David Cameron, our previous Prime Minister, managed to bring together a coalition government that achieved some good things, but his legacy will be one of disaster. In my view this is due to his lack of analytical thought. Maybe he just didn’t have the mental toolkit and training to analyse complex policy situations. He shot from the hip time after time, with precious little sign that he thought before opening his mouth. Now we hear that he’s considering ‘coming back into politics’. Please, no. His failures are too obvious.
A typical example is the commitment to ‘immigration in the tens of thousands’. A cheap sound bite, which an hour’s consideration with knowledgeable people would have consigned to the rubbish bin of political history. Instead, this nonsense has poisoned our politics for a decade.
He has a politician’s talent for finding a tactically attractive posture. But he failed. He refused to think and analyse the possible outcomes of his promises. He has a track record of rash and thoughtless commitments, and then sticking to them regardless of evidence and impact.
His ultimate crime against the United Kingdom was to offer a referendum without thinking about the conditions first. And then to be bounced from an ‘advisory’ vote to one where the vote would count and the result be respected. Resigning as Prime Minister was obvious, and necessary - he had already done as much damage as could be allowed.
We were talking in the pub tonight, and the view was that he should never be forgiven. Certainly, he should keep his head. It would only be fair if he wakes up every morning in the early hours screaming in agony as his conscience, if he has one, tells him what irreparable damage he has done to our nation.
02 November 2018
04 July 2018
Magna Carta and assisted dying
In 2015, I took an online course on The Magna Carta and its Legacy. This was presented by my alma mater, Royal Holloway University of London, using the Coursera online platform, to coincide with the 800th anniversary of the original charter.
The concluding assignment on the course was to write a clause for a modern Magna Carta that addresses the pressing issues and defends the rights that matter to me, and a written motion to persuade others that my clause should be adopted. The total length was required to be 240 - 270 words - challenging for the topic that I chose, assisted dying.
This subject continues in public debate, including a fine article by Alice Thomson, We need to talk about assisted dying, in The Times of 4th July 2018. Some things have progressed - Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, India, six US states and from next year Victoria in Australia have now allowed doctors to prescribe a barbiturate drug to bring a life to a peaceful end. Sadly, our own House of Commons rejected such legislation three years ago. It's time that they re-examined the question. Here are my proposed clause and motion:
Medical practitioners shall be empowered to prescribe life-ending drugs to mentally competent adults who wish to end unbearable suffering, loss of dignity or of autonomy caused by terminal illness.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'a Magna Carta for our age', bans torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Since its adoption in 1948, medical science has advanced so that it can treat many common diseases. However, we all die eventually. End-of-life palliative care is often appropriate and effective, but for some, physical and mental suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, cannot be prevented. Patients may endure years while 'nature takes its course'.
This proposal gives the sick the confidence and the freedom that they need not face endless suffering.
This is a difficult, emotive argument. Some religious groups hold that all life is sacred; only natural processes or divine intervention should determine the time of death. Others hold that members of religions may make a conscientious decision not to utilise a legal freedom, but should not stop others making their own choice.
Opponents also fear a 'slippery slope' that could extend beyond the tight scope of consenting, mentally competent, terminally-ill adults. Several states have enacted assisted-dying laws, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Washington, Oregon and Vermont. All have monitored the effects carefully; public opinion remains largely in favour. None of the states has chosen to extend its legislative scope.
In Britain, the public is heavily pro (82% according to the 2010 British Social Attitudes survey) but lawmakers are cautious. Australia has no current proposals; Canada's Parliament will consider legislation during its current session.
That was 2015, and now is 2018. Of course Brexit is top of most politicians' agendas, but surely Parliament should look again before long.
The concluding assignment on the course was to write a clause for a modern Magna Carta that addresses the pressing issues and defends the rights that matter to me, and a written motion to persuade others that my clause should be adopted. The total length was required to be 240 - 270 words - challenging for the topic that I chose, assisted dying.
This subject continues in public debate, including a fine article by Alice Thomson, We need to talk about assisted dying, in The Times of 4th July 2018. Some things have progressed - Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, India, six US states and from next year Victoria in Australia have now allowed doctors to prescribe a barbiturate drug to bring a life to a peaceful end. Sadly, our own House of Commons rejected such legislation three years ago. It's time that they re-examined the question. Here are my proposed clause and motion:
Medical practitioners shall be empowered to prescribe life-ending drugs to mentally competent adults who wish to end unbearable suffering, loss of dignity or of autonomy caused by terminal illness.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'a Magna Carta for our age', bans torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Since its adoption in 1948, medical science has advanced so that it can treat many common diseases. However, we all die eventually. End-of-life palliative care is often appropriate and effective, but for some, physical and mental suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, cannot be prevented. Patients may endure years while 'nature takes its course'.
This proposal gives the sick the confidence and the freedom that they need not face endless suffering.
This is a difficult, emotive argument. Some religious groups hold that all life is sacred; only natural processes or divine intervention should determine the time of death. Others hold that members of religions may make a conscientious decision not to utilise a legal freedom, but should not stop others making their own choice.
Opponents also fear a 'slippery slope' that could extend beyond the tight scope of consenting, mentally competent, terminally-ill adults. Several states have enacted assisted-dying laws, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Washington, Oregon and Vermont. All have monitored the effects carefully; public opinion remains largely in favour. None of the states has chosen to extend its legislative scope.
In Britain, the public is heavily pro (82% according to the 2010 British Social Attitudes survey) but lawmakers are cautious. Australia has no current proposals; Canada's Parliament will consider legislation during its current session.
That was 2015, and now is 2018. Of course Brexit is top of most politicians' agendas, but surely Parliament should look again before long.
31 December 2017
Beach Books 2017
Human Universe - Brian Cox
The Unexpected Inheritance of Inspector Chopra - Vaseem Khan
Sapiens - Yuval Noah Harari
Last Rituals - Yrsa Sigurdardóttir
Chasing the Monsoon - Alex Frater
His Bloody Project
I Am Pilgrim - Terry Hayes
The God of Small Things - Arundhati Roy
The Lost Army - Valerie Massimiliano Manfredi
H is for Hawk - Helen Macdonald
Finished at home
Warriors of the a Storm - Bernard Cornwell
24 October 2016
Economist inflation
I love the analysis, clarity and comment given by The Economist newspaper. It's not the only newspaper that is jacking up its prices, but even so, I was fairly gutted to see that my annual renewal will rise from £155 in January 2016 to £179 in January 2017. Yes, there's a paltry £10 discount for one year only, for taking the Direct Debit option, and there are multi-year options but these demand a big up-front payment. It's a hell of a jump.
I decided to look at prices paid over the last 10 years and compare them against UK Consumer Price Inflation. This year the difference between the inflation-adjusted price, £134, and the inflated price, is £45. That's not a happy sight for anyone on a fixed income.
Method used: the Bank of England inflation calculator, which currently covers Consumer Price Inflation for years up to 2015, to work out inflation-adjusted prices based on £99 in 2006, and then use current number for UK 2016 CPI Average inflation given by inflation.eu to for the last point on the chart. Prices paid taken from my records.
30 July 2016
Beach Books 2016
The Narrow Road to the Deep North, Richard Flanagan
Snuff, Terry Pratchett
Generals, Mark Urban (excellent!)
The Girl in the Spider's Web, David Lagercrantz
Hitman Anders and the Meaning of it all, Jonas Jonasson
Lingo, Gaston Dorren
Meet Me in Malmo, Torquil MacLeod
The Age of Wonder, Richard Holmes
SPQR, Mary Beard
Raising Steam, Terry Pratchett
The Violins of Saint-Jacques, Patrick Leigh Fermor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)