This is a fascinating podcast interview with a former Foreign Office adviser, Ben Judah, who believes that the UK can learn much from De Gaulle and how he turns France round. In particular he compares the situation in the UK now with the failures of the 1946-58 IV Republic in France (with 22 governments in 12 years) and how taking a Gaullist approach could put the UK back on track.
If the link doesn’t work for you, do search for The Anglo-Gaullism debate - Ben Judah, which is part of The Spectator’s Coffeehouse Shots podcast.
I thought his analysis of the UK as being, in many “progressive” people’s thinking, anti-nationalist/post-nationalist was accurate. Nowadays that sort of thinking is part of the Left’s stock-in-trade, but it doesn’t have to be a Left idea.
I also agree welfare needs to be addressed, but absolutely not that the triple lock is unsustainable. British pensions are among the lowest in Europe; bringing them up to a higher level could be expected to ease the costs of medical treatment for the elderly.
It is unsustainable in the sense that it’s unpredictable and, even if pensions get to a high enough level (however that’s defined), no politician will ever have the balls to end it.
Is that just the state pension or the average pension income?
In what way? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just not following the logic.
But I agree it’s difficult to compare because there are many different systems.
If you have enough money to eat healthily, heat your home properly, go out to socialise etc then you’re less likely to be ill — at least, that was my thought.
It’s more of a false comparison since, as I understand it, most European state pensions have an earnings related element to it which perhaps would compare to those on occupational pensions.
I think the whole thing is far too complex to discuss just in terms of the state pension level.
Maybe afford private health as well?
On the other hand we might go mad an piss it all up against the wall.
Not me, obviously, but there are some pretty leery oldies out there, you know.
I am so pleased to have finally managed to read Ben Judah’s article!
My father met DG several times (during DG’s stay in the UK during WW2). From what Dad told me, it was clear that Dad had nothing but admiration for " le général " (as he was at that time).
It’s nice to read someone else’s thoughts which confirm what my Dad told me.
The problem with the euthanasia bill is that is was badly thought-out, and more difficulties kept appearing. Even though there’s a suggestion that Starmer (who is very much supports it) provided assistance to Leadbeater prior to the introduction of the PMB, even a supporter like you must be aware of all the problems that weren’t dealt with or appreciated in advance.
You mean like the amendment requiring a negative pregnancy test? An amendment which doesn’t specify a negative pregnancy test for women of child bearing age or even just women, but for everyone.
The bill may have its issues but this is not a good faith effort to improve it, it’s quite simply a concerted effort to ensure it runs out of time.
Thankfully, it’s also happening in a lot of other places.
A couple of years ago, the mother of a very good Dutch friend opted for euthanasia at the age of 93, and at the time and place of her choice, with her family by her bedside. By contrast my mother, who was one year older (and a practising Catholic) had to go on hunger strike in hospital in the UK for two weeks in order to access palliative care and be allowed to die.
I’d certainly hate my choice of whether or not I’m able to end my own life to be determined by other peoples’ superstions. And if I wanted to get theological about it, I’d argue that within the context of Christian theology Jesus chose to have his own life ended, as of course did many subsequent Christian martyrs.
Agreed..Here is the article (which I was able to access with no pay wall). Hopefully others will also be able to access it. It is well worth a read, being very thoughtful…
I see you don’t know about the expansion of assisted dying in Canada!
In the UK, the palliative care route is the norm. Obviously I don’t know what went wrong in your mother’s case, but we wouldn’t want to make law based on our own individual experiences, would we , especially when those experiences seem to be unusual?
I’m not particularly worried for myself, for obvious reasons. But your position is reliant on superstition and fashion, in particular the way that “dignity” has been redefined so that it no longer means being dignified, but has now to do with assisted dying (in the cant phrase “dying with dignity”).
The problem remains, as we saw with the UK experience: it is impossible to provide proper protections for the vulnerable. Legislation seems everywhere to be the first step on the slippery slope.
In Canada, people with mental health conditions have been offered assisted dying, though there has been a temporary halt for assisted dying “for persons suffering solely from a mental illness”. I find it incomprehensible that anyone should think it proper for the state to help people with mental illnesses to die.
How so? I’m not saying it’s not difficult but I can’t see why it’s impossible.
I’d say reliant on logic, empathy and humanity, personally speaking.
I’d suggest that dignity in death is more important than some warped sense that there’s dignity in suffering until the mythical being decides that it’s your time.
This has always struck me when looking at “pension league tables” - it would be much more use to look at overall income from pensions in retirement (perhaps even looking at the spread rather than just a mean or median) and also how much people need to contribute to get the various pensions.
Oh and obviously adjusted per the purchasing power of the local currency, not just converted into $
