Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Happy to concede there's nothing but ashes for us tories today as the polls turn against us and we completely lose the media war on last night's Raab amendment.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Yes - all that cold weather in the USA is the final proof of warming.
What is this cold weather you talk about? What is snow
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Unless they're based on the East Coast of America
Been pretty bad for them there too.
Perhaps I'm an idiot, but hasn't it been unseasonably cold in the US?
Personally, I think that anyone taking single data points (warm in London! or cold in America!) and extrapolating should be shot. But then, that's just me
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Probably a v bad idea but...
If the gang members live on council estates, how about moving the family out of the area rather than a community sentence if a kid commits a couple of low level crimes a la expelling a kid from school?
The Tories won't stop talking/discussing/infighting (delete to suit your preference) until at least June, after the euros. If you are anti-miliband, the best you can hope for is that they get the post-mortem done quickly, put it to bed, and then the whole party focuses wholesale on the election for the subsequent 10-11 months. There will still be a handful of MPs making some noise, but as long as it's only a handful (<15) it shouldn't de-rail the campaign.
I'm afraid that based on current performance, past behaviour and psephologial reality a Tory splinter/split/civil-war (again, delete as appropriate) is also inevitable. It will either be in 2020 - accelerating from 2017 onwards if the EU negotiations don't deliver - as I see little evidence of any appeal to the electorate that the Tories could make once the deficit is sorted, and the economy restored. So, I expect that in 2020 the Tories will be firmly booted out, from a slightly weakened position in 2015. Or, this will happen post-2015, when Cameron will get almost all the blame, and all the errors of Lisbon, 'losing it in January' (2010), the leaders debates and the UKIPocalypse will be thrown in.
The only thing that could alter this IMHO is if a *very* strong leader can come along and unite the party and start recruiting members/supporters. Probably only Boris could do this but (again) I have my reservations about him.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Why do you use the term "deniers"?
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Probably a v bad idea but...
If the gang members live on council estates, how about moving the family out of the area rather than a community sentence if a kid commits a couple of low level crimes a la expelling a kid from school?
I have no idea what the answer is, but as that BBC report makes clear drugs are a big part of the problem.
I do not see a tory split. Tories have more solidarity than other parties and even absorb splitters from the Liberals fairly freely. The tory party will be fairly united as a eurosceptic party after 2015. They will get bored by opposition though, as they did in the noughties and drift back to a more sensible position after a couple of failed elections. Tories have a strong tendency to europhobia balanced by a desire to be a pragmatic government.
The LibDems to have rather fissile tendencies historically and could split again if a hung parliament.
My experience is that government’s get a reputation for weakness when they can’t get important legislation enacted. Labour in the mid 1970s couldn’t pass the measures needed during an economic crisis and had to call in the IMF. Major couldn’t get his party to pass the Maastricht Treaty and had to scratch around for supporters. Those were divided governments and were punished by the voters. Apart from some rather minor constitutional matters the coalition has been quite effective. Now, if the Tories win in 2015 and try to renegotiate the terms of EU membership and then have an in/out referendum, the divisions could possibly become fatal. However, as regards the voters’ experience of this parliament, this hasn’t been an especially weak or divided government.
It's hard to see how there will not be Tory civil war after 2015. If they are kicked out of power, carnage is inevitable. But if they stay in power, the following two years will be dominated by Europe. Cameron will have to reveal his negotiating red lines; these will cause a lot of grief when it's seen just how pink they are; then he'll be campaigning for an "In" on the back of a Brussels fudge. It's not going to be nice. These days, surely only the most wide-eyed Cameron cheerleader would argue that his EU posturing during this Parliament has been anything other than a pretty feeble (though just about holding together) attempt to delay the inevitable, flaming, Tory EU bust-up.
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
Do people talk about global warming these days? Isn't climate change the term? Basically, we are seeing many more extreme weather events across the world more frequently. You've got all that snow in the US, but in Australia you have got yet another intense heatwave. No-one is denying this is happening - probably because it is undeniable - the issue seems to be why.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
Anyone who says "the science is settled" is no scientist and does not understand science.
I remember one of my more colourful lecturers looking up at the eager freshers and observing "when I started I believed Chemistry was a mass of unrelated facts. Only later did I realise that it was a mass of unrelated theories......"
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Probably a v bad idea but...
If the gang members live on council estates, how about moving the family out of the area rather than a community sentence if a kid commits a couple of low level crimes a la expelling a kid from school?
I have no idea what the answer is, but as that BBC report makes clear drugs are a big part of the problem.
As someone who did do drugs a bit when younger, and suffered a bit, I sincerely think Peter Hitchens is right when he says there has never been a law on drug use.
In my social circle when I was 15-23 I didn't know anyone who didn't do drugs, and the only people I knew that were ever nicked were big time dealers. Posession doesn't get you in trouble. Maybe if it did, fewer kids would dabble.
One friend of mine who was a big dealer got let off when caught red handed citing depression and paranoia of being fleeced by dealers as an excuse for having all the equipment in his house.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Yes - all that cold weather in the USA is the final proof of warming.
What is this cold weather you talk about? What is snow
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
That prediction is on a par with Michael Fish's "Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!".
Do people talk about global warming these days? Isn't climate change the term? Basically, we are seeing many more extreme weather events across the world more frequently. You've got all that snow in the US, but in Australia you have got yet another intense heatwave. No-one is denying this is happening - probably because it is undeniable - the issue seems to be why.
Any human created 'climate change' HAS to have a net warming effect on the world. I am not saying it exists, or at leasts exists to the degree most make out - but the alternative that human activity could have a cooling effect on the planet is a complete nonsense.
The sun's activity recently seems to be on the wane so this could quite possibly counteract any anthropogenic effects in the near to medium term future.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Why do you use the term "deniers"?
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
*that the only plausible explanation for the observed global temperature trend is the rise in CO2 concentration caused by human activity.
So I) the global temperature trend is uncontested and II) alternative hypotheses such as variation in solar output have been disproved?
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
I am not sure putting someone in prison for 10 years for stealing four mobile phones is the best use of public money.
The issue with gangs seems to be that there is a growing demand for what they sell: drugs. It may be more cost-efficient to deal with that.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Why do you use the term "deniers"?
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
The "Theory of evolution" is far stronger than say a guilty verdict in law comparatively speaking, it is way way way past reasonable doubt - so I wouldn't worry too much about the use of the word theory per se in this context.
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
From a practical point of view, the problem with 'three strikes' type laws is that juries tend to acquit people, even when they are obviously guilty, if the punishment seems obviously disproportionate to the crime.
Do people talk about global warming these days? Isn't climate change the term? Basically, we are seeing many more extreme weather events across the world more frequently. You've got all that snow in the US, but in Australia you have got yet another intense heatwave. No-one is denying this is happening - probably because it is undeniable - the issue seems to be why.
Any human created 'climate change' HAS to have a net warming effect on the world.
So the "nuclear winter" we heard so much about in the 80s was Bunkum?
Do people talk about global warming these days? Isn't climate change the term? Basically, we are seeing many more extreme weather events across the world more frequently. You've got all that snow in the US, but in Australia you have got yet another intense heatwave. No-one is denying this is happening - probably because it is undeniable - the issue seems to be why.
Any human created 'climate change' HAS to have a net warming effect on the world.
So the "nuclear winter" we heard so much about in the 80s was Bunkum?
Any changes to the climate now can't be as a result of a nuclear war, because a nuclear war is not happening right now.
Long sentences do at least protect the public, even if they do little else.
Transportation to penal colonies would be better. It gets them out oc the victims way, and of their dysfunctional environment, and all the hard work that comes with having to establish a community in yhe wilderness. As we have few colonies now (the Falklands may do) maybe we could outsource to Siberia, Sudan or Afghanistan.
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
@Foxinsox - "I do not see a tory split. Tories have more solidarity than other parties and even absorb splitters from the Liberals fairly freely. The tory party will be fairly united as a eurosceptic party after 2015. They will get bored by opposition though, as they did in the noughties and drift back to a more sensible position after a couple of failed elections. Tories have a strong tendency to europhobia balanced by a desire to be a pragmatic government."
If the Tories lose power in 2015 then they will probably coalesce behind a profoundly anti-EU leader after a cleansing civil war. If they remain in power, what has happened during this Parliament indicates real trouble ahead - especially as Cameron will have to reveal his red lines. They will tell us a lot about how serious he really is about renegotiating the UK's (or the rUK's) membership. My guess is that the Tory right will not be impressed by what it sees.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Why do you use the term "deniers"?
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
Actually the fundamentals* are as settled as science gets. In that context, "deniers" is a perfectly appropriate term.
*that the only plausible explanation for the observed global temperature trend is the rise in CO2 concentration caused by human activity.
Rubbish. We know too little about the way the climate works (especially in terms of inputs and outputs) to come up with any such conclusions. The current theories are educated guesswork, and models have more holes than swiss cheese.
On the positive side, the climate controversy is causing us to do much more research into the way the climate works. On the negative side, we may be spending billions on the wrong things, especially if CO2 is not a significant driver in the system.
Much climate science has been undertaken in a very poor manner; in fact, so poor that you might not even class it as a science. Confirmation bias is rife. People who find problems with the science are shouted down as heretics, rather than having their objections analysed and, if necessary, folded into the science.
There is one mantra: climate science cannot be criticised.
But the anti side are also self-defeating to a large extent. It is two belief systems in direct conflict, with all sort of splitter groups muddying the water.
As ever, the question to ask yourself is: "what would it take to convince me that I'm wrong, and that the opposing view is right?"
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
Doesn't it depend how many we catch? I seem to remember seeing several pieces of evidence that criminals are deterred principally by the detection rate, rather than the sentence. This is why the death penalty has traditionally been much less effective than its proponents tend to believe at deterrence: the criminals think they'll get away with it.
Sentencing lengths prob only start to have a major effect once the detection rate is high. If it went up from, say, 20% to 80%, firstly we'd get a lot less crime and second fewer people would go into crime in the first place. It wouldn't be worth it.
I agree with SO that the war on drugs is pointless.
Long sentences do at least protect the public, even if they do little else.
Transportation to penal colonies would be better. It gets them out oc the victims way, and of their dysfunctional environment, and all the hard work that comes with having to establish a community in yhe wilderness. As we have few colonies now (the Falklands may do) maybe we could outsource to Siberia, Sudan or Afghanistan.
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
Someone - I forget who - had an interesting idea of splitting a sentence into two components: punishment and rehabilitation (and presumably a judge could and would split on a case-by-case basis).
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life will be a lot less glamourised.
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
Doesn't it depend how many we catch? I seem to remember seeing several pieces of evidence that criminals are deterred principally by the detection rate, rather than the sentence. This is why the death penalty has traditionally been much less effective than its proponents tend to believe at deterrence: the criminals think they'll get away with it.
Sentencing lengths prob only start to have a major effect once the detection rate is high. If it went up from, say, 20% to 80%, firstly we'd get a lot less crime and second fewer people would go into crime in the first place. It wouldn't be worth it.
I agree with SO that the war on drugs is pointless.
In my experience there never was a war on drugs.
All of my friends have taken illegal drugs, many have been caught with illegal drugs, only two were prosecuted, and they were caught with tens of thousands of pounds worth and were smuggling
Long sentences do at least protect the public, even if they do little else.
Transportation to penal colonies would be better. It gets them out oc the victims way, and of their dysfunctional environment, and all the hard work that comes with having to establish a community in yhe wilderness. As we have few colonies now (the Falklands may do) maybe we could outsource to Siberia, Sudan or Afghanistan.
Is it any wonder when the vast majority of teenage criminals get community sentences or short prison sentences for their first half dozen crimes. It's not until you're in your late 20s/early 30s and have become a hardened criminal that you get a long sentence. So when 14 year old kids look up to the cool 21 year old gang leaders, all they can see is that crime pays. The only way to break up these gangs is to keep these people in prison for a long time. If the young teens see their elders commit crime and disappear from the neighbourhood for a decade, gang life
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes. We already know that reoffending rates among those who have been in prison are very high.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
Someone - I forget who - had an interesting idea of splitting a sentence into two components: punishment and rehabilitation (and presumably a judge could and would split on a case-by-case basis).
It's sort of why Bad Lad's Army was so good. They got a hard time, early starts, hard physical activity and lots of orders and shouting - but also trained to have some belief and pride in themselves and what they could do.
I seem to remember 9 of the (12?) applied to join the regular British army after the show.
The hardcore are never going to be happy. I do wonder if Dave would carry on for long in the (unlikely) event of re-election. He has been leader for seven years already, and by 2015 will be pushing a decade. It would be time to step down. Leaders who last longer than a decade (Heath, Thatcher, Blair) tend to be forced out fairly unpleasantly.
@Foxinsox - "I do not see a tory split. Tories have more solidarity than other parties and even absorb splitters from the Liberals fairly freely. The tory party will be fairly united as a eurosceptic party after 2015. They will get bored by opposition though, as they did in the noughties and drift back to a more sensible position after a couple of failed elections. Tories have a strong tendency to europhobia balanced by a desire to be a pragmatic government."
If the Tories lose power in 2015 then they will probably coalesce behind a profoundly anti-EU leader after a cleansing civil war. If they remain in power, what has happened during this Parliament indicates real trouble ahead - especially as Cameron will have to reveal his red lines. They will tell us a lot about how serious he really is about renegotiating the UK's (or the rUK's) membership. My guess is that the Tory right will not be impressed by what it sees.
Interesting discussion on my earlier post - thanks to antifrank, Nick P, rcs1000 et al for comments. Love the idea of randomly generated by-elections every week but think it's one for the anoraks. And agree with everyone who longs for politicians to treat the electorate like adults who can make informed choices (I'd love to put in my leaflets what's really going on in the council chamber, but I'd be laughed out of town so end up pointing at potholes) but the record of people who've tried isn't great sadly.
It seems reasonable to suppose that industrialisation will have some sort of impact on the climate.
The important thing is that poor countries should become more prosperous, so that they can afford to do things like building flood defences, improving building standards, or getting emergency services and food to areas affected by extreme weather conditions. Extreme weather conditions in prosperous countries can kill dozens of people. In poor countries they can kill thousands.
Interesting article. Why is YouGov so noisy? It seems that something is broken and we're simply not in the +/- 3% confidence interval.
All the YGs have been more or less in the +/- 3% zone, haven't they? Last night's wasn't, but it's a very rare example. What every single poll (bar the Comres at the start of the week) is telling us is that the Labour vote share is very solidly in the upper 30s, which is where it has been since God knows when.
Apparently gangs are expanding across the UK outside of London:
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes.
Reoffending rates are very high for every type of punishment - and that's just the ones we catch. That's because criminals are criminals and that rarely changes. When it does, it's usually just because they've grown out of it in their mid-30s. The best thing we should do is to start putting the protection of potential victims ahead of being nice to criminals: keep these people locked up for a long time. If it's the third or fourth mobile phone you've stolen then you're just a criminal and you should get a decade or so in jail. It would be a lot of expense up front, but over time younger generations would learn crime doesn't pay.
Doesn't it depend how many we catch? I seem to remember seeing several pieces of evidence that criminals are deterred principally by the detection rate, rather than the sentence. This is why the death penalty has traditionally been much less effective than its proponents tend to believe at deterrence: the criminals think they'll get away with it.
Sentencing lengths prob only start to have a major effect once the detection rate is high. If it went up from, say, 20% to 80%, firstly we'd get a lot less crime and second fewer people would go into crime in the first place. It wouldn't be worth it.
I agree with SO that the war on drugs is pointless.
In my experience there never was a war on drugs.
All of my friends have taken illegal drugs, many have been caught with illegal drugs, only two were prosecuted, and they were caught with tens of thousands of pounds worth and were smuggling
That's sort of not unrelated to the point I'm making. The police routinely acknowledge recreational use by individuals (within boundaries) and yet can't quash the gangs that (generally) control the wholesale supply. The minor dealers are small fry in the grand scheme of things. Yet it all remains illegal on the statue book, but no-one really takes the laws seriously and the voters/politicians refuse to enter a (admittedly risky) debate on sorting it out. So you have the worst of both worlds - the state pretending that the laws work and pretending to police them, but the users and suppliers contemptuously ignoring them.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
Interesting article. Why is YouGov so noisy? It seems that something is broken and we're simply not in the +/- 3% confidence interval.
All the YGs have been more or less in the +/- 3% zone, haven't they? Last night's wasn't, but it's a very rare example. What every single poll (bar the Comres at the start of the week) is telling us is that the Labour vote share is very solidly in the upper 30s, which is where it has been since God knows when.
One slightly odd facet of the 2013 polls was the complete lack of outliers. As any bettor knows you can have a whole string of slightly freaky results all at once. The human brain doesn't cope too well with randomness.
That's sort of not unrelated to the point I'm making. The police routinely acknowledge recreational use by individuals (within boundaries) and yet can't quash the gangs that (generally) control the wholesale supply. The minor dealers are small fry in the grand scheme of things. Yet it all remains illegal on the statue book, but no-one really takes the laws seriously and the voters/politicians refuse to enter a (admittedly risky) debate on sorting it out. So you have the worst of both worlds - the state pretending that the laws work and pretending to police them, but the users and suppliers contemptuously ignoring them.
The whole thing's a farce.
That is an incredibly astute post. Make it legal. Or make it illegal.
The hardcore are never going to be happy. I do wonder if Dave would carry on for long in the (unlikely) event of re-election. He has been leader for seven years already, and by 2015 will be pushing a decade. It would be time to step down. Leaders who last longer than a decade (Heath, Thatcher, Blair) tend to be forced out fairly unpleasantly.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
If we get a result similar to 2010, I can't see it as being the Lib Dems' interests to form a coalition with anybody. They'll keep losing councillors and MPs as the junior party of government.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
Why doesn't Cameron call an EU referendum now?
Let's just have one, and we can have a good discussion about the issues. And if it's a narrow (55/45) vote to stay in, then Cameron will have a lot more leverage in his discussions with Hollande and Merkel.
If it's out, it's out. And if it's a thumping in vote, then at least the Conservative Party will know to drop the issue.
@Casino_royale - "It's sort of why Bad Lad's Army was so good. They got a hard time, early starts, hard physical activity and lots of orders and shouting - but also trained to have some belief and pride in themselves and what they could do ... I seem to remember 9 of the (12?) applied to join the regular British army after the show."
The armed services are not a realistic option though, as they have been cut to the core. However, you're right - self-esteem (or lack of it) seems to have played a big part in the rise of gang culture. If you have some it's much easier to resist peer pressure and to forge your own path; thus, you are less likely to want the validation that being in a gang brings.
Global Warming: humans are very probably having some effect; yet our understanding is incredibly limited. TSE's link to that Independent piece is very funny but at the same time illustrates the issue - we've been wrong before, in the relatively recent past, about climate and it's pretty arrogant to assume that the latest models are correct now.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
Apparently gangs are expanding across the UK outside of London:
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes.
ay.
Sentencing lengths prob only start to have a major effect once the detection rate is high. If it went up from, say, 20% to 80%, firstly we'd get a lot less crime and second fewer people would go into crime in the first place. It wouldn't be worth it.
I agree with SO that the war on drugs is pointless.
In my experience there never was a war on drugs.
All of my friends have taken illegal drugs, many have been caught with illegal drugs, only two were prosecuted, and they were caught with tens of thousands of pounds worth and were smuggling
That's sort of not unrelated to the point I'm making. The police routinely acknowledge recreational use by individuals (within boundaries) and yet can't quash the gangs that (generally) control the wholesale supply. The minor dealers are small fry in the grand scheme of things. Yet it all remains illegal on the statue book, but no-one really takes the laws seriously and the voters/politicians refuse to enter a (admittedly risky) debate on sorting it out. So you have the worst of both worlds - the state pretending that the laws work and pretending to police them, but the users and suppliers contemptuously ignoring them.
The whole thing's a farce.
If you watch the newsnight argument with Hitchens and Brand, they actually are arguing for the same end... Abstention from drug use
Brand thinks we should let everyone try them then be compassionate when they are caught and taught to abstain, , Hitchens thinks kids should be so scared of the punishment for getting caught that they never start (abstain)
The punishment for taking drugs under the current system is possible lifelong mental illness
I haven't touched drugs for nearly twenty years, but the thought of seeing some of my friends young children in the state my friends and I got in as teenagers breaks my heart
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
Why doesn't Cameron call an EU referendum now?
Let's just have one, and we can have a good discussion about the issues. And if it's a narrow (55/45) vote to stay in, then Cameron will have a lot more leverage in his discussions with Hollande and Merkel.
If it's out, it's out. And if it's a thumping in vote, then at least the Conservative Party will know to drop the issue.
I've heard it from both UKIP/Eurosceptic Cons and Lib Dems on the other side
"Waaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaa The people might give the wrong result", "With a hostile media (Both sides think its hostile) we can't win"
It is a pathetic position, but a fair few on both sides don't have the bollocks to put it to the people.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
If we get a result similar to 2010, I can't see it as being the Lib Dems' interests to form a coalition with anybody. They'll keep losing councillors and MPs as the junior party of government.
Their existing MPs will have a strong interest in keeping their government jobs and salaries. It's whether or not they can push a second coalition deal through their federal executive, or whatever it's called.
I can only see it being sold if they get a cast-iron commitment of electoral reform for at least one of local government, HoL and HoCs with, possibly, a new referendum on another.
@Casino_royale - "It's sort of why Bad Lad's Army was so good. They got a hard time, early starts, hard physical activity and lots of orders and shouting - but also trained to have some belief and pride in themselves and what they could do ... I seem to remember 9 of the (12?) applied to join the regular British army after the show."
The armed services are not a realistic option though, as they have been cut to the core. However, you're right - self-esteem (or lack of it) seems to have played a big part in the rise of gang culture. If you have some it's much easier to resist peer pressure and to forge your own path; thus, you are less likely to want the validation that being in a gang brings.
I've heard it from both UKIP/Eurosceptic Cons and Lib Dems on the other side
"Waaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaa The people might give the wrong result", "With a hostile media (Both sides think its hostile) we can't win"
It is a pathetic position, but a fair few on both sides don't have the bollocks to put it to the people.
But for Cameron and most Conservatives it would be win-win:
Out: No more arguments, and Labour is on the wrong side of the referendum result, and has to decide if it's policy is to try and rejoin an institution the British people has rejected
In: If it's narrow, then Cameron's negotiating hand is strengthened; if it's wide, then at least the arguing stops
@Casino_royale - "It's sort of why Bad Lad's Army was so good. They got a hard time, early starts, hard physical activity and lots of orders and shouting - but also trained to have some belief and pride in themselves and what they could do ... I seem to remember 9 of the (12?) applied to join the regular British army after the show."
The armed services are not a realistic option though, as they have been cut to the core. However, you're right - self-esteem (or lack of it) seems to have played a big part in the rise of gang culture. If you have some it's much easier to resist peer pressure and to forge your own path; thus, you are less likely to want the validation that being in a gang brings.
You're right, it's sad though. In the days when I was a firm supporter of Cameron, I was really hoping his national service idea might be rather more meaty than it turned out to be. Sport, cadets, scouting, military..
So many boys (and it is so usually boys) need to be part of teams with an identity doing (preferably physical) challenging activity in teams led by someone who commands them, that they can then respect, so they can achieve things and be proud of them.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
Why doesn't Cameron call an EU referendum now?
Let's just have one, and we can have a good discussion about the issues. And if it's a narrow (55/45) vote to stay in, then Cameron will have a lot more leverage in his discussions with Hollande and Merkel.
If it's out, it's out. And if it's a thumping in vote, then at least the Conservative Party will know to drop the issue.
I've heard it from both UKIP/Eurosceptic Cons and Lib Dems on the other side
"Waaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaa The people might give the wrong result", "With a hostile media (Both sides think its hostile) we can't win"
It is a pathetic position, but a fair few on both sides don't have the bollocks to put it to the people.
IMO, a narrow vote to stay in would be the likeliest outcome.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives ruined by drugs. Sometimes the abuser, sometimes their families. A lot of people have meaningless lives and find them an escape, but the reality is that they are a prison rather than an escape.
Apparently gangs are expanding across the UK outside of London:
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes.
ay.
Sentencing lengths prob only start to have a major effect once the detection rate is high. If it went up from, say, 20% to 80%, firstly we'd get a lot less crime and second fewer people would go into crime in the first place. It wouldn't be worth it.
I agree with SO that the war on drugs is pointless.
In my experience there never was a war on drugs.
All of my friends have taken illegal drugs, many have been caught with illegal drugs, only two were prosecuted, and they were caught with tens of thousands of pounds worth and were smuggling
That's sort of not unrelated to the point I'm making. The police routinely acknowledge recreational use by individuals (within boundaries) and yet can't quash the gangs that (generally) control the wholesale supply. The minor dealers are small fry in the grand scheme of things. Yet it all remains illegal on the statue book, but no-one really takes the laws seriously and the voters/politicians refuse to enter a (admittedly risky) debate on sorting it out. So you have the worst of both worlds - the state pretending that the laws work and pretending to police them, but the users and suppliers contemptuously ignoring them.
The whole thing's a farce.
If you watch the newsnight argument with Hitchens and Brand, they actually are arguing for the same end... Abstention from drug use
Brand thinks we should let everyone try them then be compassionate when they are caught and taught to abstain, , Hitchens thinks kids should be so scared of the punishment for getting caught that they never start (abstain)
The punishment for taking drugs under the current system is possible lifelong mental illness
I haven't touched drugs for nearly twenty years, but the thought of seeing some of my friends young children in the state my friends and I got in as teenagers breaks my heart
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
If we get a result similar to 2010, I can't see it as being the Lib Dems' interests to form a coalition with anybody. They'll keep losing councillors and MPs as the junior party of government.
Their existing MPs will have a strong interest in keeping their government jobs and salaries. It's whether or not they can push a second coalition deal through their federal executive, or whatever it's called.
I can only see it being sold if they get a cast-iron commitment of electoral reform for at least one of local government, HoL and HoCs with, possibly, a new referendum on another.
The process is that any coalition deal would be "triple-approved" by Federal Exec, the parliamentary party, and the membership at large. I wouldn't assume that electoral reform will be top of the list last time; the LDs are a very democratic party and respect that the refendum was badly lost. If PR for local government is offered, my guess is that would be enough.
And every LD councillor and MP would have won their seat as part of Government by June 2015, so the theory of continuing losses seems less certain.
Global Warming: humans are very probably having some effect; yet our understanding is incredibly limited. TSE's link to that Independent piece is very funny but at the same time illustrates the issue - we've been wrong before, in the relatively recent past, about climate and it's pretty arrogant to assume that the latest models are correct now.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
You're conflating two different issues there. What's happened in the past (and what explains it), and what might happen in the future.
The former is very well understood, and is as settled as science gets (at least the fundamentals, that human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet)
The latter is indeed uncertain.
Agree with you about the volcano though...
So what caused the warming that ended the Ice Age roughly 15,000 years ago?
I've heard it from both UKIP/Eurosceptic Cons and Lib Dems on the other side
"Waaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaa The people might give the wrong result", "With a hostile media (Both sides think its hostile) we can't win"
It is a pathetic position, but a fair few on both sides don't have the bollocks to put it to the people.
But for Cameron and most Conservatives it would be win-win:
Out: No more arguments, and Labour is on the wrong side of the referendum result, and has to decide if it's policy is to try and rejoin an institution the British people has rejected
In: If it's narrow, then Cameron's negotiating hand is strengthened; if it's wide, then at least the arguing stops
For Cameron it would be a win-lose: in is a win, out is a lose.
Clearly Andy Flower is to blame for Jade's temporary slight blip in form. Jade will thrive under a new coach. And maybe an even more fabulous hairstyle.
The survey asked 2,634 people aged 18 and over about their shopping habits and use of self service checkouts. Around 19 per cent admitted stealing from self service checkouts with the majority saying they did so regularly. Around 57 per cent of these said they first started taking goods because they couldn’t get an item to scan.
As ever, the question to ask yourself is: "what would it take to convince me that I'm wrong, and that the opposing view is right?"
It would take someone to disprove some fundamental laws of physics and chemistry (regarding the way greenhouse gases act, which we do indeed know a hell of a lot about)
Or for someone to show that the C02 concentrations have not risen, or that there hasn't been a warming trend, or that an alternative mechanism can explain the trend (whilst simultaneously explaining why the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations HASN'T caused warming)
None of these things are going to happen, because they are rock solid settled.
I have some sympathy for your views, but I disagree that we know a hell of a lot about the way greenhouses gasses act in the climate, as opposed to laboratory setting.
For instance, they are nowhere near understanding the interactions between atmospheric and oceanic CO2. There is even some debate about how much rainforests are a CO2 sink or source, and we've been studying those for decades.
Likewise, the solar effects on the climate are little known. Many (although not all) climate scientists say they are irrelevant, or are well catered in models; however, there is a great deal of doubt.
They are far from rock solid settled. And if you really thought they were surely you'd be calling for all research on them to be stopped as a waste of money?
The survey asked 2,634 people aged 18 and over about their shopping habits and use of self service checkouts. Around 19 per cent admitted stealing from self service checkouts with the majority saying they did so regularly. Around 57 per cent of these said they first started taking goods because they couldn’t get an item to scan.
Global Warming: humans are very probably having some effect; yet our understanding is incredibly limited. TSE's link to that Independent piece is very funny but at the same time illustrates the issue - we've been wrong before, in the relatively recent past, about climate and it's pretty arrogant to assume that the latest models are correct now.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
You're conflating two different issues there. What's happened in the past (and what explains it), and what might happen in the future.
The former is very well understood, and is as settled as science gets (at least the fundamentals, that human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet)
The latter is indeed uncertain.
Agree with you about the volcano though...
So what caused the warming that ended the Ice Age roughly 15,000 years ago?
Milankovitch cycles have happened and will continue to
Clearly Andy Flower is to blame for Jade's temporary slight blip in form. Jade will thrive under a new coach. And maybe an even more fabulous hairstyle.
I actuallyhave gone into a hairdressers and said "a bit like that Jade Dernbach please" !
Clearly Andy Flower is to blame for Jade's temporary slight blip in form. Jade will thrive under a new coach. And maybe an even more fabulous hairstyle.
The England one day team is coached by Ashley Wheelie Bin Giles.
Jade is the cricketing equivalent of a Crystal Swing/Jedward duet cover of my lovely horse.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Why do you use the term "deniers"?
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
Actually the fundamentals* are as settled as science gets. In that context, "deniers" is a perfectly appropriate term.
*that the only plausible explanation for the observed global temperature trend is the rise in CO2 concentration caused by human activity.
And yet, more CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere by Krakatow (?sp) than in all of human history. There is far more about the climate system that we don't understand than we do.
My approach would be mitigation rather than impoverishment.
Global Warming: humans are very probably having some effect; yet our understanding is incredibly limited. TSE's link to that Independent piece is very funny but at the same time illustrates the issue - we've been wrong before, in the relatively recent past, about climate and it's pretty arrogant to assume that the latest models are correct now.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
You're conflating two different issues there. What's happened in the past (and what explains it), and what might happen in the future.
The former is very well understood, and is as settled as science gets (at least the fundamentals, that human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet)
The latter is indeed uncertain.
Agree with you about the volcano though...
So what caused the warming that ended the Ice Age roughly 15,000 years ago?
Rise of the money lenders and increase in capitalist activity - baby polar bears have lived in fear ever since.
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Why do you use the term "deniers"?
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
The "Theory of evolution" is far stronger than say a guilty verdict in law comparatively speaking, it is way way way past reasonable doubt - so I wouldn't worry too much about the use of the word theory per se in this context.
It's important (although I don't spend much time worrying about it!)
Anyone who disbelieves the First Law of Thermodynamics is a nutter. AGW is not proven to the same degree - or even the same degree of Evolution - so to use terms like "deniers" is acting purely politically. That's my only real point here - but language is very important.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
Why doesn't Cameron call an EU referendum now?
Let's just have one, and we can have a good discussion about the issues. And if it's a narrow (55/45) vote to stay in, then Cameron will have a lot more leverage in his discussions with Hollande and Merkel.
If it's out, it's out. And if it's a thumping in vote, then at least the Conservative Party will know to drop the issue.
Now does make more sense than 2017 for a couple of reasons: 1 - It doesn't leave businesses holding back on investment for 3 years due to uncertainty 2 - It puts the ideas about renegotiations out of their misery 3 - It forces the Tories talking about "wafer thin consent" "reform needed" and "how the EU has gone beyond its mandate" to say "out." I suspect a number would back down when forced off the fence.
But - it was in no-one's manifesto or the coalition agreement, and as above it would lead to civil war in the Tory party which could bring the Government down. So thanks but no thanks
It's been a very bad winter for Global Warming deniers.
Why do you use the term "deniers"?
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
*that the only plausible explanation for the observed global temperature trend is the rise in CO2 concentration caused by human activity.
So I) the global temperature trend is uncontested and II) alternative hypotheses such as variation in solar output have been disproved?
Good to know......
1 - yes (in that no-one seriously contests that there has been a long term warming trend) 2 - yes (in that no-one denies the sun affects global temperatures but, similarly, no-one seriously thinks it can explain warming trend we've seen)
C02 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases warm the globe. These are as close as you can get to scientific facts.
C02 concentrations have risen due to human activity, the planet has warmed. These are hard facts based on observations.
Interesting article. Why is YouGov so noisy? It seems that something is broken and we're simply not in the +/- 3% confidence interval.
All the YGs have been more or less in the +/- 3% zone, haven't they? Last night's wasn't, but it's a very rare example. What every single poll (bar the Comres at the start of the week) is telling us is that the Labour vote share is very solidly in the upper 30s, which is where it has been since God knows when.
The problem with looking at the % figures is that trends may not be easily noticed. For example the Yougov Lab average in 2011 and 2013 was 42, in 2013 it was 40 and so far in 2014 39. That is a loss of 3/42 or a loss of 7%. Not much but a small movement. The LDs however have dropped in past 10 days 15% on the 2013 average. That is a more significant change yet is under the radar. The EC elections for the LDs could be a major event for Clegg's Leadership.
Apparently gangs are expanding across the UK outside of London:
Doesn't it depend on what the crimes committed are? Low level offences will attract low level sentences. They always have and always will. Sticking someone in prison for two years for stealing a mobile phone still means they'll be a teenager when released, but will also mean they have spent two years in the company of other people who have committed crimes.
ay.
Sentencing lengths prob only start to have a major effect once the detection rate is high. If it went up from, say, 20% to 80%, firstly we'd get a lot less crime and second fewer people would go into crime in the first place. It wouldn't be worth it.
I agree with SO that the war on drugs is pointless.
In my experience there never was a war on drugs.
All of my friends have taken illegal drugs, many have been caught with illegal drugs, only two were prosecuted, and they were caught with tens of thousands of pounds worth and were smuggling
The whole thing's a farce.
If you watch the newsnight argument with Hitchens and Brand, they actually are arguing for the same end... Abstention from drug use
Brand thinks we should let everyone try them then be compassionate when they are caught and taught to abstain, , Hitchens thinks kids should be so scared of the punishment for getting caught that they never start (abstain)
The punishment for taking drugs under the current system is possible lifelong mental illness
I haven't touched drugs for nearly twenty years, but the thought of seeing some of my friends young children in the state my friends and I got in as teenagers breaks my heart
Sorry to go off topic,
Not at all. Sorry to hear about you and your friends. I haven’t (personally) ever done drugs. I think it’s crazy. I got all my excitement as a teenager by mucking around and trying to impress girls. If I had a big night, I’d get hyper on alcopops and either cut some pretty embarrassing shapes to some very mainstream music, in a nightclub. Or start bouncing off hedges outside and starting pedantic arguments with my friends. Lord only knows what drugs would have done on top of that. I feel that Brand and Hitchens are both completely the wrong people to be contributing to the debate on drugs.
Calls for applications in Dulwich CLP have opened today...3 declared runners today: Fiona Twycross as exepected...former MEP candidate Anne Fairweather (some quarters made lots of noises when she was excluded from 2014 London Labour MEP shortlist)....College ward Cllr Helen Hayes
Global Warming: humans are very probably having some effect; yet our understanding is incredibly limited. TSE's link to that Independent piece is very funny but at the same time illustrates the issue - we've been wrong before, in the relatively recent past, about climate and it's pretty arrogant to assume that the latest models are correct now.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
You're conflating two different issues there. What's happened in the past (and what explains it), and what might happen in the future.
The former is very well understood, and is as settled as science gets (at least the fundamentals, that human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet)
The latter is indeed uncertain.
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
No, I think that is a misreading. If we get a Conservative-led government in 2015 and hence get a referendum, it is inconceivable that Conservative MPs, ministers and members would be required to campaign on one side or the other. As with the Labour government in the EEC referendum of 1975, they would be free to campaign on either side. (More recently, this was Labour's position in the AV referendum as well).
If Cameron as PM ended up on the losing side, I would expect that he would resign and that a prominent figure on the winning side would take over in order to implement the wishes of the electorate.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
Why doesn't Cameron call an EU referendum now?
Let's just have one, and we can have a good discussion about the issues. And if it's a narrow (55/45) vote to stay in, then Cameron will have a lot more leverage in his discussions with Hollande and Merkel.
If it's out, it's out. And if it's a thumping in vote, then at least the Conservative Party will know to drop the issue.
Cameron couldn't call an EU referendum now even if he wanted to. To call a referendum would require a vote in parliament. There are not enough votes in favour in parliament at this time. LibDums and Labour would vote against it. Neither party are in favour of letting the people decide.
The main argument in favour of calling a referendum on the EU now is that it would currently produce a huge majority in favour of staying in, while in a few years' time it might well be a lot tighter. Oddly, the people most in favour of an immediate referendum are the most vehement Europhobes.
Comments
As a Tory, I hope Labour are using polling this selectively when planning their election strategy.
Southampton fans won't appreciate the reminder, but are we sure Jade's not the Ali Dia de nos jours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dia
He really is [moderated[
This could be it for him I reckon
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Personally, I think that anyone taking single data points (warm in London! or cold in America!) and extrapolating should be shot. But then, that's just me
If the gang members live on council estates, how about moving the family out of the area rather than a community sentence if a kid commits a couple of low level crimes a la expelling a kid from school?
I'm afraid that based on current performance, past behaviour and psephologial reality a Tory splinter/split/civil-war (again, delete as appropriate) is also inevitable. It will either be in 2020 - accelerating from 2017 onwards if the EU negotiations don't deliver - as I see little evidence of any appeal to the electorate that the Tories could make once the deficit is sorted, and the economy restored. So, I expect that in 2020 the Tories will be firmly booted out, from a slightly weakened position in 2015. Or, this will happen post-2015, when Cameron will get almost all the blame, and all the errors of Lisbon, 'losing it in January' (2010), the leaders debates and the UKIPocalypse will be thrown in.
The only thing that could alter this IMHO is if a *very* strong leader can come along and unite the party and start recruiting members/supporters. Probably only Boris could do this but (again) I have my reservations about him.
If global warming were a scientific Law, then I suppose that would be reasonable. But it's not - it's just a Theory (although, admittedly, Evolution technically remains a Theory).
There are plenty of credible scientists who contest the data and the analysis. I've no basis to judge on whether they are right or wrong, but anyone who claims "the science is settled" or uses "deniers" or equivalent is straying into the realm of faith not science.
The LibDems to have rather fissile tendencies historically and could split again if a hung parliament.
I remember one of my more colourful lecturers looking up at the eager freshers and observing "when I started I believed Chemistry was a mass of unrelated facts. Only later did I realise that it was a mass of unrelated theories......"
As someone who did do drugs a bit when younger, and suffered a bit, I sincerely think Peter Hitchens is right when he says there has never been a law on drug use.
In my social circle when I was 15-23 I didn't know anyone who didn't do drugs, and the only people I knew that were ever nicked were big time dealers. Posession doesn't get you in trouble. Maybe if it did, fewer kids would dabble.
One friend of mine who was a big dealer got let off when caught red handed citing depression and paranoia of being fleeced by dealers as an excuse for having all the equipment in his house.
That prediction is on a par with Michael Fish's "Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!".
C 32.6% -0.7%
L 39.4% +0.3%
LD 11.6% - 0.4%
UKIP 8.9% +0 .8%
Standard deviation of Jan 2014 polls is 0.8% for L and LD with slightly smaller for C and UKIP.
Main change in average 2010 switchers between Jan and Dec is
2010C 》C 64.3% - 3.8%
2010C 》UKIP 11.6% + 1.3%
2010C 》? 13.1% + 2%
No other material changes (next biggest change is 2010L 》 L 79.3% - 1.6%) but UKIP gaining from all three other parties.
The sun's activity recently seems to be on the wane so this could quite possibly counteract any anthropogenic effects in the near to medium term future.
Good to know......
The issue with gangs seems to be that there is a growing demand for what they sell: drugs. It may be more cost-efficient to deal with that.
It's a completely different scenario.
Transportation to penal colonies would be better. It gets them out oc the victims way, and of their dysfunctional environment, and all the hard work that comes with having to establish a community in yhe wilderness. As we have few colonies now (the Falklands may do) maybe we could outsource to Siberia, Sudan or Afghanistan.
If the Tories lose power in 2015 then they will probably coalesce behind a profoundly anti-EU leader after a cleansing civil war. If they remain in power, what has happened during this Parliament indicates real trouble ahead - especially as Cameron will have to reveal his red lines. They will tell us a lot about how serious he really is about renegotiating the UK's (or the rUK's) membership. My guess is that the Tory right will not be impressed by what it sees.
On the positive side, the climate controversy is causing us to do much more research into the way the climate works. On the negative side, we may be spending billions on the wrong things, especially if CO2 is not a significant driver in the system.
Much climate science has been undertaken in a very poor manner; in fact, so poor that you might not even class it as a science. Confirmation bias is rife. People who find problems with the science are shouted down as heretics, rather than having their objections analysed and, if necessary, folded into the science.
There is one mantra: climate science cannot be criticised.
But the anti side are also self-defeating to a large extent. It is two belief systems in direct conflict, with all sort of splitter groups muddying the water.
As ever, the question to ask yourself is: "what would it take to convince me that I'm wrong, and that the opposing view is right?"
Sentencing lengths prob only start to have a major effect once the detection rate is high. If it went up from, say, 20% to 80%, firstly we'd get a lot less crime and second fewer people would go into crime in the first place. It wouldn't be worth it.
I agree with SO that the war on drugs is pointless.
All of my friends have taken illegal drugs, many have been caught with illegal drugs, only two were prosecuted, and they were caught with tens of thousands of pounds worth and were smuggling
I seem to remember 9 of the (12?) applied to join the regular British army after the show.
The important thing is that poor countries should become more prosperous, so that they can afford to do things like building flood defences, improving building standards, or getting emergency services and food to areas affected by extreme weather conditions. Extreme weather conditions in prosperous countries can kill dozens of people. In poor countries they can kill thousands.
The whole thing's a farce.
Until now, I'd thought that if the 2015 GE result is pretty similar to 2010, the LDs would offer the Tories their referendum as part of a coalition deal, getting something massive in return (mansion tax, scrapping trident - on that scale.) But having seen the Tories yesterday I'm starting to think that this just wouldn't work. In the interests of stable governance, the Lib Dems may be best calling the referendum a red line, on the grounds that it's the only way to manage a stable Government, with a far less ambitious Government programme. This would probably involve Cameron having to fight a leadership challenge and ensuring backbench rebellions like yesterday's but I don't see any other way of making a coalition last now.
But don't just allow the law to be flouted.
Let's just have one, and we can have a good discussion about the issues. And if it's a narrow (55/45) vote to stay in, then Cameron will have a lot more leverage in his discussions with Hollande and Merkel.
If it's out, it's out. And if it's a thumping in vote, then at least the Conservative Party will know to drop the issue.
The armed services are not a realistic option though, as they have been cut to the core. However, you're right - self-esteem (or lack of it) seems to have played a big part in the rise of gang culture. If you have some it's much easier to resist peer pressure and to forge your own path; thus, you are less likely to want the validation that being in a gang brings.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
Brand thinks we should let everyone try them then be compassionate when they are caught and taught to abstain, , Hitchens thinks kids should be so scared of the punishment for getting caught that they never start (abstain)
The punishment for taking drugs under the current system is possible lifelong mental illness
I haven't touched drugs for nearly twenty years, but the thought of seeing some of my friends young children in the state my friends and I got in as teenagers breaks my heart
Sorry to go off topic,
"Waaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaa The people might give the wrong result", "With a hostile media (Both sides think its hostile) we can't win"
It is a pathetic position, but a fair few on both sides don't have the bollocks to put it to the people.
I can only see it being sold if they get a cast-iron commitment of electoral reform for at least one of local government, HoL and HoCs with, possibly, a new referendum on another.
Out: No more arguments, and Labour is on the wrong side of the referendum result, and has to decide if it's policy is to try and rejoin an institution the British people has rejected
In: If it's narrow, then Cameron's negotiating hand is strengthened; if it's wide, then at least the arguing stops
So many boys (and it is so usually boys) need to be part of teams with an identity doing (preferably physical) challenging activity in teams led by someone who commands them, that they can then respect, so they can achieve things and be proud of them.
Which would probably resolve nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/10609601/Andy-Flower-leaves-his-post-as-England-coach-after-disastrous-Ashes-tour-in-Australia.html
And every LD councillor and MP would have won their seat as part of Government by June 2015, so the theory of continuing losses seems less certain.
Around 19 per cent admitted stealing from self service checkouts with the majority saying they did so regularly. Around 57 per cent of these said they first started taking goods because they couldn’t get an item to scan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10603984/Shoppers-steal-billions-through-self-service-tills.html
Bloody Hell
For instance, they are nowhere near understanding the interactions between atmospheric and oceanic CO2. There is even some debate about how much rainforests are a CO2 sink or source, and we've been studying those for decades.
Likewise, the solar effects on the climate are little known. Many (although not all) climate scientists say they are irrelevant, or are well catered in models; however, there is a great deal of doubt.
They are far from rock solid settled. And if you really thought they were surely you'd be calling for all research on them to be stopped as a waste of money?
Jade is the cricketing equivalent of a Crystal Swing/Jedward duet cover of my lovely horse.
My approach would be mitigation rather than impoverishment.
"It also said that although falling incomes had come to an end, the average household would not see its income recover before the next election."
I don't see what the government can do about this. The contrast with "good news" on the economy could make this feel even worse.
Anyone who disbelieves the First Law of Thermodynamics is a nutter. AGW is not proven to the same degree - or even the same degree of Evolution - so to use terms like "deniers" is acting purely politically. That's my only real point here - but language is very important.
1 - It doesn't leave businesses holding back on investment for 3 years due to uncertainty
2 - It puts the ideas about renegotiations out of their misery
3 - It forces the Tories talking about "wafer thin consent" "reform needed" and "how the EU has gone beyond its mandate" to say "out." I suspect a number would back down when forced off the fence.
But - it was in no-one's manifesto or the coalition agreement, and as above it would lead to civil war in the Tory party which could bring the Government down. So thanks but no thanks
I feel that Brand and Hitchens are both completely the wrong people to be contributing to the debate on drugs.
Calls for applications in Dulwich CLP have opened today...3 declared runners today: Fiona Twycross as exepected...former MEP candidate Anne Fairweather (some quarters made lots of noises when she was excluded from 2014 London Labour MEP shortlist)....College ward Cllr Helen Hayes
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
The silence from Dora's campaign HQ is killing me! She must declare and she must declare soon.
If Cameron as PM ended up on the losing side, I would expect that he would resign and that a prominent figure on the winning side would take over in order to implement the wishes of the electorate.