Assisted Dying Bill

As I said in my post, it would be an ideal topic... If we could be grown up about it. It shouldn't be a difficult thing for a public to give an indication of view on a topic, then believing a parliament will consider it, scope it, test it and ultimately implement it. Sadly we demonstrate on a regular basis that such a mechanism is completely beyond us.

And if you consider people are given a vote at a general election and can randomly choose any old reason to out a cross in a box, a framed debate to give a non binding outcome to a government of the day shouldn't be a controversial thing. The Swiss do such a thing several times a year.

 

I think this is where I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think you can ask the public to make an informed decision until the surrounding details have been resolved. I'd have more sympathy if parliament ironed out the details first and then put it to the public. But I think the details would be subject to available resources, which might vary from time to time. This is why I think it's a slippery slope, and I would personally be opposed.

As an offshoot, the behaviour of MP's when the result was announced was exemplary. It was received in silence, which was exactly fitting for consideration of such a serious subject. After the turmoil of recent years, it was refreshing to see this new parliament behave in such a dignified fashion, respecting each other's views.

 

Just in time to put Barnsley FC out of its misery.

 

As I said, the chance of doing a referendum in our country is completely pointless, so it’s not really worth considering how it may or may not work. Facts don’t seem to matter as much as bluster and nonsense so I doubt we’ll see a referendum for a very long time.

As for parliament, I was hoping briefings outside the commons may be curtailed, but they are as bad as ever and the trailing of the budget by Reeves in particular was really bad form.

 

Undoubtedly it was against the normal tradition of telling Parliament first, and to that extent, a discourtesy to the Speaker and the House. Chancellor Dalton had to resign in 1947 for leaking a budget measure. But probably more importantly, the Truss/Kwarteng fiasco showed what happens when you take the markets by surprise with big announcements. I don't think any future Chancellor who is awake will repeat that mistake. So I think drip feed leaking of budget measures will become the norm. Measures that the market reacts badly to can then be quietly dropped in the hours leading up to the budget.

 

There are ways and means of hinting at what you're likely to do, and you could argue that the mixed messaging through campaign and in power up to the budget meant people didn't really know what to expect and had more scope to spook markets, though the modest changes wouldn't have done that in my view given the OBR provided full analysis which was obviously missing when the lunatics took over the asylum.

But it wasn't the hints that were the biggest issue, it was the Chancellor giving a full interview in the US about changing policy on debt accounting. That wasn't a leak. It was a full throated policy interview, even worse, that she did it in another country. You just can't do that. And Lindsay Hoyle rightly rebuked her for it and she's lucky it's not 1947. I just hope it was down to inexperience and naivety.