Pivot coming any day now. No really, just sit tight.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Pivot coming any day now. No really, just sit tight.
We've already seen the definition of a terminal condition expanded in Holland. We should absolutely pay close attention to the Canadian experience - 4.1% of all deaths are now medically assisted.
I think there is a social taboo against suicide as well that exists separately of both, but can be strengthened or weakened by state action. There is evidence (I don't know how robust) that shows greater tolerance of assisted dying is associated with higher overall suicide rates in men and women.
Dying with dignity in a off brand lazy boy chair. The last images I see are of a call centre in Milton Keynes.
From my time working in the NHS, respiratory physiotherapy, the number of people who've told me they're not living, just waiting to die, was astounding. Many were saying if they had a chance to hit a button and 'be done with it'.
The number who are bed-ridden, or are limited to a single room due to respiratory conditions, often found incontinent or having had a bowel movement but can't do anything about it would bring a tear to my eye. Yes there is obvious and dangerous room for exploitation, but this is not a reason to not go ahead with it.
People talk about the dignity of life, but there's NO DIGNITY in living like that, all on the proverbial altar of 'the sanctity of life'.
The number who are bed-ridden, or are limited to a single room due to respiratory conditions, often found incontinent or having had a bowel movement but can't do anything about it would bring a tear to my eye. Yes there is obvious and dangerous room for exploitation, but this is not a reason to not go ahead with it.
People talk about the dignity of life, but there's NO DIGNITY in living like that, all on the proverbial altar of 'the sanctity of life'.
It's simple... to have influence, that's why.... and its been happening since 'Adam was a lad'.
It can be influence directly with the politician concerned, but unlikely at PM level. Or maybe its more to do with influencing others who think you have influence/the ear of the PM etc.
Starmer 'very interested' in Italy's plan to offshore asylum applications in Albania, Meloni says
The first question comes from an Italian journalist.Q: How will your cooperation on immigration play out?
Meloni says her government has a plan for illegal migration. She says Italy and the UK may be able to extend the work done by law enforcement agencies. And there may be scope for making sure their legislation is “in greater harmony” in the future, she says.
The traffickers work internationally, she says. She says:
On Albania, she says Starmer was “very interested” in the Italian plan to process asylum applications offshore in Albania.
She says the programme has not started. But it may be delayed for a few weeks, she says.
---
Rwanda boo, Albania yay!
But again, isn't there a pragmatic solution to that? If Albania is willing to host a significant number, whilst their claims are being processed, at a lower cost than the current system, and then we have arranged flights back for those approved, I don't see a problem with that as a temoporary solution whilst we look at appropriate longer term measures.
Admittedly this completely isn't what I'd expect to be saying about a Labour government, but we are in strange times.
Funny how they always have the money for right wing projects.
Yup. They always have money for harmful and unnecessary shit like this, but not for actually helpful things. Austerity is a political choice.
If they have a long-term plan in preparation, including properly funded safe routes, then great.
Rwanda wasn't about processing refugees ahead of possible settlement in the UK. It was about being a place to dump refugees, with no processing involved. That's why it was illegal. If Rwanda had actually been a place to process people's claims for UK asylum, then it might have been palatable.
Last edited:
So shall we say if you can't afford to buy a house then you don't deserve to live in one
The system works if everyone chips in their bit.
If your mortgage is being paid by someone else, you're not a cog in the system you're a parasite.So shall we say if you can't afford to buy a house then you don't deserve to live in one
The system works if everyone chips in their bit.
So shall we say if you can't afford to buy a house then you don't deserve to live in one
The system works if everyone chips in their bit.
Nah mate. Quit supporting broke ass vampires.
It's the 21st century, we should be looking to bring in a right to shelter. If you can't afford to own multiple homes without leeching off others, you definitely shouldn't own multiple homes and that's before we even get into whether it's right to own multiple homes.So shall we say if you can't afford to buy a house then you don't deserve to live in one
The system works if everyone chips in their bit.
Also a thread showing how addicted the current PM is to freebies
Looks like he's moving the dial towards Fascism then
It’s cool that he ran on a centre right wing platform to get elected and then when he got into power he pivoted to a far right wing platform. Really showed those with genuine concerns just how wrong they were. But hey the cronyism has stopped hasn’t it?
Hob-nobbing with Italian fascists. He's doing the Labour movement proud.
Starmer is starting, somehow, to look like as much of a fool as Boris.
I work in a care home. Similar experience to yours. Residents who have lived a long and happy life just want to die. Not because they're suicidal, they're just old and tired, they can't do what they used to, their bodies, eyesight, hearing are all getting worse, and they've just had enough. When you're 97 and you need assistance with every aspect of your daily life and you still have your faculties, it must be very frustrating to basically have to wait for nature to take its course. Several of our residents have also spoken about 'pressing a button' if they could.
Listening to HOW people reduce numbers coming across is not the same as implementing fascist regimes.
Surely if people are doing things differently, you seek to find out what / how they're doing it, assess the viability of it to our country, and then assess if it's worth progressing with.
Now for me, it would be, try to arrange for expanded Embassy territory across Europe, so that people could apply at an Embassy and stay there during the process, but I've got no pragmatic reasoning to look at any other solutions.
Surely if people are doing things differently, you seek to find out what / how they're doing it, assess the viability of it to our country, and then assess if it's worth progressing with.
Now for me, it would be, try to arrange for expanded Embassy territory across Europe, so that people could apply at an Embassy and stay there during the process, but I've got no pragmatic reasoning to look at any other solutions.
You don’t have to come up with an excuse for everything Labour do. You’re starting to sound very silly.
I'm not excusing it, I'm trying (most likely failing) to explain it.
Admittedly if he went to North Korea to ask for advice about foreign policy I wouldn't have the same mentality - but if I'm looking at pragmatic solutions to the problem of irregular migration, and a country in our Continent has seen a 60% drop in a year, I'd certainly ask why or how. Once I've heard why or how I then choose whether to dismiss it or not.
Do you need to engage with those people to find out why or how? It’s all public information.
I'd imagine if you want to get to the minutia of a policy you'd have to go to the people who implemented it. Reports and documentation only go so far.
But maybe I'm being too lenient.
Slight Update: I'd also imagine on the diplomatic side of things it could be impactful. He's been to Germany, he's been to France, if he decided to seek info from Italy but NOT go, it could be seen as a diplomatic snub (something we as members of a football forum don't have to worry about, but the PM of this country does).
Last edited:
Abortion (what ever the reason) is for many people, seen as an attack on the sanctity of life, at its beginnings.
Assisted Dying/Euthanasia when it becomes legal (and it will) it will be seen by many as an attack on the sanctity of life, at its end.
Once the 'sanctity of life' is removed from the humane condition for good, then lots of other cherished human 'sanctity of life' instincts will be called into question; e.g. providing medical support for people suffering with self- induced injuries/illness etc.; prolonging the lives of prisoners with no hope of parole; caring for the homeless, the starving, making provision for asylum seekers, many aspects of charity will come under scrutiny .... we won't need to worry about climate change doing for humanity, we will see to it ourselves!
Last edited:
Ahh but the examples you cite all have a possibility of improvement.
I get that these examples may be offered with your tongue firmly in your cheek, or at least looking cynically at human nature, but they're aren't cases of 'one-way traffic'.
Not yet, but if the 'sanctity of life' is to be removed from the human condition (altar) in total, if the state agrees to death being administered legally, then things will change, don't kid yourself; the law of unintended consequences exists, so to does the origins of the saying " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Murderers languishing in prison, with no hope of parole, may seek assisted dying? One of the all time favourities still with the public is the restoration of the death penalty for certain crimes.
During my time spent in the English schooling system, this was already the case. What is new about this?
Wasn't anything I was ever taught about at school, albeit that was a very long time ago, I'm guessing it might be an area of the curriculum where schools have the choice of subjects they can teach and they're changing it to be compulsory
I get there are loads of personal examples like this, and many heartbreaking ones, but there's too many powerful economic incentives inherent in the NHS and care systems, already buckling under the strain of an ageing population, that would encourage a larger over a smaller number of medically assisted deaths.
I believe there's too big a risk that a system introduced to ease the pain of the worst terminal cases, wouldn't remain so, because of these incentives.
As a genuine question - they seem really bad at these things. Why? Starmer has spoken to Blair and others before the election. How did they not get advice on donations and freebies, especially as they were so critical of Tory cronyism?
Now there are stories of Simon Case being forced out and replaced, with him being blamed for the leaks. Sue Grey works for them yet they appear like a bunch of amateurs.