To say that if the assisted dying bill isn't passed....

[OnceUponATimeInTheWest]

that, regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, it will finally be undeniable that we do not live in a truly representative democracy at all?

Given the latest poll in the Times, it is clear that the vast majority of the population support the bill (65% for and 13% against) and yet most of the media seems to be full of story after story about this person or that coming out against it (unsurprisingly, often people with a religious background). I don't remember seeing nearly as many stories about someone telling us they support the bill. The narrative feels as though it is being steered in only one direction.

I mean, it's already fairly much clear that our elected politicians prefer to tell us what to do and what we should think, rather than actually representing our wishes. Otherwise immigration and transgender issues would not still be dominating the headlines. The fact that an amendment to remove bishops from the house of lords failed recently should also tell us that religion still plays far too much of a role in what is an overwhelmingly secular society.

If this bill fails, then anyone in future trying to tell us that we live in one of the greatest democracies in the world is, at this point, just gaslighting us.

The governing party has not got 50% of the vote I think since 1951, or maybe before.

We should have a PR voting system, ideally the same as in the Republic of Ireland in my view, as you can choose who from a political party represents you. This means you can consider issues of conscience which are and in my opinion should remain free votes in the House of Commons.

It was only about 40 years after the death penalty was abolished that there became a majority of the public in agreement not to have it.

No.

Taking myself as an example, I hadn’t even seen that poll nevermind voted, lots of people won’t have seen it, so it’s not a true representation of the whole country or comparable to a democracy. The only way to get a true representation and to accurately be able to say there’s no democracy is to make it open, available and publicised to ask EVERYONE. These poll’s aren’t representative of everyone, just the people who happened to see it and then vote.

Something like this should always be a free vote, not whipped by any of the parties (which thankfully it is) but it should also be a matter of conscience to an MP whether they reflect their consituents views or only their own.

A democracy is about us choosing who represents us. It’s really not about them always supporting the popular opinions, thank goodness. Otherwise we’d have massive prison ships, mass deportations, bloody strictly come dancing on tv - oh, wait …

Poll after poll has shown a similar number of people in favour. It is undeniable that a large majority of the population support some form of assisted denying.

At this point it isn't even debatable.

I'm not sure that would be fine even if we had an actual proper choice, rather than the farce that is the first past the post system.

Personally I'm fed up of being told by someone elected by a massively flawed and unrepresentative system that they know better than me what I should and should not believe.

Given the latest poll in the Times, it is clear that the vast majority of the population support the bill (65% for and 13% against)

All that shows is that the vast majority of people who were polled support the bill. It would be like claiming the majority of the country supported Brexit.

I definitely don’t support it, but don’t recall ever seeing any polls asking me for my opinion.

Of course it’s still deniable, because as I say, I’ve never even seen these polls in action nevermind voted so there are lots of people in the same position. I’ve just had a quick google and there’s a YouGov one, under 6000 people voted, to say that’s a true reflection of everyone is just incorrect.

The only way to truly know, a real democracy, would be to put it to an actual vote.

Taking my own grandparents and parents as an example, none of them are particularly on the internet, so they haven’t seen or voted in these polls. BUT if it was put to a big vote, they’d vote, and results may then look very different.

You know that's not how polls work right? Some are open polls, others choose a representative selection of the population. All the ones that I have seen show a large majority in favour.

Personally I support it, but it is a very big, emotive issue for MPs having to make a decision, so it's not a simple choice necessarily.

On something this vital, a referendum is called for.
I hope the bill passes.

I wish we could vote on it. I was interested that the so called abortion bill in the US became a separate item on the ballot in some states, i.e. independent of the party/person someone was voting for.

It should have been a referendum

It’s very annoying when you hear a MO saying well what we need to do is focus on better palliative care. You can’t base a decision on something that’s hypothetical and doesn’t exist

There are plenty of other polls by companies that choose a representative selection of the population. All of the ones I have seen show similar results.

You can see what kind of a sample the Yougov poll had and it is a wide range of ages and social grades.

So you'd support the reintroduction of the death penalty on the basis that polls say the majority of Brits support it?

The opinion polls do not set out any of the intricacies and problems that come up with the assisted dying bill when they ask questions. For example, I'd bet if they asked the question "Do you think someone who uses a wheelchair should be offered assisted dying rather than adaptions for their home" people's opinions would be very different.

Given the latest poll in the Times, it is clear that the vast majority of the population support the bill (65% for and 13% against) and yet most of the media seems to be full of story after story about this person or that coming out against it (unsurprisingly, often people with a religious background)

I have faith, and I am totally in favour of assisted dying provided there are safeguards in place. I am appalled at a society that allows me to be kinder to my dog than I can be to myself. I speak to many people of faith in favour of it. Please don't assume that what the media portrays is actual life - people of faith are just as complex as anyone without it, and the people the media choose to speak on the subject are exactly that - their choice.

As an aside, I was watching Joy on Netflix last night (go watch it anyone who hasn't - it's fascinating) and was utterly shocked that in the 1970's some churches / church people opposed IVF because it was interfering with God's will. That's within my lifetime. At some point, maybe not now but in the near future, we will look on not having assisted dying in the same horrified way that I felt seeing how opposed some people - not just those of faith, but also leading scientists and the media - were to the idea of IVF.

I think we should have the vote and not just politicians .

Yeah, I know how they work. I still think that there are too many variables to assume the opinions of the vast majority of the population.

Have you read the draft Bill and the various legal analyses of it? It's full of gaps and risks. Perfectly possible to be supportive of assisted dying as a concept but not of this Bill itself.

Poll after poll has shown a similar number of people in favour. It is undeniable that a large majority of the population support some form of assisted denying.

You've just highlighted the flaw in your own argument (my bolding).

It's perfectly possible to support some form of X, and not support the position that a particular bill will create (if we can even accurately predict what that will be).

A self selecting poll where people can vote multiple times is not democracy. HTH

Should it not even be a debate? Other countries have the dealth penalty - it is not a settled argument by any means.

And if so, why should we bother with voting at all if politicians think they can just ignore us and tell us that they know better?

I think that if the state wishes to get into the business of killing its citizens then it should start with murderers and paedophiles

To be frank and given the format of this bill, which sets out the strictest criteria in the world, at this point this would just an excuse for someone to vote against it whilst trying to make it look as though they weren't.