Why do we keep electing politicians who don't represent us

What a nasty thing to wish for another human being.

My MP voted for the bill and was disappointed it didn't pass.

I too am sad that politicians have taken away my ability to choose to end my suffering in my own time in my own way.

Who else is there to vote for??

They're all falling from the same tree.

YANBU

Are you the right person to be asking where the moderate, sensible politics went?

You went from ‘disagrees with me’ to ‘ignorant’ to ‘hope they have a painful death’ in one sentence.

If we want good politics we need to give up that sort of nonsense.

Perhaps we get the politicians we deserve.

You can. Have been able to since the 1960s.

This bill was about others killing you.

I’m in principle in favour, but this bill and the legislative process was a farce. It hasn’t worked out that well in Canada. Virtually all disability organisations oppose the bill.

I hope at some point we get a good and safe system for assisted suicide. I don’t think this was it, and the behaviour of “my” side has made me a bit less certain of whether it can be done.

No one is wishing that for you. Normal people don’t think like that.

Your OP doesn't make sense. Brexit was an example of direct democracy voted for by the public and a majority of voters supported it. Afterwards even the politicians who were pro EU worked to implement the will of the people. In 2019, the Tories ran on a manifesto of Get Brexit Done and they were returned with a landslide.

Regarding assisted dying, this was not a direct vote by the public, it was not in the manifesto and MPs voted according to their own conscience and research. I don't disagree with assisted dying but it was a very bad piece of legislation.

I’m not clear what you mean.

We restrict choice in all sorts of circumstances because of the risk of wider harms.

I’m generally in favour of choice so would like, in principle, for us to have found a system that allows for legal assisted dying.

But the bill was shocking and so was the process by which it came about.

MPs debated the bill, and the more they learned about it the less they liked it. They then ultimately voted against.

I’m sure some of them were persuaded by the fact that, near universally, disability groups (whose members might be expected to be significantly more like than most to have a terminal illness, ie to bear the suffering that this bill intended to relieve) believed this was a bad bill.

I don’t see how voting that down is an example of the political process working poorly. Can you explain?

What was poor, however, was introducing this as a private members bill, thus bypassing most of the usual groundwork that goes into legislating well.

You’ve misunderstood those who oppose the bill quite grotesquely.

I think a lot of damage is done to politics by people who can’t imagine that people who disagree with them may be motivated by good motive, but see different dangers or weigh different priorities differently.

It’s how the TRAs work themselves into a lather at JKR’s genocidal intent. They won’t ever remove the blinkers because they don’t have the common-sense voice that says “hang on, it seems unlikely that she really wants us all to die horribly. Maybe there’s something I’m missing”.

Why do we keep electing politicians who don't represent us
I mean, it's not like you're spoilt for good choice, are you? You keep electing terrible politicians, because there's only terrible politicians available in the political buffet.

I have yet to see a politician that isn't a lying, selfish, fraudulent, criminal, corrupt, problematic pasted, greedy, power-hungry, dubious self-serving bag of rotten egg crap. Decent people with morals and values don't want to be politicians and represent their peers, because they know the kind of idiots they'll be forced to deal with on a daily basis. Also, let's be honest - someone decent and righteous won't survive amongst the barracudas that are politicians. Literally, someone will want to plot their death. Because politicians don't like or want good people to interfere with their dirty work.

“Most restrictions of choice are considered primitive and old fashioned”

Certainly not. Virtually the entirety of the law invokes restricting choice, in order to promote other goods or prevent other harms.

Do you really think existence of most of our law is primitive and old fashioned?

I’m very sorry as it sounds like you’re in a tough place but I think the majority of those concerned with this bill were concerned with the implications of it for vulnerable members of society who could be pressured into making awful choices. It’s a very difficult piece of legislation to get right.

Is it vile? I think if someone wants to inflict these horrors on someone, indeed everyone else then they have to be prepared to suffer it themselves. Presumably they are. Or are they like the lib dem voters of Piddington?

Yes we have particularly bad politicians now. When I was growing up we had serious politicians who had often been in the war (eg Denis Healey generation) or worked in serious jobs like Margaret Thatcher etc. I feel that we live in unserious times and people have had it easy for so long they've got lazy and trivial which is reflected in our politicians. That may change when we get the financial crash which is just around the corner or have a war which is also possible.

If you mean what I think you mean that’s a vile and unhinged comment to make. Shameful.

No - wishing illness on someone is unacceptable .

That poster who doesn’t agree with assisted dying isn’t necessarily wishing anyone get unwell in the first place to have to die a painful death.

And they are presumably prepared to die without it if they are unfortunate to get a terminal illness.

Not everyone who gets these illnesses want assisted dying to be legalised so it’s not the gotcha you think it is.

If we had a system of PR along the lines of that in Germany, politics in the UK would be conducted very differently and we'd get a more representative legislative body.

That logic is insane.

There are thousands of situations Kim Leadbetter’s bill did not accept should be lawful reasons for assisted suicide.

The awful trauma of losing a child, of violent rape, of PTSD of war. Basically anything other than being in the last six months of life.

Do you really conclude that Leadbetter therefore wishes to inflict those horrors on others. (Let alone on “everyone”).

Really? It’s a bizarre non-sequitur to conclude that’s what she’s there in her office wishing.

Equally, not wanting “being in the last six months of a painful terminal illness” to be a reason for lawful assisted suicide doesn’t mean “wishing to inflict” that on anyone, any more than with the other examples.

Let's hope the politicians who voted against the Bill don't end up with locked-in syndrome.

The debate around assisted dying on here is typical of the trivial, unintelligent debate in this country in the media and parliament. In the past it would have been recognised that people have serious, well reasoned reasons for being against it. For example most of the serious Christians and Muslim MPs would have voted against it as its aganst the religious principles of those religions. And people like Wes Streeting as well as being Christian didn't want to vote for it because of the bad state of palliative care in the NHS. Others have seen what has happened in countres wuch as Holland where teenagers with depression have been euthanised. I am glad it was rejected and hopefully that is the end of the matter.