within ten years. The dam has broken.
IMHO our society has turned into a death cult in many ways.
It's an unusual time in history. Over the next ten-fifteen years about ten-fifteen million UK people - the Boomers - will die, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Everything in UK politics flows from that fact.
My wife and I are certainly well into that group !!!!!!!
Us too. We will be fascinated to see how it pans out.
And us; I'm considering setting a Do Not Resuscitate entry of the local surgery's medical notes. The GP isn't too keen!
I've already done that. A living will. I've also passed it on to my children.
Those who are taking pleasure in a few standouts in the Lords frustrating the will of Parliament and the majority in this country on assisted dying, are a disgrace. They cannot claim to be democrats. A black mark against their names.
Comments
Which is why is needs reforming.
Only if you define "suffering until you eventually die naturally putting you out of your misery" as "temporary".
If assisted dying is legalised then nobody will be determining that other's lives can't be worth living so they're best dead.
Instead we'll be able to decide, as we should, that our own lives are not worth living so we're best off dead. Which we absolutely should be able to do.
The only thing wrong with this proposed bill is it does not go remotely far enough. The asinine 6 month rule means people with years of suffering ahead of them need to suffer on. And the lack of a living will proviso means that people with dementia need to suffer through until they die of natural causes.
Just like signing DNRs, we should be able to write living wills to state if we get severe dementia and are incapacitated and unable to decide at that point, whether we'd rather live or die in that state. And our living wills should be respected as our own choice, made freely, while we were able to do so.
It's based on a combination of everything I've read, heard, seen, etc, and from having observed many by-elections over the years. Although I made this prediction before the constituency polls were released.
Absolute disgrace.
But that, like class based voting, has been declining for sixty years.
Presented without comment
The Parliament Act is about the supremacy of the Commons. If the Commons votes twice for this, and meets the terms of the Parliament Act, then the Commons has done its job. The Parliament Act should be invoked at that stage.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/26/jersey-approves-bill-to-legalise-assisted-dying-for-terminally-ill-adults
But I don't think he is resigning.
(Apols for digging out a decade-old PB in-joke.)
https://x.com/roworthjack/status/2026968242812506283?s=61
With hindsight I would have exercised the DNA under my POA and kept her in the nursing home under their care
I think it is something you and your wife with your GP agree the process and do everything to avoid hospital
The WSJ published a blockbuster report: the Air Force ran a psyop on its own senior officers. Briefing them into a fake classified program about purported alien technology.
The WSJ stopped reporting the story. A promised Pentagon report never came.
I picked it up. 🧵..
https://x.com/rossgarber/status/2026345587839230033
Considering a majority of the Commons voted for it, it would not remotely be a waste of time to get it through the Commons a second time and passed as law, especially if the Parliament Act were to be invoked if they passed it a second time, as it should be, if the Lords continue to play silly buggers.
Whichever backbencher who gets the lottery pick which goes along with that will have a far greater chance of going down as getting a law passed via that, than some other random backbench pick.
..
Not easy to legislate for and it remains to be seen if it appears in a manifesto for 2029
Most MPs voted for this. A very significant majority of the public support this.
It is only a few arseholes in the Lords who are standing in the way of liberal democracy.
As her POA I had the authority to make the decision but I was concerned that the paramedics had made it extremely difficult
Hopefully the Lords respects the primacy of the Commons.
If not, hopefully the Commons backs it again next session and the Parliament Act comes into play.
The Lords have no right to block something the Commons has backed in two consecutive sessions - and that has nothing to do with the Salisbury Doctrine so manifestos are neither here nor there.
The Commons is our elected chamber.
https://x.com/Reuters/status/2026874894550540510
Israeli soldiers shot a Palestinian boy and stood around as he bled to death, video shows
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqwv9vvzx9o
What, precisely, in this bill is it that you oppose given how constrained it is already?
PS the Lords job is to respect the will of the Commons and propose sensible amendments to Commons votes, while accepting the primacy of the Commons. It is not the job of a mere 8 Lords to propose 700 amendments as a wrecking motion. That is not their job, and they were not elected to do that - or anything else.
She went on to say that she is "sad" to hear the bill will likely fail."
https://news.sky.com/video/dame-esther-rantzen-accuses-peers-of-blatant-sabotage-of-assisted-dying-bill-13512415
The question now would be would it pass again ?
If it does, and the terms of the Parliament Act are met, then the Parliament Act should be invoked.
The Commons is our elected chamber, not the Lords.
This is better than nothing, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
This should be passed, now, since the Commons voted for it. Then in the future I would like to see the Commons vote again to further liberalise the law, to enable more sensible provisions like living wills.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/pm-modi-israel-visit-live-updates-knesset-parliament-address-benjamin-netanyahu-india-israel-biltaeral-defence-security-talks-tel-aviv-11134478
In any case these are largely superceeded by RESPECT notices, which are a bit more detailed in outlining the limits of medical interventions. In the absence of such documentation the paramedics have to default to treatment.
https://www.resus.org.uk/respect
So either very confident, or very naive.
I know I have upset some, made errors and apologized, but I do try to be accurate and post breaking news
And yes, I am very pleased with Kemi's improvement but a long way to go to GE 29
It transcends
Politics
Nationally
Religion
Gender
Sexuality
I respect rejection of it I simply want to have a personal choice.
Can’t they all lose ?
https://x.com/broseph_stalin/status/2026973339634573440?s=61
Alternatively if the Greens get in you'll be able to buy Pentobarb at your local newsagent, which should solve things another way...
Quite how much they underwhelm will then determine whether Labour cling on or Reform come through the middle.
Lab - Playing with house money, Everyone expects them to lose. If they win its a huge boost for them - despite the fact they should never be in a position to lose this seat.
Ref UK - Need to win - a reputation for coming second gets you nowhere.
Greens - Need to win - its almost as good a seat as could come up for them.
LD - Sitting this one out
Cons - On a hiding to nothing when they should be where Ref UK is now.
I suspect both Lab and the Cons are crossing their fingers and hoping for a Ref UK win. I wouldn't be that surprised by either a slim Reform win or a comfortable Green one
Since Labour have now lost many young voters to the Greens, and lots of poorer voters to Reform, their remaining voters are older and in higher social classes. So we might expect Labour to outperform opinion polling at present, while the Greens and Reform underperform.
I've made this comment now, before Labour's collapsing vote in today's by-election makes it seem less credible.
As to Gorton & Denton, as with most by-elections it's short term significance will be overstated and its long term significance understated.
That's easy for me to say but I'd ask the other question - not what if you win but what if you don't win. It's all about the methodone of publicity if you are successful. A positive moment in the public profile is always helpful especially if most of the time you are either vilified or, worse, ignored.
On that measure, I think it's slightly more damaging for the Greens not to win than it would be for Reform or Labour but just my view.
NEW THREAD
Silent Generation are now the over 80s (all pre end WW2 births) with a handful of the Greatest Generation left (born before 1927)
Boomers run to about 1964 births folliwed by the perma awesome Gen X then a load of snot nosed brats
Those who are taking pleasure in a few standouts in the Lords frustrating the will of Parliament and the majority in this country on assisted dying, are a disgrace. They cannot claim to be democrats. A black mark against their names.