Who was the last England captain to be dropped from the side altogether mid-series for poor form? Mark Butcher in 1999, but he was only the stand in captain. Cowdrey in 1988 perhaps?
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
1. Weaponsing the Department of Justice to go after anyone who has stood up to him and defended democracy.
2. Being a dictator from day one.
3. Project 2025.
You really should pay more attention to the intricacies.
I think this is more your prejudices than reality. "Being a dictator from day one" is equivalent to some of the wilder claims of anti-Brexiters. It is hyperbole.
America remains a democracy and actually decided to vote Trump out last time round and may now decide to vote him back in.
It is the PB/Graun crowd who clutch their pearls at democracy in action that I find objectionable.
This is too optimistic. Among the abundance of evidence a couple stand out: Systematic lying and reality distortion of a sort which makes Boris seem quite mainstream; and seeking to overturn an election process. Add to that a personality which should not be let loose anywhere close to real power. I think anyone who does not have 'Germany in the 1930s' feel about this is being unrealistic.
Another with the nazi comparisons. I don't think it's impossible to criticise Trump without drawing such analogies. Unless your aim is to further entrench the constituency with which he is evidently so popular.
Germany 1930s comparisons are usually not great. Not to be invoked in discussing, say LD policy on site value rating or tuition fees. Once upon a time we would not have invoked 1930s comparisons about Putin. It is not wrong to do so now. The attempt to overturn the American election process is quite enough to add Trump to the 'possibles' list. His refusal to criticise Putin and equivocation about NATO doesn't help either.
The Enabling Act certainly had elements of Trump's lawfare on the 2020 election.
But Trump is too erratic to be considered a full Nazi. Even remembering that Hitler was pretty damn erratic, he never babbled about sharks.
I was very disappointed to discover that Will Shirer's second hand account of Hitler dropping to the floor, foaming at the mouth and chewing on the carpet in response to the Allied declaration of war was based on a misunderstanding of the German idiom teppichfresser.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
i have a thing called a bank account that I use
What kind of a faff would it be to try to deposit some coins into a bank account. Aren't they all Costa Coffees now anyway.
Yes, most bank branches have closed because very few people need them or use them. See also the rise of online-only banks who don't have to spend millions a year running high-street premises so very weird PBers can throw pound coins at them over the counter.
I've somehow managed to open a mortgage savings account with no online access, and where I have to go into the branch to arrange a bank transfer when I want to remove the money to pay for a house.
Confusing thing was that I opened the account online...
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Rishi's legacy. That and utter incompetent govt.
The lifetime smoking ban. A policy New Zealand initially advocated and rolled back on when the new govt came in.
Yet we want to enact it. I suspect it will lead to a few problems and the black market will be the beneficiary.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
On topic - if they take the trouble to register then likely they will take the trouble to vote. However, it would be no sort of a surge. Notably there was a very short-lived lift in Rep registrations after the shooting so this would just even that out.
Just note that Harris trails where the Dems were in the last 4 elections at this point. The difference is that unlike 2016 and 2020 she has the mood and the momentum with her. She is also dealing with polls that have been adjusted tpo try to catch shy Trump voters. In 2008 and 2012 when the Dem nominee was non-White the Dems were clearly under-represented in the polls.
US pollsters struggle horribly and the reason is the same reason why UK pollsters have lost their mojo. Turnout - especially differential turnout. Self-reporting of likeliness to vote just does not cut it anymore.
So what has happened. Biden was losing or had lost a lot of the Dem base. They were unhappy with him and not scared enough of Trump. That is why he was going to get beaten badly. Harris has got the Dems back enthused and happy. They will vote for her and they will work for her. That is why we are back, at least, in a 2020 or a 2016 situation. In fact the reproductive freedom issue maybe puts her ahead of that position. We shall see.
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
i have a thing called a bank account that I use
What kind of a faff would it be to try to deposit some coins into a bank account. Aren't they all Costa Coffees now anyway.
Save them up to pay the next dodgy tradesman or taxi driver who wants paid in cash to avoid the tax.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Since smoking costs the NHS several billion a year, and we are all concerned about the cost of the NHS, to curb a habit that hardly anyone wants to have once they become established in it seems a thoroughly rational step to take.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
Test -If you make a comment it shows at the top until you refresh then it is at the bottom and have to scroll for ages to get there -Is there a keyboard shortcut ? Asking for a friend.
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
1. Weaponsing the Department of Justice to go after anyone who has stood up to him and defended democracy.
2. Being a dictator from day one.
3. Project 2025.
You really should pay more attention to the intricacies.
I think this is more your prejudices than reality. "Being a dictator from day one" is equivalent to some of the wilder claims of anti-Brexiters. It is hyperbole.
America remains a democracy and actually decided to vote Trump out last time round and may now decide to vote him back in.
It is the PB/Graun crowd who clutch their pearls at democracy in action that I find objectionable.
This is too optimistic. Among the abundance of evidence a couple stand out: Systematic lying and reality distortion of a sort which makes Boris seem quite mainstream; and seeking to overturn an election process. Add to that a personality which should not be let loose anywhere close to real power. I think anyone who does not have 'Germany in the 1930s' feel about this is being unrealistic.
Another with the nazi comparisons. I don't think it's impossible to criticise Trump without drawing such analogies. Unless your aim is to further entrench the constituency with which he is evidently so popular.
Germany 1930s comparisons are usually not great. Not to be invoked in discussing, say LD policy on site value rating or tuition fees. Once upon a time we would not have invoked 1930s comparisons about Putin. It is not wrong to do so now. The attempt to overturn the American election process is quite enough to add Trump to the 'possibles' list. His refusal to criticise Putin and equivocation about NATO doesn't help either.
The Enabling Act certainly had elements of Trump's lawfare on the 2020 election.
But Trump is too erratic to be considered a full Nazi. Even remembering that Hitler was pretty damn erratic, he never babbled about sharks.
I was very disappointed to discover that Will Shirer's second hand account of Hitler dropping to the floor, foaming at the mouth and chewing on the carpet in response to the Allied declaration of war was based on a misunderstanding of the German idiom teppichfresser.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
I must admit that my reaction to the headline was "No Shit".
We know that the push polling, especially on the GOP side, is muddying the waters and giving far more evenly matched results than the probable reality, so the polls showing a tight race or a Trump lead are not necessarily reliable. We know that the ghost of Roe v Wade is haunting the Republican campaign. We know that as a result Harris has attracted large numbers of female votes to the Blue column. We know that she has fired up the base to a dramatic degree and the convention, far from being a 1968 disaster, was a total triumph. We know that Harris is raising historically large amounts of money very quickly. We know that Harris has made a good VP pick and that Trump... hasn´t. We know that Trump has never won the popular vote. Trump is still trying to win the 2020 fight, but the style is just looking tired and dated, as is he.
Yet the fear of 2016, like the fear of 2019 in the recent UK general election, is leading people to fear that Trump can still snatch a victory. I think even with all the corruption and malpractice that the convicted felon can orchestrate it will not be enough to overcome a very large vote for Harris. I think she could be headed for a landslide,
"We know that the push polling, especially on the GOP side, is muddying the waters and giving far more evenly matched results than the probable reality"
No we don't, but if you have evidence of this I'd be very happy to see it.
Also feel free to calculate a polling average excluding "GOP push polling", I doubt it will be any different to most of the established polling averages from Silver Bulletin, 538 etc.
You can argue, as the header does, that there are reasons to believe the polling might be underestimating Harris's lead. OTOH you can look at the last 2 times Trump was on the ballot and question whether pollsters have done enough to fix whatever went wrong with their polling in 2016 and 2020 - especially in critical states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
eg for 2020 comparing the final 538 polling average with the actual result:
Wisconsin 538 average: Biden +8.4%, result Biden +0.6%
Although, for balance, we should also look at 2022 polling versus actual results. Because my memory is that the Democrats outperformed then. (My memory could, of course, be wrong.)
"Let’s give a big round of applause to the pollsters. Measuring public opinion is, in many ways, harder than ever — and yet, the polling industry just had one of its most successful election cycles in U.S. history. Despite a loud chorus of naysayers claiming that the polls were either underestimating Democratic support or biased yet again against Republicans, the polls were more accurate in 2022 than in any cycle since at least 1998, with almost no bias toward either party."
Also it's plausible underestimating Trump only happens when Trump himself is on the ballot.
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
i have a thing called a bank account that I use
What kind of a faff would it be to try to deposit some coins into a bank account. Aren't they all Costa Coffees now anyway.
Go to the seaside for the day. Put them in the pokies - and the 2p's into the coin pushers. Hours of fun.
On a wet bank holiday weekend.
Good afternoon
There are many charities who do street collections or outside supermarkets with cash collection tins
Indeed our local RNLI is outside Asda regularly and with a vested interest, every little helps to keep my son and his colleagues safely at sea rescuing lives
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
i have a thing called a bank account that I use
What kind of a faff would it be to try to deposit some coins into a bank account. Aren't they all Costa Coffees now anyway.
Save them up to pay the next dodgy tradesman or taxi driver who wants paid in cash to avoid the tax.
The place to deposit lots of coins is in one of those payment drawers in a self-service point at the supermarket. Some places even have a container not a slot.
Just don't do what I did once and put so many in that it clogs up the whole machine.
Who was the last England captain to be dropped from the side altogether mid-series for poor form? Mark Butcher in 1999, but he was only the stand in captain. Cowdrey in 1988 perhaps?
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
i have a thing called a bank account that I use
What kind of a faff would it be to try to deposit some coins into a bank account. Aren't they all Costa Coffees now anyway.
minimal tbh - i just stick it in the coin sorter thingy and it credits my account. No need to even speak to a fellow human being if you're feeling grumpy
You still have to waste your time going to a bloody bank branch. Most people have better things to do. Hence why an increasing number of us reject cash – it's just a completely pointless waste of time.
Who was the last England captain to be dropped from the side altogether mid-series for poor form? Mark Butcher in 1999, but he was only the stand in captain. Cowdrey in 1988 perhaps?
Bob Willis in 1984?
Willis wasn't captain in 1984, Gower was.
If we disallow Cowdrey it would surely be one of Emburey or Gatting.
(Yes, I know there was an official reason for sacking Gatting.)
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
It's not going to affect me any which way, being a non smoker who doesn't currently frequent pub gardens but there's a distinct touch of authoritarianism & puritanism about the new Gov't (Not that the previous one were brilliant) wafting through the air.
Indeed.
I doubt its deeply held beliefs - I don't see much evidence for any of that in Labour policy - but more just being utterly cowed by Whitehall, who seem to enjoy creeping levels of controls over people's lives.....
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
I must admit that my reaction to the headline was "No Shit".
We know that the push polling, especially on the GOP side, is muddying the waters and giving far more evenly matched results than the probable reality, so the polls showing a tight race or a Trump lead are not necessarily reliable. We know that the ghost of Roe v Wade is haunting the Republican campaign. We know that as a result Harris has attracted large numbers of female votes to the Blue column. We know that she has fired up the base to a dramatic degree and the convention, far from being a 1968 disaster, was a total triumph. We know that Harris is raising historically large amounts of money very quickly. We know that Harris has made a good VP pick and that Trump... hasn´t. We know that Trump has never won the popular vote. Trump is still trying to win the 2020 fight, but the style is just looking tired and dated, as is he.
Yet the fear of 2016, like the fear of 2019 in the recent UK general election, is leading people to fear that Trump can still snatch a victory. I think even with all the corruption and malpractice that the convicted felon can orchestrate it will not be enough to overcome a very large vote for Harris. I think she could be headed for a landslide,
It’s just becoming more and more obvious, isn’t it? The notion that it’s going to be ‘on a knife-edge’ is increasingly ridiculous.
Just a couple of months ago this site's most prolific poster was teling us that only Biden could win, because in the opinion poll hypotheticals, Trump had a big lead over Harris, but was about even against Biden.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
IIRC increasing tax had led to vastly increase smuggling of tobacco. Nearly all rolling tobacco consumed hasn't had duty paid.
In addition, better cancer treatment means that lung cancer victims live longer and end up having more, expensive, treatment.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Since smoking costs the NHS several billion a year, and we are all concerned about the cost of the NHS, to curb a habit that hardly anyone wants to have once they become established in it seems a thoroughly rational step to take.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
There is also the matter of medic time and treatment resources taken up, which could be used elsewhere.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Anyone opposed to this policy is pro cancer.
Are you Liz Truss?
I stopped smoking 21 years ago when my daughter had her first child and threatened me with a ban of holding her if I cotinued smoking
Stopping was the hardest thing I have ever done, but as my practice nurse said last year it was an excellent decision and has helped me to survive my copd issues
I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke and in Wales it is already banned from hospitals and their grounds
I am underwhelmed by Starmer but on this I do support him
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Since smoking costs the NHS several billion a year, and we are all concerned about the cost of the NHS, to curb a habit that hardly anyone wants to have once they become established in it seems a thoroughly rational step to take.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
I don’t actually have a problem with the government seeking to, over time, phase out smoking. I’m an ex smoker myself, and I have little love of the habit.
There is however a proportionate and measured way of doing so. In some ways, the phased-in banning proposed by age, whilst I fear unworkable, is a smart one. A big bang approach of banning in outdoor areas for all strikes me as being on the wrong side of this approach, because it once again causes problems for our struggling hospitality industry that they could really do without at the moment.
I am also rather cynical that banning it in more places is going to actually prevent take up. It will just mean people are more likely to stay at home.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
As it's a JD Vance thread, here's TwitterX on town name pronunciations in Ohio.
There’s a town in Ohio called “Versailles” and it’s pronounced by the locals, and all Ohioans, as “Ver-sails” and if you try to pronounce it like you should (with the French accent), people look at you like you’re crazy. https://x.com/EudaimoniaEsq/status/1828560881808220191
We're definitely inside the glasshouse on this one.
Consider yourself lucky you don't have to explain why Hednesford and Blithefield are pronounced Hensford and Bliffeld.
I spent my teenage years in Cradley (Herefordshire) pronounced Cradley. Sometimes I work in Cradley ( Dudley MBC) pronounced craydley.
Near where I live is a hamlet called Broughton (pronounced brufton) not to be confused with Broughton ( ex- Clwyd) pronounced brawton.
Just wait for the confusion when PBers discover Welsh place names.
I'm sure @Big_G_NorthWales can tell us all how to pronounce "Ffynnongroew", since it is on the way to .a. aiui ... Clan-did-know. We used to say Fif-un-grew.
I used to go through it 2 or 3 times a year, since my grandparents retired from Sheffield to Prestatyn Beach Road, near the Pink Hotel, which became the Yellow Hotel, and is now the Beige Hotel.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
Who was the last England captain to be dropped from the side altogether mid-series for poor form? Mark Butcher in 1999, but he was only the stand in captain. Cowdrey in 1988 perhaps?
Bob Willis in 1984?
Willis wasn't captain in 1984, Gower was.
If we disallow Cowdrey it would surely be one of Emburey or Gatting.
(Yes, I know there was an official reason for sacking Gatting.)
Shagging the barmaid?
I only got into cricket in 1990 as an eleven year old.
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
i have a thing called a bank account that I use
What kind of a faff would it be to try to deposit some coins into a bank account. Aren't they all Costa Coffees now anyway.
minimal tbh - i just stick it in the coin sorter thingy and it credits my account. No need to even speak to a fellow human being if you're feeling grumpy
You still have to waste your time going to a bloody bank branch. Most people have better things to do. Hence why an increasing number of us reject cash – it's just a completely pointless waste of time.
heaven forfend you lose the time to pursue your hobbies such as ranting about cash to a bunch of bemused people on a political betting website
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
Thousands of elderly people are defrauded of their life savings every year in ways which would not be possible if they stuck with physical cash and paper cheques. Bullying them into the brave new world seems counterproductive from that pov.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
The standard tactic of a Labour government.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
Did you miss the last Tory government looking to ban smoking outright within a generation?
Who was the last England captain to be dropped from the side altogether mid-series for poor form? Mark Butcher in 1999, but he was only the stand in captain. Cowdrey in 1988 perhaps?
Bob Willis in 1984?
Willis wasn't captain in 1984, Gower was.
If we disallow Cowdrey it would surely be one of Emburey or Gatting.
(Yes, I know there was an official reason for sacking Gatting.)
Shagging the barmaid?
I only got into cricket in 1990 as an eleven year old.
That I believe is generally regarded as an excuse for something his lousy captaincy and woeful batting would have rendered necessary anyway.
And I'm sure a man of his penetration was not fooled.
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
I'm assuming this "it wasn't an armed insurrection" is @TOPPING stirring a little, since the introduction to the recommended programme says:
In this immersive, character-driven account, protesters, rioters, police officers and members of the US Congress and Senate recount their experiences in startling detail. Frontline police officers reveal how they engaged in bloody hand-to-hand combat with thousands of rioters armed with tasers, sledgehammers, baseball bats and knives, while some from among the rioters explain how they broke through the police lines.
And here is an extract from the details of charges laid:
Approximately 510 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 133 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. ... 127 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
The standard tactic of a Labour government.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
Did you miss the last Tory government looking to ban smoking outright within a generation?
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
I’m distinctly underwhelmed so far. I hoped that we would see some boldness being introduced into policy making and questions starting to be asked about how we tackle the structural issues in our institutions.
Instead we seem to be getting New Labour tinkering authoritarianism on steroids.
I thought it would take a few years at least for Labour to default to talking about these kinds of things, but nope, they’ve decided to concentrate their energy on it already. A bad sign.
On topic - if they take the trouble to register then likely they will take the trouble to vote. However, it would be no sort of a surge. Notably there was a very short-lived lift in Rep registrations after the shooting so this would just even that out.
Just note that Harris trails where the Dems were in the last 4 elections at this point. The difference is that unlike 2016 and 2020 she has the mood and the momentum with her. She is also dealing with polls that have been adjusted tpo try to catch shy Trump voters. In 2008 and 2012 when the Dem nominee was non-White the Dems were clearly under-represented in the polls.
US pollsters struggle horribly and the reason is the same reason why UK pollsters have lost their mojo. Turnout - especially differential turnout. Self-reporting of likeliness to vote just does not cut it anymore.
So what has happened. Biden was losing or had lost a lot of the Dem base. They were unhappy with him and not scared enough of Trump. That is why he was going to get beaten badly. Harris has got the Dems back enthused and happy. They will vote for her and they will work for her. That is why we are back, at least, in a 2020 or a 2016 situation. In fact the reproductive freedom issue maybe puts her ahead of that position. We shall see.
2008 polls didn't underrepresent Dems. If anything, polls overestimated Obama's lead over McCain
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
New Emerson College Polling/The Hill swing state surveys find a tight race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. Harris has a slight edge over Trump in Michigan (50% to 47%), Georgia (49% to 48%), and Nevada (49% to 48%). The candidates are tied in Pennsylvania (48% to 48%). In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Trump has a one-point edge over Harris (49% to 48%), and Trump leads by three in Arizona (50% to 47%).
As it's a JD Vance thread, here's TwitterX on town name pronunciations in Ohio.
There’s a town in Ohio called “Versailles” and it’s pronounced by the locals, and all Ohioans, as “Ver-sails” and if you try to pronounce it like you should (with the French accent), people look at you like you’re crazy. https://x.com/EudaimoniaEsq/status/1828560881808220191
We're definitely inside the glasshouse on this one.
Consider yourself lucky you don't have to explain why Hednesford and Blithefield are pronounced Hensford and Bliffeld.
I spent my teenage years in Cradley (Herefordshire) pronounced Cradley. Sometimes I work in Cradley ( Dudley MBC) pronounced craydley.
Near where I live is a hamlet called Broughton (pronounced brufton) not to be confused with Broughton ( ex- Clwyd) pronounced brawton.
Just wait for the confusion when PBers discover Welsh place names.
I'm sure @Big_G_NorthWales can tell us all how to pronounce "Ffynnongroew", since it is on the way to .a. aiui ... Clan-did-know. We used to say Fif-un-grew.
I used to go through it 2 or 3 times a year, since my grandparents retired from Sheffield to Prestatyn Beach Road, near the Pink Hotel, which became the Yellow Hotel, and is now the Beige Hotel.
English Airmen stationed at RAF Pembrey during the war and in the years after struggled to pronounce nearby Llanelli, so they called it "Slash". I have no idea why.
Example number 97 that manifestos are worthless. What Labour said about their policy prescription for smoking just a few weeks ago:
That starts with smoking. Labour will ensure the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes and ensure all hospitals integrate ‘opt out’ smoking cessation interventions into routine care. Labour will ban vapes from being branded and advertised to appeal to children to stop the next generation from becoming hooked on nicotine.
Why am I not surprised they want to extend the smoking ban to include many outdoor public places but neglected to mention this during the campaign? Cynicism will be still more deeply engrained after 5 years of this lot.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
The standard tactic of a Labour government.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
Did you miss the last Tory government looking to ban smoking outright within a generation?
And look how badly they did!
Nowt to do with smoking but that bloody Truss woman.
As it's a JD Vance thread, here's TwitterX on town name pronunciations in Ohio.
There’s a town in Ohio called “Versailles” and it’s pronounced by the locals, and all Ohioans, as “Ver-sails” and if you try to pronounce it like you should (with the French accent), people look at you like you’re crazy. https://x.com/EudaimoniaEsq/status/1828560881808220191
We're definitely inside the glasshouse on this one.
Consider yourself lucky you don't have to explain why Hednesford and Blithefield are pronounced Hensford and Bliffeld.
I spent my teenage years in Cradley (Herefordshire) pronounced Cradley. Sometimes I work in Cradley ( Dudley MBC) pronounced craydley.
Near where I live is a hamlet called Broughton (pronounced brufton) not to be confused with Broughton ( ex- Clwyd) pronounced brawton.
Just wait for the confusion when PBers discover Welsh place names.
I'm sure @Big_G_NorthWales can tell us all how to pronounce "Ffynnongroew", since it is on the way to .a. aiui ... Clan-did-know. We used to say Fif-un-grew.
I used to go through it 2 or 3 times a year, since my grandparents retired from Sheffield to Prestatyn Beach Road, near the Pink Hotel, which became the Yellow Hotel, and is now the Beige Hotel.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
"Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily" does not mean millions do not use cash.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Since smoking costs the NHS several billion a year, and we are all concerned about the cost of the NHS, to curb a habit that hardly anyone wants to have once they become established in it seems a thoroughly rational step to take.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
I don’t actually have a problem with the government seeking to, over time, phase out smoking. I’m an ex smoker myself, and I have little love of the habit.
There is however a proportionate and measured way of doing so. In some ways, the phased-in banning proposed by age, whilst I fear unworkable, is a smart one. A big bang approach of banning in outdoor areas for all strikes me as being on the wrong side of this approach, because it once again causes problems for our struggling hospitality industry that they could really do without at the moment.
I am also rather cynical that banning it in more places is going to actually prevent take up. It will just mean people are more likely to stay at home.
The existing policy has reduced the % of people smoking from 20% in 2011 to 13% in 2021, so it's mainly about continuing that - we'll see what they do now. *
Coming from a mining area, I have seen a *lot* of people going downhill then losing many years of life from lung problems, and I think strong policies are justified under a public health mandate. It's really about prevention over lack-of-cure.
That report has polling with half (46%) (in 2022) thinking the Govt is not doing enough to prevent smoking. That is up form 29% in 2009. It's a majority if the 20% don't knows are excluded.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
"Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily" does not mean millions do not use cash.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
"Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily" does not mean millions do not use cash.
We finally have a cashless society in Staffs after 40 years.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Since smoking costs the NHS several billion a year, and we are all concerned about the cost of the NHS, to curb a habit that hardly anyone wants to have once they become established in it seems a thoroughly rational step to take.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
I don’t actually have a problem with the government seeking to, over time, phase out smoking. I’m an ex smoker myself, and I have little love of the habit.
There is however a proportionate and measured way of doing so. In some ways, the phased-in banning proposed by age, whilst I fear unworkable, is a smart one. A big bang approach of banning in outdoor areas for all strikes me as being on the wrong side of this approach, because it once again causes problems for our struggling hospitality industry that they could really do without at the moment.
I am also rather cynical that banning it in more places is going to actually prevent take up. It will just mean people are more likely to stay at home.
Hospitality venues also spent millions, collectively in the billions, adapting their businesses to the original indoor smoking ban.
While the original indoor ban was justifiable on the grounds of second-hand smoke to staff and other customers, albeit with some poor implementation such as mandating churches put up no smoking signs, extending a ban to outdoor areas makes little sense other than as a further example of creeping authoritarianism from the government and civil service.
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
Just as well that Trump called for a peaceful demonstration then, as opposed to storming the Capitol.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
The standard tactic of a Labour government.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
Did you miss the last Tory government looking to ban smoking outright within a generation?
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
Smokers die early, and tend to save the NHS money because of that. (All cancer treatment accounts for around 5.6% of the NHS budget, I think.)
Obesity is the really expensive one.
Bit more complicated than that - a large proportion of costs come in the final 12 months of life, whenever those are, so life expectancy is less important than you might think for most people.
It's healthy life expectancy that's important, so if smokers die 5 years earlier but start getting lots of conditions 15 years before non-smokers do, the net effect is worse. This is also why people with obesity cost so much, suffering with with minor but expensive conditions for decades.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Since smoking costs the NHS several billion a year, and we are all concerned about the cost of the NHS, to curb a habit that hardly anyone wants to have once they become established in it seems a thoroughly rational step to take.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
I don’t actually have a problem with the government seeking to, over time, phase out smoking. I’m an ex smoker myself, and I have little love of the habit.
There is however a proportionate and measured way of doing so. In some ways, the phased-in banning proposed by age, whilst I fear unworkable, is a smart one. A big bang approach of banning in outdoor areas for all strikes me as being on the wrong side of this approach, because it once again causes problems for our struggling hospitality industry that they could really do without at the moment.
I am also rather cynical that banning it in more places is going to actually prevent take up. It will just mean people are more likely to stay at home.
Hospitality venues also spent millions, collectively in the billions, adapting their businesses to the original indoor smoking ban.
While the original indoor ban was justifiable on the grounds of second-hand smoke to staff and other customers, albeit with some poor implementation such as mandating churches put up no smoking signs, extending a ban to outdoor areas makes little sense other than as a further example of creeping authoritarianism from the government and civil service.
We might be at a tipping point where it's a positive for some pubs - I refuse to sit in a beer garden if I'll be downwind from a smoker. Ruins my pint.
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
Just as well that Trump called for a peaceful demonstration then, as opposed to storming the Capitol.
That's a little like claiming the attempted torching of the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham was largely peaceful.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
Encouraged a bout of violent 'sightseeing' at the seat of government when he lost?
I have no doubt he wanted people to get out on the streets. I don't think anyone, least of all those who participated, expected it to get so far out of hand.
I agree the armed insurrection stuff is weak sauce.
The fake electors, on the other hand, was deliberate policy to overturn a democratic election.
He didn't plan the violence but he did watch it on tv for several hours rather than intervene to try and stop it. And the violence was in tandem with the attempt (which he did plan) to pressure Pence to not certify. There had previously been the blatant intimidation of officials in Georgia to 'find' him some extra votes. There were a host of vexatious legal challenges.
All of this comprised a calculated campaign (for which the pitch was rolled well in advance) to smear the result of the election (if he lost) as being false/fraudulent. There can be no doubt about this. He tried to stay in power despite having been voted out. It's a scandal that he can stand again let alone be in with a fair chance (market 50%, me 33%) of winning.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
London is not the rest of the UK.
Correct, it’s an integral part of the UK, just like Merseyside is not the rest of the UK but is an integral part of it, just like Yorkshire and the Lake District are not the rest of the UK but are integral parts of it. Not really sure what point you are trying to make really.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
"Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily" does not mean millions do not use cash.
Ah, sod them, they will just have to adapt
I would keep cash, I wouldn’t ban it.
But it is pointless and eventually will probably die out as fewer and fewer people use it.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
"Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily" does not mean millions do not use cash.
Ah, sod them, they will just have to adapt
I would keep cash, I wouldn’t ban it.
But it is pointless and eventually will probably die out as fewer and fewer people use it.
One of the problems with electronic payments is that quite often you don't bother to check the amount you're paying, out of laziness. You just touch your card on the reader, etc, and assume it's right. With cash you always know that you've paid the right amount, based on what you've given and what change you've got back.
My apologies to everyone as I have been very rude about the energy levels of the ex-President of the USA. However, finally Mr Trump seems enthused in this video. As curated for history by the gentlemen of the Bulwark. Treat yourself and enjoy
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
Just as well that Trump called for a peaceful demonstration then, as opposed to storming the Capitol.
That's a little like claiming the attempted torching of the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham was largely peaceful.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
The standard tactic of a Labour government.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
Did you miss the last Tory government looking to ban smoking outright within a generation?
The question is not why the Conservatives did it, it's why are Labour keen to continue it. The answer is that it's an imposition on people the Govt don't like that can be spun for their own good whilst costing nothing. In a debt-laden low-growth country the only electorally-popular option left is to ban things
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
We should also ban sponsored parachute jumping, since one in nine results in an injury requiring hospital treatment, and the average cost of this to the NHS is greater than nine times the average amount raised for charity.
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
Just as well that Trump called for a peaceful demonstration then, as opposed to storming the Capitol.
That's a little like claiming the attempted torching of the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham was largely peaceful.
No, it’s like saying it was Nigel Farage’s fault.
It was wholly and 100% the fault of the people who set it alight. I assume those people will be spending twenty years in jail.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
London is not the rest of the UK.
Correct, it’s an integral part of the UK, just like Merseyside is not the rest of the UK but is an integral part of it, just like Yorkshire and the Lake District are not the rest of the UK but are integral parts of it. Not really sure what point you are trying to make really.
You keep going on about the London bus network. You keep just referencing London.
My apologies to everyone as I have been very rude about the energy levels of the ex-President of the USA. However, finally Mr Trump seems enthused in this video. As curated for history by the gentlemen of the Bulwark. Treat yourself and enjoy
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
Encouraged a bout of violent 'sightseeing' at the seat of government when he lost?
I have no doubt he wanted people to get out on the streets. I don't think anyone, least of all those who participated, expected it to get so far out of hand.
I agree the armed insurrection stuff is weak sauce.
The fake electors, on the other hand, was deliberate policy to overturn a democratic election.
Carrying a noose, assaulting guards, smashing up the Capitol building threatening a Republican VP with lynching.
Nothing to see here, just a normal day in MAGA land.
But Trump did none of those things.
Now, the things he did created the atmosphere for that to happen. And his words were incendiary. But he did not lead an armed insurrection.
He did for sure, though, organize slates of Fake Electors with the express intention of overthrowing an election. He should be in jail for that.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
We should also ban sponsored parachute jumping, since one in nine results in an injury requiring hospital treatment, and the average cost of this to the NHS is greater than nine times the average amount raised for charity.
Once we get paternalistic well funded lobbyists to actively campaign against it to save rNHS then we probably will see a ban proposed.
As it's a JD Vance thread, here's TwitterX on town name pronunciations in Ohio.
There’s a town in Ohio called “Versailles” and it’s pronounced by the locals, and all Ohioans, as “Ver-sails” and if you try to pronounce it like you should (with the French accent), people look at you like you’re crazy. https://x.com/EudaimoniaEsq/status/1828560881808220191
We're definitely inside the glasshouse on this one.
Consider yourself lucky you don't have to explain why Hednesford and Blithefield are pronounced Hensford and Bliffeld.
I spent my teenage years in Cradley (Herefordshire) pronounced Cradley. Sometimes I work in Cradley ( Dudley MBC) pronounced craydley.
Near where I live is a hamlet called Broughton (pronounced brufton) not to be confused with Broughton ( ex- Clwyd) pronounced brawton.
Just wait for the confusion when PBers discover Welsh place names.
I'm sure @Big_G_NorthWales can tell us all how to pronounce "Ffynnongroew", since it is on the way to .a. aiui ... Clan-did-know. We used to say Fif-un-grew.
I used to go through it 2 or 3 times a year, since my grandparents retired from Sheffield to Prestatyn Beach Road, near the Pink Hotel, which became the Yellow Hotel, and is now the Beige Hotel.
English Airmen stationed at RAF Pembrey during the war and in the years after struggled to pronounce nearby Llanelli, so they called it "Slash". I have no idea why.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
"Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily" does not mean millions do not use cash.
Ah, sod them, they will just have to adapt
I would keep cash, I wouldn’t ban it.
But it is pointless and eventually will probably die out as fewer and fewer people use it.
I rarely use it. I just think it fair to allow people who want to to use it. But if a business wants to not accept cash it would not stop me going there
Many hip and trendy craft beer places I have been to do not take cash.
@Theuniondivvie mentioned people who begged for money in the street the other day. Reminded me of my visit to York recently where a couple of buskers had a contactless card reader to collect donations. I suspect it will become more widespread.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
The standard tactic of a Labour government.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
Did you miss the last Tory government looking to ban smoking outright within a generation?
And look how badly they did!
Nowt to do with smoking but that bloody Truss woman.
Starmer/Sunak reduce the number of cancer sufferers by banning smoking. Truss reduces the number of cancer sufferers by (allegedly, according to Anthony Sheldon) banning cancer treatments.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
How many people do you think run and cycle into their 80s and drop dead of a heart attack?
UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns
Peter Hendy threatened to withhold public contracts while seeking disciplinary action.
The U.K. government’s new transport minister got an award-winning railway engineer sacked for speaking to the media about safety concerns at one of Britain’s busiest stations, POLITICO can reveal.
In his previous role running government-owned infrastructure manager Network Rail, Peter Hendy threatened to withhold public contracts from the man’s employer while urging disciplinary action — and asked officials to “deal with him.”
Hendy was angered after the engineer, Gareth Dennis, told a journalist that overcrowding at London’s Euston station was “unsafe” because it could result in a crush — despite concern also having been voiced by the official rail regulator.
A letter from Hendy to the engineer’s employer SYSTRA, obtained by POLITICO under freedom of information laws, warned that “finding a potential supplier criticising a possible client reflects adversely on your likelihood of doing business with us or our supply chain.”
The email to the transport consultancy said that “the allegation that Network Rail is running an unsafe operation is a serious one” and added: “Employees here know that what they say in the media reflects on their employment, and I should like confirmation that your employees understand that too.”
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
But it saves the country a lot of money if they don't get old.
No. Old healthy people don't cost the NHS anywhere near as much as younger* unhealthy people do. The perfect patient is someone running and cycling into their 80s who drops dead of a heart attack.
*Talking 50s/60s.
Smoking is on its way out in the UK and all of this is just to help it through the door. Accelerate its final demise by a few years. That's worth it imo. It's an awful drug, unique amongst its peers in having no upside whatsoever. It ruins your health, spoils your looks, empties your wallet in the direction of multinational companies, makes you stink, and you don't even get a high. I'm a lifelong smoker and I'd support just about every banning measure short of 'in own home' or 'middle of a field'.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Finding everything else is Too Hard To Do?
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
The standard tactic of a Labour government.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
Did you miss the last Tory government looking to ban smoking outright within a generation?
And look how badly they did!
Nowt to do with smoking but that bloody Truss woman.
Starmer/Sunak reduce the number of cancer sufferers by banning smoking. Truss reduces the number of cancer sufferers by (allegedly, according to Anthony Sheldon) banning cancer treatments.
Millions of poor and elderly people use cashless daily, not least on the London bus network – which has been cashless for years. You very rapidly get used to it. People adapt. And then wonder why they ever bothered with an antiquated system of plastic slips and shards of pointless metal!
London is not the rest of the UK.
Correct, it’s an integral part of the UK, just like Merseyside is not the rest of the UK but is an integral part of it, just like Yorkshire and the Lake District are not the rest of the UK but are integral parts of it. Not really sure what point you are trying to make really.
You keep going on about the London bus network. You keep just referencing London.
It's the first and clearest example of an area going 100% cashless on buses without any real problems.
All the big operators nationwide now say they accept contactless on all their buses.
If you think we can't extrapolate from the London express to nationwide, what is the relevant difference between inside and outside the M25 that means cashless works fine (with definite advantages) inside, but wouldn't work outside?
On matters less controversial for PB what on earth do you do with the pound coins you might receive or have accumulated for one reason or another. Effectively dead money unless you make a concerted effort to use them all at once.
I'm sure the many weirdo cash-fetishists on here will buy them off you for £1 in proper electronic money (if they can work out how to use a banking app, which admittedly is very doubtful!)
I’ll offer 90p in the £ for as many as you have to sell
I'd be interested in how people assess the election on the following formulation (the numbers being where I am):
Harris landslide 10% Harris comfortable 30% Harris just 25% Trump just 25% Trump comfortable 5% Trump landslide 5%
I would swap Harris landslide and comfortable. I would also put Trump landslide less than 1%. But it depends on definitions.
My thinking is that Trump support is base only with little ability to expand. So unlikely to strike bigly. Whereas Harris has the chance to win over the young, independents, Latinos etc. with an enthusied core so might have a large tail of states falling together as the probabilities are highly correlated.
As one who doesn't follow the intricacies US elections (tip: one of them is going to win), but doesn't like the PB Guardian-adjacent bien pensant dismissal of Trump supporters, can I ask those who know (ie you lot) what Trump would do in office that would be "frankly very scary" and what he did last time that was "frankly very scary".
The encouragement of the armed insurrection that nearly led to the lynching of his Vice President for starters.
He waited hours to respond.
That’s for starters.
Weak. It wasn't an armed insurrection. It was a bunch of no-hopers (there's a clue in there) protesting against government. Pretty inefficiently and badly managed by the security forces. None of them expected to find themselves indoors that day.
Just like Otis Ferry storming the HoC but more American.
How many people died or were injured when Otis Ferry and his friends invaded the Commons?
It's America ffs. How many people die or are injured in a normal day in Ohio vs Hartlepool.
I am sure you would have excused the Beer Hall Putsch.
It was political expression (as were the 2011 riots, as were the Hartlepool riots) of a disaffected, marginalised community.
The last place I would expect that concept to be understood is on PB and the last people I would expect to understand it are well paid lawyers working in the financial services industry in the UK who were bought houses by their parents at an early age.
As a PB thickie I just trying to understand what you meant by a 'disaffected, marginalised community'. The first person on a list of those convicted after January 6th is a guy called Henry Tarrio - a one-time chairman of the Proud Boys.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"In 2004, when he was 20 years old, Tarrio was convicted of theft. He was sentenced to community service and three years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution. After 2004, Tarrio relocated to a small town in North Florida to run a poultry farm. He later returned to Miami. He has also founded a security equipment installation firm and another firm providing GPS tracking for companies.
In 2012, Tarrio was indicted for his role in a scheme to rebrand and resell stolen diabetic test strips. After being charged, Tarrio cooperated with investigators, helping them prosecute more than a dozen others. In 2013, Tarrio was sentenced to 30 months (of which he served 16) in federal prison.
Between 2012 and 2014 Tarrio was an informant to both federal and local law enforcement; in a 2014 federal court hearing, Tarrio's lawyer said that Tarrio had been a "prolific" cooperator who had assisted the government in the investigation and prosecution of more than twelve people in cases involving anabolic steroids, gambling, and human smuggling; had helped identify three "grow houses" where marijuana was cultivated; and had repeatedly worked undercover to aid in investigations. Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated. Tarrio's role as an informant was first made public in January 2021, after Reuters obtained the court records and interviewed investigators and lawyers involved in the case."
I suppose failed criminals turned informants are members of a 'disaffected, marginalised community' so you're right.
He’s the American version of Tommy Robinson. No-one in the UK would blame the Tories if they held a rally where they called for a peaceful protest, but a few Tommys turned up and started a fight.
They certainly would blame the Tories if the Tory leader encouraged Tommy Robinson's crowd to go and storm the HoC.
Just as well that Trump called for a peaceful demonstration then, as opposed to storming the Capitol.
That's a little like claiming the attempted torching of the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham was largely peaceful.
It would have been quite peaceful if the immigrants had quietly burnt and the police quietly ignored it.
Starmer seems to confirm the reports they’re looking at tightening the smoking ban.
Is anyone else getting increasingly bemused that, despite the state of the country, the government is deciding to spend its hard-won political capital on issues like this?
Since smoking costs the NHS several billion a year, and we are all concerned about the cost of the NHS, to curb a habit that hardly anyone wants to have once they become established in it seems a thoroughly rational step to take.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
I don’t actually have a problem with the government seeking to, over time, phase out smoking. I’m an ex smoker myself, and I have little love of the habit.
There is however a proportionate and measured way of doing so. In some ways, the phased-in banning proposed by age, whilst I fear unworkable, is a smart one. A big bang approach of banning in outdoor areas for all strikes me as being on the wrong side of this approach, because it once again causes problems for our struggling hospitality industry that they could really do without at the moment.
I am also rather cynical that banning it in more places is going to actually prevent take up. It will just mean people are more likely to stay at home.
Hospitality venues also spent millions, collectively in the billions, adapting their businesses to the original indoor smoking ban.
While the original indoor ban was justifiable on the grounds of second-hand smoke to staff and other customers, albeit with some poor implementation such as mandating churches put up no smoking signs, extending a ban to outdoor areas makes little sense other than as a further example of creeping authoritarianism from the government and civil service.
We might be at a tipping point where it's a positive for some pubs - I refuse to sit in a beer garden if I'll be downwind from a smoker. Ruins my pint.
I'm curious as to whether we will get legalised Mary Jane, but it will be legal or illegal to smoke it?
Comments
Confusing thing was that I opened the account online...
The lifetime smoking ban. A policy New Zealand initially advocated and rolled back on when the new govt came in.
Yet we want to enact it. I suspect it will lead to a few problems and the black market will be the beneficiary.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67574419
Just note that Harris trails where the Dems were in the last 4 elections at this point. The difference is that unlike 2016 and 2020 she has the mood and the momentum with her. She is also dealing with polls that have been adjusted tpo try to catch shy Trump voters. In 2008 and 2012 when the Dem nominee was non-White the Dems were clearly under-represented in the polls.
US pollsters struggle horribly and the reason is the same reason why UK pollsters have lost their mojo. Turnout - especially differential turnout. Self-reporting of likeliness to vote just does not cut it anymore.
So what has happened. Biden was losing or had lost a lot of the Dem base. They were unhappy with him and not scared enough of Trump. That is why he was going to get beaten badly. Harris has got the Dems back enthused and happy. They will vote for her and they will work for her. That is why we are back, at least, in a 2020 or a 2016 situation. In fact the reproductive freedom issue maybe puts her ahead of that position. We shall see.
It's a bit difficult to complain about Mr Starmer's applying restrictions as some sort of negative narrative, when the previous lot were committed to implementing a total ban on selling them identified by age group - a kind of smoking apartheid.
Not that that will stop the Telegrunt and the rest of that tendency groping around for mud to sling tactically, of course.
The name of the game is to continue to reduce and eventually stop smoking, and that is a desirable objective. The UK has done fairly well in reducing smoking so far - why not continue?
Do we have polls on this - both the Rishi Sunk version, and the Keir Starmer version, based on full information?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c80eje2r20rt
Over a meter of rain expected, and winds up to 150mph.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2022-election-polling-accuracy/
"Let’s give a big round of applause to the pollsters. Measuring public opinion is, in many ways, harder than ever — and yet, the polling industry just had one of its most successful election cycles in U.S. history. Despite a loud chorus of naysayers claiming that the polls were either underestimating Democratic support or biased yet again against Republicans, the polls were more accurate in 2022 than in any cycle since at least 1998, with almost no bias toward either party."
Also it's plausible underestimating Trump only happens when Trump himself is on the ballot.
There are many charities who do street collections or outside supermarkets with cash collection tins
Indeed our local RNLI is outside Asda regularly and with a vested interest, every little helps to keep my son and his colleagues safely at sea rescuing lives
Just don't do what I did once and put so many in that it clogs up the whole machine.
South Korea’s climate law violates rights of future generations, court rules
Absence of legally binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions from 2031-49 deemed unconstitutional
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/south-korea-court-climate-law-violates-rights-future-generations
If we disallow Cowdrey it would surely be one of Emburey or Gatting.
(Yes, I know there was an official reason for sacking Gatting.)
I doubt its deeply held beliefs - I don't see much evidence for any of that in Labour policy - but more just being utterly cowed by Whitehall, who seem to enjoy creeping levels of controls over people's lives.....
In addition, better cancer treatment means that lung cancer victims live longer and end up having more, expensive, treatment.
Stopping was the hardest thing I have ever done, but as my practice nurse said last year it was an excellent decision and has helped me to survive my copd issues
I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke and in Wales it is already banned from hospitals and their grounds
I am underwhelmed by Starmer but on this I do support him
There is however a proportionate and measured way of doing so. In some ways, the phased-in banning proposed by age, whilst I fear unworkable, is a smart one. A big bang approach of banning in outdoor areas for all strikes me as being on the wrong side of this approach, because it once again causes problems for our struggling hospitality industry that they could really do without at the moment.
I am also rather cynical that banning it in more places is going to actually prevent take up. It will just mean people are more likely to stay at home.
Give it a few weeks and Starmer will appreciate that the last Government actually weren't doing too bad a job, all things considered...
I only got into cricket in 1990 as an eleven year old.
If in doubt, ban something.
Or even if not in doubt.
And I'm sure a man of his penetration was not fooled.
In this immersive, character-driven account, protesters, rioters, police officers and members of the US Congress and Senate recount their experiences in startling detail. Frontline police officers reveal how they engaged in bloody hand-to-hand combat with thousands of rioters armed with tasers, sledgehammers, baseball bats and knives, while some from among the rioters explain how they broke through the police lines.
And here is an extract from the details of charges laid:
Approximately 510 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 133 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
...
127 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/39-months-since-the-jan-6-attack-on-the-capitol
An armed insurrection is exactly what it was.
Instead we seem to be getting New Labour tinkering authoritarianism on steroids.
I thought it would take a few years at least for Labour to default to talking about these kinds of things, but nope, they’ve decided to concentrate their energy on it already. A bad sign.
https://www.270towin.com/polls/latest-2024-presidential-election-polls/
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/august-2024-swing-state-polls-toss-up-presidential-election-in-swing-states.
New Emerson College Polling/The Hill swing state surveys find a tight race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. Harris has a slight edge over Trump in Michigan (50% to 47%), Georgia (49% to 48%), and Nevada (49% to 48%). The candidates are tied in Pennsylvania (48% to 48%). In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Trump has a one-point edge over Harris (49% to 48%), and Trump leads by three in Arizona (50% to 47%).
That starts with smoking. Labour will ensure the next generation can never legally buy cigarettes and ensure all hospitals integrate ‘opt out’ smoking cessation interventions into routine care. Labour will ban vapes from being branded and advertised to appeal to children to stop the next generation from becoming hooked on nicotine.
Why am I not surprised they want to extend the smoking ban to include many outdoor public places but neglected to mention this during the campaign? Cynicism will be still more deeply engrained after 5 years of this lot.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/
NHS Budget for England alone last year: £168.8 billion
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/our-2023-24-business-plan/
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
Will Rachel Reeves flog off our Bitcoin, or some of it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07-19/britain-has-a-5-billion-bitcoin-stash-reeves-can-unleash-it
Sussex are currently 159-0.
Coming from a mining area, I have seen a *lot* of people going downhill then losing many years of life from lung problems, and I think strong policies are justified under a public health mandate. It's really about prevention over lack-of-cure.
* https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-khan-review-making-smoking-obsolete/making-smoking-obsolete-summary
That report has polling with half (46%) (in 2022) thinking the Govt is not doing enough to prevent smoking. That is up form 29% in 2009. It's a majority if the 20% don't knows are excluded.
Shame that bugger Williamson has replaced him.
(All cancer treatment accounts for around 5.6% of the NHS budget, I think.)
Obesity is the really expensive one.
While the original indoor ban was justifiable on the grounds of second-hand smoke to staff and other customers, albeit with some poor implementation such as mandating churches put up no smoking signs, extending a ban to outdoor areas makes little sense other than as a further example of creeping authoritarianism from the government and civil service.
It's healthy life expectancy that's important, so if smokers die 5 years earlier but start getting lots of conditions 15 years before non-smokers do, the net effect is worse. This is also why people with obesity cost so much, suffering with with minor but expensive conditions for decades.
*Talking 50s/60s.
All of this comprised a calculated campaign (for which the pitch was rolled well in advance) to smear the result of the election (if he lost) as being false/fraudulent. There can be no doubt about this. He tried to stay in power despite having been voted out. It's a scandal that he can stand again let alone be in with a fair chance (market 50%, me 33%) of winning.
But it is pointless and eventually will probably die out as fewer and fewer people use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLnkVAXCKao
Harris landslide 10%
Harris comfortable 30%
Harris just 25%
Trump just 25%
Trump comfortable 5%
Trump landslide 5%
https://collecttrumpcards.com/
Now, the things he did created the atmosphere for that to happen. And his words were incendiary. But he did not lead an armed insurrection.
He did for sure, though, organize slates of Fake Electors with the express intention of overthrowing an election. He should be in jail for that.
https://x.com/ProfMMurray/status/1828488148336418988
Many hip and trendy craft beer places I have been to do not take cash.
@Theuniondivvie mentioned people who begged for money in the street the other day. Reminded me of my visit to York recently where a couple of buskers had a contactless card reader to collect donations. I suspect it will become more widespread.
Peter Hendy threatened to withhold public contracts while seeking disciplinary action.
The U.K. government’s new transport minister got an award-winning railway engineer sacked for speaking to the media about safety concerns at one of Britain’s busiest stations, POLITICO can reveal.
In his previous role running government-owned infrastructure manager Network Rail, Peter Hendy threatened to withhold public contracts from the man’s employer while urging disciplinary action — and asked officials to “deal with him.”
Hendy was angered after the engineer, Gareth Dennis, told a journalist that overcrowding at London’s Euston station was “unsafe” because it could result in a crush — despite concern also having been voiced by the official rail regulator.
A letter from Hendy to the engineer’s employer SYSTRA, obtained by POLITICO under freedom of information laws, warned that “finding a potential supplier criticising a possible client reflects adversely on your likelihood of doing business with us or our supply chain.”
The email to the transport consultancy said that “the allegation that Network Rail is running an unsafe operation is a serious one” and added: “Employees here know that what they say in the media reflects on their employment, and I should like confirmation that your employees understand that too.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-rail-minister-peter-hendy-fired-gareth-dennis-engineer-safety-concerns-trains-london-euston-station/
Safety car driver at Monza just binned it while practising for the F1 meeting this weekend.
https://x.com/fourrnorris/status/1829135771174899757
All the big operators nationwide now say they accept contactless on all their buses.
If you think we can't extrapolate from the London express to nationwide, what is the relevant difference between inside and outside the M25 that means cashless works fine (with definite advantages) inside, but wouldn't work outside?
My thinking is that Trump support is base only with little ability to expand. So unlikely to strike bigly. Whereas Harris has the chance to win over the young, independents, Latinos etc. with an enthusied core so might have a large tail of states falling together as the probabilities are highly correlated.
Darn those meddling forces of law and order, eh?