Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Barrister]

I'm not sure where you guys are going but I don't think McDonalds can be beat for cheapness.

Like I understand inflation has happened, and the prices have gone up.  But just checking - a Big Mac is almost $8.  You're not getting an equivalent burger anywhere for a similar price.

[Gups]

One to enrage Sheilbh. Seems awfully close to that favourite story of his about the French connector.

https://capx.co/nimby-watch-who-needs-power-in-paradise/

This country

On a similar thing I saw a Labour MP and minister posting his letter to the local council opposing allowing a McDonald's to open on the high street because childhood obesity. I just think MPs and ministers should have better things to do than worry about the precise retail mix on the high street of one town in their constituency.

I don't get the problem. Local people affected by something object to it. Big deal. It's not going to stop the project going ahead. Just allows people not affected to get on their high horse.

[Sheilbh]

So British Farmers are currently protesting?

How very continental of them. You guys belong in the EU after all.

Yes but not over subsidies or dumping slurry outside Parliament to protest globalisation.

They're protesting a change to inheritance tax that basically exempts a lot of worked agricultural land. It's complicated. This has absolutely been a tax dodge for the rich recently. But it will affect some family farms too - but it's unclear how many as it turns out the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have wildly different estimates.

Politically though British farmers are very weak. They're not a particularly well liked group/the fount of deep England in the way I think farmers and agriculture is in some European countries. They used to have the Tories as a natural party of farming - I think that relationship is very damaged after the Tories prioritising a harder Brexit and their political self-interest over farmers. As the Economist put it European farmers are fairly militant and see themselves as contemporary peasants, British farmers are the landed gentry.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah I'd also say if he's worried about childhood obesity he should crack down on the chicken shops because the kids fucking love those (at lunchtime and after school - and, for some little fat bastards, even before school ). They are also far, far cheaper than McDonalds - in a way that I genuinely don't understand how they're so cheap and don't want to inquire too deeply.

Do you have many Haitian immigrants?

[Sheilbh]

In the last few days evacuations and controlled destruction of hoax devices outside the US embassy, at Gatwick airport, Euston station and in Glasgow. Seems a bit weird

[Josquius]

In the last few days evacuations and controlled destruction of hoax devices outside the US embassy, at Gatwick airport, Euston station and in Glasgow. Seems a bit weird

Da. You are right mon droog. Very weirdy. Fun coincidience. No way any peace loving major world power who means nothing but happiness for the world could have realised just how cheap some damage can be.

[Tamas]

Either the Guardian is heavily pro-suffering or the assisted dying bill has no chance to pass.

What a disappointment. What cowardice.

[Sheilbh]

I think Gordon Brown's intervention against yesterday will be very influential. I think it was strikingly personal and quite moving. And that this is really a free, non-partisan vote. There's very right-wing Tories for and against, same for left-wing Labour MPs, the Lib Dems and the cabinet seem to be pretty evenly splitting. Because I think both sides are well motivated and have good arguments and it is difficult.

I think there was a deliberate strategy to do it quick and do it early on the general assumption that it would pass. I certainly thought it would and I think the Guardian did too (I remember an early article in the Guardian quoting one MP saying it was basically only religious types who would oppose it and it would sail through). That strategy has backfired. So part of what's happening in coverage now is trying to explain that it might not pass.

This gets a vote every ten years or so. If it fails, I hope advocates listen to disability activists, grapple with the estimated 350,000 elderly people abused every year in this country and think of how to address those concerns - because I think this time they've just been dismissed. See Kim Leadbeater's interview today which is at best disingenuous on this points (at worst I think she genuinely can't believe in or understand good faith opposition).

Edit: I should say my expectation is still that it will narrowly pass. And where the partisan interest may come in is I suspect on the fence Labour MPs may not particularly relish the next two years being spent working out how to actually implement this law.

Edit: And personally I've found it very striking that as this debate has continued last week we also had Matt Hancock giving testimony at the covid inquiry and admitting that do not resuscitate orders were wrongly used, in particular meaning people with disabilities and the elderly were not being given life-saving treatment that they should have.

[HVC]

If it fails, I hope advocates listen to disability activists, grapple with the estimated 350,000 elderly people abused every year in this country and think of how to address those concerns - because I think this time they've just been dismissed.

They won't. If they genuinely cared they'd do something about it even apart from dislike of the proposed legislation. It's like pro life types in America. They care about kids/disabled poor in so far as they can use them as a bludgeon against something they dislike (abortion/assisted suicide). Beyond that they don't really care about disadvantaged kids/sick. If they did the people lobbying and rallying against abortion and assisted suicide would be the ones rallying and lobbying for greater assistance. By and large they are not.


Again,  it's  a majority of people thing. I believe you and BB sincerely  and genuinely believe  in your views. I just think you're wrong

[Sheilbh]

I don't agree with that characterisation at all. This is not America and it's not a party political issue like that. I think part of the problem advocates of legalisation have had is they've been pretending it's a fight against the religious right. In Britain that's playing politics on easy because there isn't a religious right and we're not very religious. Basically I think they've kind of wanted it to just polarise on culture war lines and it hasn't.

But for example, opponents now include very left-wing Labour MPs, former PM Gordon Brown, the leader of the Liberal Democrats (who has a severely disabled son who requires full time care), the Labour cabinet looks like it'll split 50/50, not to mention the leading disability rights campaign group in the country. I think they (and other opponents and supporters) are acting in good faith and mean what they say. I think they genuinely care about the disabled, poor, sick, elderly.

And people have changed their mind on this - in part because of the experience in Canada and Oregon (which is what the bill is modeled on) and other common law jurisdictions. But also because I think the Dignity in Dying campaign group did have a strategy of going early and fast that has not gone down well with MPs. The Health Secretary (on the right of Labour) voted for assisted dying in 2015 but has changed his mind. Diane Abbott (hard left of Labour) has previously abstained but has said she'll vote against this bill. I think it's fair to say both, in their ways, absolutely are lobbying for and delivering greater assistance.

[Tamas]

There is nothing to convince opponents with. Concerns over minutea is an excuse. For example Sheilbh you as one of the more reasonable opponents of it can you give actual examples of what would convince you to switch and start supporting a bill like this? Not stuff like "better projections" but an example of what thst convincigly better protection would be.

To stay fair, this hypocrisy I think applies to the pro-dignity side as well, or at least it applies to myself. I will not want assisted suicide to stop at this level. I want it to reach the canadian/Swiss levels where essentially I am given assistance to check out like a fucking human being when existing becomes unbearable.

Oh, and Brown's argument freaked me out. I am sorry about his personal tragedy but to let others suffer because his newborn daughter wasn't able to convey to them what she was going through while they had this emotional copium of witnessing her dying as the only time they spent with her (which is a heart-wrenching thought), is just twisted.

[Tamas]

Oh one more thing: why not have a referendum on this, since we are so fond of them.

[Sheilbh]

There is nothing to convince opponents with. Concerns over minutea is an excuse. For example Sheilbh you as one of the more reasonable opponents of it can you give actual examples of what would convince you to switch and start supporting a bill like this? Not stuff like "better projections" but an example of what thst convincigly better protection would be.

Again the Health Secretary voted for assisted dying last time it came up. He's changed his mind and now opposes it. Diane Abbott has shifted from unsure to opposition. I don't think opinions on this are very fixed.

For me, better protections is key. There are fewer and weaker safeguards in this bill than for live organ donation or getting a mortgage. I don't think that's right. I say I think it should looked at as a policy in the context of a royal commission or something similar addressing social care, palliative care and assisted dying. So there is a wider reform to improve death for people and within that context consider assisted dying.

But to be honest the biggest change would be self-administered which I believe is the case in Austria, Switzerland and a few US states around effectively physician supported assisted suicide, not assisted dying which is where the fatal drugs are administered by a physician. Because the moment of decision is in the individual's hands and not within a process which (particularly in the NHS) can inexorably go on to its conclusion.

Edit: And, on support, as I say the assumption at the start of this parliament was that this would easily sail through - opinions have changed even in the time we've been having the debate in public and I actually suspect some MPs will have their mind made up in the debate in the chamber.

To stay fair, this hypocrisy I think applies to the pro-dignity side as well, or at least it applies to myself. I will not want assisted suicide to stop at this level. I want it to reach the canadian/Swiss levels where essentially I am given assistance to check out like a fucking human being when existing becomes unbearable.

Yeah. So this is one of the issues I have with the current bill. Leadbeater today said it would not in any circumstance be possible for anorexia to be a condition where assisted dying is available - problem is that has happened, through regulatory and legal process (not legislation), in Oregon, which is the jurisdiction with the closest safeguards in the bill.

And I think we have to be very, very careful about the circumstances when assisted dying is allowed. For example one of the Dignity in Dying patrons has said that in his view it should be expanded beyond this bill (also the Economist's position) and in particular said it should be available for "the wheelchair bound" and people with mental health issues. I think that has profound implications for the dignity and worth our society places on people with disabilities and mental health problems. Which again goes back to the slippery slope and need for a very robustly drafted law and solid safeguards.

Oh, and Brown's argument freaked me out. I am sorry about his personal tragedy but to let others suffer because his newborn daughter wasn't able to convey to them what she was going through while they had this emotional copium of witnessing her dying as the only time they spent with her (which is a heart-wrenching thought), is just twisted.

I think that's an insanely uncharitable reading of his article.

[Sheilbh]

Oh one more thing: why not have a referendum on this, since we are so fond of them.

If we had a written constitution, I'd support a referendum

As it is I think a no party whip, free vote of MPs on an issue of conscience is the right approach.

[Josquius]

I honestly find it weird this is such a big issue for you two. It's just not engaging to me at all.

Though you mention Switzerland... Comes to me how weird it is they have this considering they're so hyper conservative on most things. Checking up they've had it since the 40s, which makes me suspect it originally came from a very different place to the current progressive, help the suffering, expand freedom position


In other news.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/24/uk-jobcentres-not-fit-for-purpose-says-liz-kendall-ahead-of-major-reforms

UK jobcentres not fit for purpose, says Liz Kendall ahead of major reforms
The work and pensions secretary is to overhaul benefits system, pushing young people into work or education

 Britain's network of jobcentres has become a hollowed-out "benefit administration service" that is shunned by employers and jobseekers alike, a cabinet minister has warned before a government overhaul of out-of-work support that will oblige young people to take up education or employment.


In an interview with the Observer, Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, warned that the nation's 650 jobcentres are no longer "fit for purpose" and need to become hubs for those looking for work or a better position, as well as those dependent on welfare. Reforms to integrate the jobcentre network with healthcare and careers services in England will be unveiled this week, as part of a long-awaited plan to deal with economic inactivity.

"Employers are desperate to recruit," she said. "People are desperate to earn money and get on in their jobs. So we need big change. We need to see change in our jobcentres from a one-size-fits-all benefit administration service to a genuine public employment service. It's not fit for purpose and it has to change.

"When only one in six employers use a jobcentre to recruit, that is a major issue. We've got to change the way we work to make sure employers want to use us and that people looking for a job have got the skills employers need."

A sign on the exterior of a jobcentre
View image in fullscreen
There are about 650 jobcentres in the UK. Photograph: Jason Cairnduff/Reuters
A serious image problem has left hundreds of jobcentres neglected by the vast majority of employers and avoided by those looking to find employment or a better post, according to a new government-backed analysis. It suggests that only a third of the public would use them for information about jobs.


The reforms will also see young people obliged to take up education or employment or face benefit sanctions. They come as the number of 16- to 24-year-olds not in either category is at its highest level in a decade and hurtling towards the 1 million mark. Any increase in the use of benefit sanctions will prove controversial within Labour, but Kendall said that the government's attempts to improve access to medical services, careers advice and training had to be met by a willingness to take up the positions on offer.

"We are going to transform the opportunities for young people, including through early intervention to deal with mental health problems, with support in schools, with new work experience and careers advice," she said, promising to provide "new opportunities" to young adults. "But young people will have to take that up. If you are out of work when you're young and you don't have basic skills, there can be lifelong consequences in terms of your earnings, your career and your health. We do not accept that – we will not write young people off. We will transform those opportunities, but young people will have a responsibility to take them up."


The number of Neets – young people not in employment, education or training – now stands at 946,000, according to the latest data for July to September released last week. It marked an increase from 872,000 three months earlier and remains 20% higher than before the pandemic.

A government-commissioned survey seen by the Observer reveals the image problem facing jobcentres, with less than a third (32%) of the respondents saying they would use one for employment information.

Only about half (53%) trust the Department for Work and Pensions to provide an effective service to employers. A third of those using the department's services feel that not enough support is given to people out of work.

The research comes before the Get Britain Working white paper, to be unveiled by Kendall this week. It marks part of the government's efforts to lower the record 2.8 million people off work as a result of long-term illness, leading to growing welfare costs and denting Keir Starmer's hopes of securing economic growth.

The cost of incapacity benefits has risen from £17bn before the pandemic to an estimated £29bn this year. It is projected to reach £34bn by the next election.


"We know that, yes, benefits can incentivise or disincentivise work – but it's also about skills. It's about childcare. It's about balancing your work and family life. It's a whole range of issues. We've got to bring all of that help and advice together in one place ... [Jobcentre] work coaches who've worked for 25 to 30 years, they know what needs to change and we're determined to back them."

While Kendall described the transformation needed as "one of the biggest public service reforms that this government does", the attempt to turn jobcentres into a new national jobs and careers service is backed by a modest £55m investment.

However, Kendall said that her task was directly linked to the government's decision to prioritise the NHS in last month's tax-raising budget.

"A healthy nation and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin," she said. "If you have a map of the country with the areas of high economic inactivity, worklessness or high poverty – my maps are exactly the same as [health secretary] Wes Streeting's for poor health and low life expectancy."

This sounds potentially very good indeed. Actually Laboury.
Job centres are indeed a complete joke. The very name of them for as long as I can remember has stunk of out of touch marketing spleel.
They're the dole office.
You jump through the hoops they demand of you and try to avoid being tricked so you can eat that week.
That's all they are.