What does it need to get right?

Well, I think one of the big things is the extent to which it's going to heed official advice from, say, the Central Bank quarterly report today or the ESRI about looking at who actually needs the supports and for who is it just nice to have and try to target them at who it needs.

Because if they keep up with the giving it to everybody, then they're likely to actually just increase inflation across the economy.

And it's just...

It's circular.

It's just not going to work.

They're going to have to keep doing it.

The opposition then, where can it make gains?

Why don't we go to Jane straight away, though, before we have that discussion?

OK, thanks so much, Tom.

And yeah, pleasure to be here with you all, even if I'm from a slightly cooler Dublin this afternoon rather than the steaming hot London.

But it's great to be somewhere where you're thinking about not just what policy should be, but how democratic institutions should actually try to reach those kind of difficult decisions.

and i think lord faulkner gave us a really vivid account there of uh trying to legislate on assisted dying from the inside so really strong public backing and i can still fail due to procedure wrangling and i suppose ultimately uh uh time time constraints and so on and then uh you know dr fox reminds us you know it's actually a story of sort of legislative machinery and whether current parliamentary tools are fit for purpose, especially when stakes and emotions are high.

But I think we could try to connect those experiences to kind of a broader democratic design question of, you know, what sort of process to unusually difficult these kind of moral issues that we're talking about actually need? And typically these issues, often private members bills, as we've seen, they're not just opinion issues, they're actually design issues because they concern really sort of complex webs of autonomy, privacy, stake capacity, trust.

And I think that's true at the Westminster and the Holyrood assisted dying bills.

And so, you know, I wonder, do you think there is a trade off there to some extent? And how do you think we can go about resolving it if we can?

Where are you with this? I mean, what is your alternative?

Oh, I think the only alternative, like it starts Sander van der Linde and Stephen Lewandowski and actually John Cook down in Melbourne.

I don't know if you've ever had John Cook on here.

But, you know, they've did a lot of work in the beginning about actually inoculating people to conspiracy and to misinformation.

So the idea is that once it's actually start to spread, it's like a virus.

It's too late.

It's spreading through.

They weren't sort of appealing to the grandmothers for their wisdom.