Why is Labour so terrified of a youth mobility scheme with the EU . We have these with a host of countries .
It’s not FOM and Starmer needs to get a grip and realize many Remainers have stomached his new found Brexit zeal and held their noses to vote Labour at the last GE to ensure the Tories would get sent packing .
Remainers want more opportunities for younger people to at least have the chance to spend a few years in an EU country .
My granddaughter has just spent the last year studying at Turin University
Boris Johnson's Brexit legacy is being consolidated by Starmer. Only "never-Boris" Cleggites are still dreaming of a return to the pre-2016 era.
What on earth is a "never-Boris" Cleggite? Is this just something you've made up ?
Yes. The Lib Dem wing of the Tories.
Sorry - I wasn't aware the Conservative Party had a "Lib Dem" wing - presumably any MPs in that wing would be delighted by the advance of the real Liberal Democrats in July.
Who is one of this "Lib Dem" wing please as a point of reference?
I'm not being entirely serious, but my point was that:
- Boris Johnson's legacy fundamentally changed the orientation of the country - The Labour government has accepted this and is consolidating it by "making Brexit work" - The type of Tory who was more comfortable in the coalition is among the last to come to terms with it
Boris Johnson's Brexit legacy is being consolidated by Starmer. Only "never-Boris" Cleggites are still dreaming of a return to the pre-2016 era.
What on earth is a "never-Boris" Cleggite? Is this just something you've made up ?
Yes. The Lib Dem wing of the Tories.
Sorry - I wasn't aware the Conservative Party had a "Lib Dem" wing - presumably any MPs in that wing would be delighted by the advance of the real Liberal Democrats in July.
Who is one of this "Lib Dem" wing please as a point of reference?
Do you REALLY want to "debate" more low-level sophistry from PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief?
WHY is my PB feed now sorted the WRONG way, that is with earliests posts on this thread at the top, and the newest on the bottom?
Is it something I did on my humble pc? Maybe some techie techetry beyond my simple ken (and barbie)!
No it's not you, it's the same for everyone. Not seen an explanation or how difficult it would be to switch it back but I assume it's a new Vanilla 'feature'.
WHY is my PB feed now sorted the WRONG way, that is with earliests posts on this thread at the top, and the newest on the bottom?
Is it something I did on my humble pc? Maybe some techie techetry beyond my simple ken (and barbie)!
No it's not you, it's the same for everyone. Not seen an explanation or how difficult it would be to switch it back but I assume it's a new Vanilla 'feature'.
I think it's a Vanilla fault and until they fix it, we're stuck with it.
The information that I find most interesting is that Reform is now no more pro Brexit than the Conservative party. My observation is that the Reform party is morphing in the same way that the right wing parties have done in EC. Control of immigration is now seen as key and the single market is no longer a big issue. In the new Reform party Nigel Farage is looking more and more dated and a new generation will come to the fore.
The party most threatened by Reform is now Labour and not the Tories. It is hard to know why Keir Starmer approval rating is dropping so fast but my gut feeling is that young white working class men are the biggest movers.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I do think the Reform leadership and the membership/voters are in two different places and that divergence is likely to grow. The anti-immigration schtick holds them together for now but while Farage and Tice are small-state Thatcherites who would love to see tax cuts, the average Reform voter (especially in Labour constituencies) is more likely to support Johnson's "levelling up" agenda with the promise of money and resources for the north and midlands.
The betrayal of the Sunak Conservatives with the cancellation of HS2 and the scrapping of most of the Johnson programme will take a long time to be forgotten but instead the Reform voters will be looking to Labour to deliver both on the immigration question and on additional spending in WWC areas.
The question is whether Reform is more in the mood of Alternative for Germany or in fact more of a Wagenknecht-style movement. I think it may have been the former but may become the latter and that's the big threat for Labour.
Despite regaining the Red Wall seats, Labour’s position is far weaker in them than it was pre 2017. Added to which, a recent poll showed 25% of Labour voters would consider voting Reform, compared to 6% Conservative. A modest fall in Labour support, combined with Conservatives voting tactically, could see quite a few such seats going Reform.
Starmer is losing the social media battle and his supporters seem rattled. Lineker might just be an ex football player but he has 8 million followers on X and one of the key Labour influencers. When he suggests he might stop posting that is a big deal. I am looking for ways to take a bet on Reform even for the next Scottish election.
As some of you may know my father was a Lib Dem candidate in Aberdeen when I was young and they have got the vast majority of my votes. I am intrigued how quiet they are at the moment. Expect them to pick up the baton on Europe if Starmer drops it. Otherwise the Lib Dems will I believe focus on consolidation in the seats they won and keeping their heads down.
The Tories are the wild card. I personally cant see them getting back into power on their own any time soon. They risk watching their voters slowly die off with no new blood coming in to replace them.
Up here in Scotland the SNP are another wild card. They are all over the place. Humza is a disaster outside of Parkhead. Swinney is out of his depth. No idea what happens next.
All in all we are heading for one of the most volatile parliaments ever which as any trader will tell you is where you make money. The country may be in deep *** but maybe we can improve our pensions.
WHY is my PB feed now sorted the WRONG way, that is with earliests posts on this thread at the top, and the newest on the bottom?
Is it something I did on my humble pc? Maybe some techie techetry beyond my simple ken (and barbie)!
No it's not you, it's the same for everyone. Not seen an explanation or how difficult it would be to switch it back but I assume it's a new Vanilla 'feature'.
We did have an explanation this morning from TSE. There was an automatic Vanilla update that included resetting preferences to this setting. (It used to be like this a number of years ago).
The information that I find most interesting is that Reform is now no more pro Brexit than the Conservative party. My observation is that the Reform party is morphing in the same way that the right wing parties have done in EC. Control of immigration is now seen as key and the single market is no longer a big issue. In the new Reform party Nigel Farage is looking more and more dated and a new generation will come to the fore.
The party most threatened by Reform is now Labour and not the Tories. It is hard to know why Keir Starmer approval rating is dropping so fast but my gut feeling is that young white working class men are the biggest movers.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I do think the Reform leadership and the membership/voters are in two different places and that divergence is likely to grow. The anti-immigration schtick holds them together for now but while Farage and Tice are small-state Thatcherites who would love to see tax cuts, the average Reform voter (especially in Labour constituencies) is more likely to support Johnson's "levelling up" agenda with the promise of money and resources for the north and midlands.
The betrayal of the Sunak Conservatives with the cancellation of HS2 and the scrapping of most of the Johnson programme will take a long time to be forgotten but instead the Reform voters will be looking to Labour to deliver both on the immigration question and on additional spending in WWC areas.
The question is whether Reform is more in the mood of Alternative for Germany or in fact more of a Wagenknecht-style movement. I think it may have been the former but may become the latter and that's the big threat for Labour.
Despite regaining the Red Wall seats, Labour’s position is far weaker in them than it was pre 2017. Added to which, a recent poll showed 25% of Labour voters would consider voting Reform, compared to 6% Conservative. A modest fall in Labour support, combined with Conservatives voting tactically, could see quite a few such seats going Reform.
Starmer is losing the social media battle and his supporters seem rattled. Lineker might just be an ex football player but he has 8 million followers on X and one of the key Labour influencers. When he suggests he might stop posting that is a big deal. I am looking for ways to take a bet on Reform even for the next Scottish election.
It's going to be amusing watching luvvies like Lineker and Vorders slowly turning on the Labour government and/or just disappearing from social media...
Banning smoking in beer gardens seems pretty spiteful.
Can we compromise and just ban Farage?
Could people just mind their own damn business and go inside the pub where they've already banned ciggies if a whiff of it offends them that much?
I'm not in favour of banning smoking outside even though vit can be annoying when someone is smokes next to you outside at a pub while you are eating, but comments like that are likely to make me start to favour a ban. I mean really we should be forced to go inside on a sunny day because you want to smoke next to someone eating.. Talk about selfish.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
I’m surprised the oppose is that high combined . And it’s not clear is this just smoking or will that include vaping.
I still have the odd cigarette and vape but drink little . So I’m getting irritated by this obsession with banning everything . The constant lecturing on what to eat , the pathetic and failed war on drugs , the list goes on .
I'm fairly ambivalent on this. I've never been a smoker and I do think the outlawing of smoking in indoor public spaces was a huge step forward and of course banning smoking on trains and tubes a significant positive.
There's an attitude surrounding public health education and information which didn't exist in the 1970s and 1980s. Whether it's the propaganda deriding the so called "nanny state" or something else I don't know. There's a sharpness around notions of personal freedom which didn't exist before either but even Thatcher argued with freedom came personal responsibility which included awareness of the consequences of your own personal lifestyle decisions on your family and community.
A reminder that thirty days from now, that figure will reset to zero and stay there for good, bringing an end to coal burning for mass power in the UK.
Genuinely landmark moment.
Does that include imported electricity?
Does 'coal burning for mass power in the UK' include imported electricity?
Gee, well...
More seriously I think most of our imports are from Norway (hydro) and France (wind and nuclear) when they have a surplus, so I'm guessing very little of our imports are coal fired anyway.
It all depends on how one looks at it, given how interconnected the UK/EU now are. We currently are quite heavy net importers, as government policy has been to close down dispatchable power and replace it with wind/solar when it's available and imports when it isn't.
Looking at the EU as a whole it would be a lot better for the environment to have kept Radcliffe going flat out and turned off one of the German lignite plants instead, but as usual our policy is to offshore all the as many of our carbon emissions as possible and then pretend we've gone green.
Point of order: the Channel Interconnectors can't carry that much power, and are often maxed out. And at the times they are maxed out, France is usually exporting to Germany too, so it's going to take a pretty strange set of circumstances for German lignite power to make it to the UK.
With that said... when Viking Link goes live later this year (I'm assuming it's still on for later this year, but haven't checked), then there will be a much closer link between the UK and Germany grids, given it goes via Denmark. Now, most of the time, it will carry Danish off shore wind electricity, but it does - at least theoretically - allow power from German brown coal to potentially make it to the UK.
It's more a second order effect, but that doesn't make it any less real. Effectively if we kept Ratcliffe online, and consequently didn't import as much from France, their surplus could go to Germany in place of some of the lignite generation. System wide, that's much better than closing Ratcliffe whilst the Germans run their lignite plants flat out all winter to compensate for their (completely mental) decision to close all their nuclear plants virtually overnight.
It's also worth noting that the UK grid is still being propped up by what's effectively a coal power station in the form of Drax, except we're cutting down virgin forest in the US and burning it in Drax instead of coal, because we're insane (if not as insane as the Germans). Running Drax on coal would be cheaper, and have a smaller carbon footprint, but we burn wood in it because Ed Miliband was too stupid to understand this, and no one since has been brave enough to point out the reality.
WHY is my PB feed now sorted the WRONG way, that is with earliests posts on this thread at the top, and the newest on the bottom?
Is it something I did on my humble pc? Maybe some techie techetry beyond my simple ken (and barbie)!
No it's not you, it's the same for everyone. Not seen an explanation or how difficult it would be to switch it back but I assume it's a new Vanilla 'feature'.
We did have an explanation this morning from TSE. There was an automatic Vanilla update that included resetting preferences to this setting. (It used to be like this a number of years ago).
The problem is, it relegates the thread header to an afterthought that has to be found on the main site before switching back to Vanilla. It seems a shame after all TSE's hard work (for which, much thanks).
I'm not a smoker, and indeed I hate smoking, but I don't agree with it being banned in pub gardens.
I didn't even really agree with it being banned in pubs.
Smoking being banned in pubs was awesome, for every man who didn’t smoke but wanted to be able to plausibly deny to his wife that he stopped for a quick pint or two at the pub across the road on his way home.
The information that I find most interesting is that Reform is now no more pro Brexit than the Conservative party. My observation is that the Reform party is morphing in the same way that the right wing parties have done in EC. Control of immigration is now seen as key and the single market is no longer a big issue. In the new Reform party Nigel Farage is looking more and more dated and a new generation will come to the fore.
The party most threatened by Reform is now Labour and not the Tories. It is hard to know why Keir Starmer approval rating is dropping so fast but my gut feeling is that young white working class men are the biggest movers.
I think Starmer is quite like Theresa May in that he only has one mode. Remember her Downing Street speech after GE17 where she talked like she'd just won a landslide?
He intends to govern like this is the start of a 1,000 year reich.
The information that I find most interesting is that Reform is now no more pro Brexit than the Conservative party. My observation is that the Reform party is morphing in the same way that the right wing parties have done in EC. Control of immigration is now seen as key and the single market is no longer a big issue. In the new Reform party Nigel Farage is looking more and more dated and a new generation will come to the fore.
The party most threatened by Reform is now Labour and not the Tories. It is hard to know why Keir Starmer approval rating is dropping so fast but my gut feeling is that young white working class men are the biggest movers.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I do think the Reform leadership and the membership/voters are in two different places and that divergence is likely to grow. The anti-immigration schtick holds them together for now but while Farage and Tice are small-state Thatcherites who would love to see tax cuts, the average Reform voter (especially in Labour constituencies) is more likely to support Johnson's "levelling up" agenda with the promise of money and resources for the north and midlands.
The betrayal of the Sunak Conservatives with the cancellation of HS2 and the scrapping of most of the Johnson programme will take a long time to be forgotten but instead the Reform voters will be looking to Labour to deliver both on the immigration question and on additional spending in WWC areas.
The question is whether Reform is more in the mood of Alternative for Germany or in fact more of a Wagenknecht-style movement. I think it may have been the former but may become the latter and that's the big threat for Labour.
Despite regaining the Red Wall seats, Labour’s position is far weaker in them than it was pre 2017. Added to which, a recent poll showed 25% of Labour voters would consider voting Reform, compared to 6% Conservative. A modest fall in Labour support, combined with Conservatives voting tactically, could see quite a few such seats going Reform.
Starmer is losing the social media battle and his supporters seem rattled. Lineker might just be an ex football player but he has 8 million followers on X and one of the key Labour influencers. When he suggests he might stop posting that is a big deal. I am looking for ways to take a bet on Reform even for the next Scottish election.
It's going to be amusing watching luvvies like Lineker and Vorders slowly turning on the Labour government and/or just disappearing from social media...
Same with centrist dad losers like Led by Donkeys. They can’t stalk Liz Truss forever for likes and retweets. They claim to hold truth to power. Let’s see.
The information that I find most interesting is that Reform is now no more pro Brexit than the Conservative party. My observation is that the Reform party is morphing in the same way that the right wing parties have done in EC. Control of immigration is now seen as key and the single market is no longer a big issue. In the new Reform party Nigel Farage is looking more and more dated and a new generation will come to the fore.
The party most threatened by Reform is now Labour and not the Tories. It is hard to know why Keir Starmer approval rating is dropping so fast but my gut feeling is that young white working class men are the biggest movers.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I do think the Reform leadership and the membership/voters are in two different places and that divergence is likely to grow. The anti-immigration schtick holds them together for now but while Farage and Tice are small-state Thatcherites who would love to see tax cuts, the average Reform voter (especially in Labour constituencies) is more likely to support Johnson's "levelling up" agenda with the promise of money and resources for the north and midlands.
The betrayal of the Sunak Conservatives with the cancellation of HS2 and the scrapping of most of the Johnson programme will take a long time to be forgotten but instead the Reform voters will be looking to Labour to deliver both on the immigration question and on additional spending in WWC areas.
The question is whether Reform is more in the mood of Alternative for Germany or in fact more of a Wagenknecht-style movement. I think it may have been the former but may become the latter and that's the big threat for Labour.
Despite regaining the Red Wall seats, Labour’s position is far weaker in them than it was pre 2017. Added to which, a recent poll showed 25% of Labour voters would consider voting Reform, compared to 6% Conservative. A modest fall in Labour support, combined with Conservatives voting tactically, could see quite a few such seats going Reform.
Starmer is losing the social media battle and his supporters seem rattled. Lineker might just be an ex football player but he has 8 million followers on X and one of the key Labour influencers. When he suggests he might stop posting that is a big deal. I am looking for ways to take a bet on Reform even for the next Scottish election.
It's going to be amusing watching luvvies like Lineker and Vorders slowly turning on the Labour government and/or just disappearing from social media...
Same with centrist dad losers like Led by Donkeys. They can’t stalk Liz Truss forever for likes and retweets. They claim to hold truth to power. Let’s see.
Centrist Dads wouldn't do what they do.
They're left-wing activists cosplaying as moderates.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
I’m surprised the oppose is that high combined . And it’s not clear is this just smoking or will that include vaping.
I still have the odd cigarette and vape but drink little . So I’m getting irritated by this obsession with banning everything . The constant lecturing on what to eat , the pathetic and failed war on drugs , the list goes on .
I'm fairly ambivalent on this. I've never been a smoker and I do think the outlawing of smoking in indoor public spaces was a huge step forward and of course banning smoking on trains and tubes a significant positive.
There's an attitude surrounding public health education and information which didn't exist in the 1970s and 1980s. Whether it's the propaganda deriding the so called "nanny state" or something else I don't know. There's a sharpness around notions of personal freedom which didn't exist before either but even Thatcher argued with freedom came personal responsibility which included awareness of the consequences of your own personal lifestyle decisions on your family and community.
It’s the civil service seeing how much they got away with making people ‘comply’ during the pandemic, and trying to see how far they can keep pushing in the same direction.
As you travel up the East Midlands Railway line to Nottingham or Sheffield you pass Ratcliffe-on-Soar public station which I believe is the last coal burning power station. The vast site could be redeveloped as a significant residential redevelopment (I don't know).
It's worth mentioning to @HYUFD that having told us from 2019 onwards the only opinions that mattered were those of LEAVE-voting Conservatives, it's worth noting eight weeks ago today there was a reset and presumably for the new Government the opinions of the rump of Conservative voters are immaterial - it's the Labour vote which will matter most to them and Government policies may or may not reflect that but that's how politics works.
Interesting to note @TOPPING's comments this morning. I don't "get" Trump, Farage or Johnson in that I struggle to understand how anyone with a functioning brain cell could support any of them but the fact is they do. Like most snake oil salesmen they say what they believe their audience wants to hear and as long as they don't face a 100% hostile crowd they can get away with that. That's the power of the echo chamber.
As I mentioned once before, it is rather sad that when they built the Ratcliffe on Soar power station they destroyed most of the site of one of the most important Roman towns in the Midlands. It is only in the last couple of decades that we have found the few remains of it around the edges.
WHY is my PB feed now sorted the WRONG way, that is with earliests posts on this thread at the top, and the newest on the bottom?
Is it something I did on my humble pc? Maybe some techie techetry beyond my simple ken (and barbie)!
You broke it for you and for everyone else. Never mind Barbie, you know how a lot of high ranking Japanese officers chose to purge their guilt after Oppenheimer's little surprise?
A reminder that thirty days from now, that figure will reset to zero and stay there for good, bringing an end to coal burning for mass power in the UK.
Genuinely landmark moment.
Does that include imported electricity?
Does 'coal burning for mass power in the UK' include imported electricity?
Gee, well...
More seriously I think most of our imports are from Norway (hydro) and France (wind and nuclear) when they have a surplus, so I'm guessing very little of our imports are coal fired anyway.
It all depends on how one looks at it, given how interconnected the UK/EU now are. We currently are quite heavy net importers, as government policy has been to close down dispatchable power and replace it with wind/solar when it's available and imports when it isn't.
Looking at the EU as a whole it would be a lot better for the environment to have kept Radcliffe going flat out and turned off one of the German lignite plants instead, but as usual our policy is to offshore all the as many of our carbon emissions as possible and then pretend we've gone green.
With that said... when Viking Link goes live later this year (I'm assuming it's still on for later this year, but haven't checked)
Shit, are we sure we want to do that?
We had trouble enough getting rid of them last time.
I'm not a smoker, and indeed I hate smoking, but I don't agree with it being banned in pub gardens.
I didn't even really agree with it being banned in pubs.
Smoking being banned in pubs was awesome, for every man who didn’t smoke but wanted to be able to plausibly deny to his wife that he stopped for a quick pint or two at the pub across the road on his way home.
Brexit is done on that poll for most Tory voters and that was who Boris focused on as he was elected PM of a Conservative majority government.
It isn't done for most Labour and LD voters as they want Starmer to start to restore free movement and dilute Brexit.
It isn't done for most Reform voters as they want an even harder Brexit than Boris had with the RN stopping the boats and a hard border in Northern Ireland
I assume that Tory voters in that poll is the 20-something percent who voted Tory in 2024, so it's unlikely that a majority of 2019 Tory voters would agree that Brexit was done.
Those that don't want an even harder Brexit as I said, blocking up the channel tunnel, razor wire on Kent beaches, naval ships in the channel, checkpoints at the Irish border and tariffs on EU imports etc but they are mainly Reform voters now not Tories
Does anyone really want to block up the Channel Tunnel? Anyone?
Rees Mogg wanted to build a wall in the English Channel
Didn't Alan Clark want to put a self-destruct mechanism in the Channel Tunnel, in case of invasion?
To be fair to the bigoted old hypochondriac, he did live 3 miles from the tunnel entrance.
I think he was right to do so - I certainly hope there's an easy way to block it up/destroy it if the worst happens. We are constantly told of the menace of Putin to the continent - are we going to wait for him to arrive at St Pancras?
The plans for the 1960s Tunnel proposal were supposed to include demolition chambers - cavities next to the tunnel that would ordinarily be empty. In time of war, an explosive charge (nuclear?) would be placed in it.
IIRC someone asked the question if such a cavity or cavities exist for the current Channel tunnel. And didn’t get an answer.
I haven't *heard* of there being such cavities - and they would have to be known about for inspections et al.
Besides, I'm unsure what the advantage of such cavities would be: opening up the tunnel to the seabed would require a hideous amount of explosives. You'd be much better stopping the pumps (water and ventilation) and cutting off the power on the Kent side.
And the tunnel entrances are fairly defensible; pity any troops that tried to come through against an army that had any kind of early warning, and especially if they have poor air inside.
The problem (at least in the historic context) isn't so much that the enemy will make the first move through the tunnel. As noted, flooding it whilst they are on their way would spoil their day.
The problem is more that if they capture the English end of it (say a paratroop raid), it allows them to move a lot of gear in to reinforce very quickly. Just flooding it won't solve that - any bunch of half competent army engineers would have it pumped out again in a day or so. You need to be able to put it out of action in a way that will take months of not years to repair - ideally by blowing a hole from it to the seabed (iirc it's not actually very deep at points).
Well, no. It would be in bad taste to have a debate about it, but she fails to float my boat. I am against miscarriages of justice in principle. Even in the case of Timothy Evans, though I find it v funny that when his family were offered a posthumous pardon their response was that he was such a complete and utter ____ that they were happy to do without.
What would England do without Joe Root constantly digging the dodgy batting lineup out the shit.
Lose even more frequently. I was thinking just now actually does Joe have a good case to be England's greatest batsmen since the Second World War era? You could maybe make a case for Ken Barrington, and cases have been made for Kevin Pietersen, Peter May and Geoffrey Boycott, but in terms of his adaptability, flexibility, and sheer longevity I see Root as the pinnacle of them all since Compton and Hutton.
Boycs and no Beefy?
Peter May was a very dreary selector, but a great batsman.
Compare and contrast the swashbuckling Petersen to paint-drying King Geoff. I don't watch cricket like I used to, but Boycs was never a Joe Root.
Anyway all real batsmen wear Brylcreem!
Botham was not a great batsman, although for the first ten years of his career he was definitely a Test-standard batsman even though he never passed the great exam of his era - a century against the Windies (highest score of 81).
I remember sitting down with my dad as a youngster to watch the Tests with commentary from Benauld and Laker and both our hearts sank when Geoff bedded in for two days.
A reminder that thirty days from now, that figure will reset to zero and stay there for good, bringing an end to coal burning for mass power in the UK.
Genuinely landmark moment.
Now we just need to get the rest of the world to follow suit.
They are too busy laughing at how stupid the UK is.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
Why is Labour so terrified of a youth mobility scheme with the EU . We have these with a host of countries .
It’s not FOM and Starmer needs to get a grip and realize many Remainers have stomached his new found Brexit zeal and held their noses to vote Labour at the last GE to ensure the Tories would get sent packing .
Remainers want more opportunities for younger people to at least have the chance to spend a few years in an EU country .
My granddaughter has just spent the last year studying at Turin University
What would England do without Joe Root constantly digging the dodgy batting lineup out the shit.
Lose even more frequently. I was thinking just now actually does Joe have a good case to be England's greatest batsmen since the Second World War era? You could maybe make a case for Ken Barrington, and cases have been made for Kevin Pietersen, Peter May and Geoffrey Boycott, but in terms of his adaptability, flexibility, and sheer longevity I see Root as the pinnacle of them all since Compton and Hutton.
Boycs and no Beefy?
Peter May was a very dreary selector, but a great batsman.
Compare and contrast the swashbuckling Petersen to paint-drying King Geoff. I don't watch cricket like I used to, but Boycs was never a Joe Root.
Anyway all real batsmen wear Brylcreem!
Botham was not a great batsman, although for the first ten years of his career he was definitely a Test-standard batsman even though he never passed the great exam of his era - a century against the Windies (highest score of 81).
I remember sitting down with my dad as a youngster to watch the Tests with commentary from Benauld and Laker and both our hearts sank when Geoff bedded in for two days.
A reminder that thirty days from now, that figure will reset to zero and stay there for good, bringing an end to coal burning for mass power in the UK.
Genuinely landmark moment.
Now we just need to get the rest of the world to follow suit.
They are too busy laughing at how stupid the UK is.
They are too busy working in the businesses that have left the UK because they couldn't afford the leccy.
Why is Labour so terrified of a youth mobility scheme with the EU . We have these with a host of countries .
When the EU refused financial services passporting for the City but approved it for New York they said it was because London was too big and too close. Perhaps this sort of logic applies here too.
Not particularly. The main issue is a lack of direct evidence. No bloody knife in hand standing over a dead baby. Lots of very ill children died, there were lots of issues on the ward. She might have killed kids. I don't know either way, but it's too facile to suggest people are only interested/making noises because she is a relatively attractive blond woman.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
When you have a public health service, the health of others is your business because it affects the quality of healthcare you receive and the amount of tax you pay. As we discussed earlier; spreadsheet accounting isn't sufficient - the UK would be a more prosperous and healthier country without smokers, and therefore better for everyone.
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
On smoking in pub gardens, I'd have thought it sensible to leave it to pub landlords to choose, which I guess they already can. If they want non-smoking outside spaces (for example, because their garden is mainly people dining) then that's fine. That's pretty much how cafes and restaurants with outside seating operate around my way. Conversely, if pubs want to allow smoking that's fine too. Customers could choose elsewhere if they don't like it.
Banning smoking in beer gardens seems pretty spiteful.
Can we compromise and just ban Farage?
Could people just mind their own damn business and go inside the pub where they've already banned ciggies if a whiff of it offends them that much?
I'm not in favour of banning smoking outside even though vit can be annoying when someone is smokes next to you outside at a pub while you are eating, but comments like that are likely to make me start to favour a ban. I mean really we should be forced to go inside on a sunny day because you want to smoke next to someone eating.. Talk about selfish.
FFS, what next , fat people not allowed to sit next to you in beer garden , ban wheelchairs, no children allowed. This lot are heading to be worse than the gestapo and the blatant lie that it is to help the NHS is absolute pish as no-one will think , I cannot smoke in the beer garden once or twice a year so I better just give up smoking. Bunch of lying chancers who want to imitate Putin way of governing.
Why is Labour so terrified of a youth mobility scheme with the EU . We have these with a host of countries .
It’s not FOM and Starmer needs to get a grip and realize many Remainers have stomached his new found Brexit zeal and held their noses to vote Labour at the last GE to ensure the Tories would get sent packing .
Remainers want more opportunities for younger people to at least have the chance to spend a few years in an EU country .
My granddaughter has just spent the last year studying at Turin University
I'm currently on holiday, but foolishly checking the odd email. Had one from a name I vaguely recalled but couldn't place about meeting on Monday, then recalled she is an exchange student coming to work for me for 13 weeks... Those student exchanges are still happening. The EU tried to play us over Erasmus and the last government said no thanks. That's all.
Why is Labour so terrified of a youth mobility scheme with the EU . We have these with a host of countries .
When the EU refused financial services passporting for the City but approved it for New York they said it was because London was too big and too close. Perhaps this sort of logic applies here too.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too. This isn't government for the old anymore.
Read the data or read the data not: there is no "there will be"
18-24 has the strongest opposition to the ban. Smoking is cool and they are immortal.
No it doesn't. Indeed they have the lowest rate of Strong opposition.
Lowest rate of strong support, by a much wider margin.
For the youngest adults, smoking is basically something that other people did in the past. It's basically too expensive and difficult to start. I suspect that smoking barely happens in places where they gaver to cavort to the latest beats.
And this is a Good Thing.
But the general principle- that we no longer have a government in hock to people who want to go back to the 1970s, when they still had their youth and hair and girlfriends who would do anything for Milky Bar- is sound.
I read that the weekend strikes by ASLEF on LNER have been called off, as the dispute has been settled.
It's amazing how effective constructive talks (as well as sensible pay offers) are in settling industrial disputes. I think all the disputes inherited by Labour have now been settled, though I may be wrong.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
When you have a public health service, the health of others is your business because it affects the quality of healthcare you receive and the amount of tax you pay. As we discussed earlier; spreadsheet accounting isn't sufficient - the UK would be a more prosperous and healthier country without smokers, and therefore better for everyone.
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
Do it in your own garden and stop wanting to ruin the rest of the population's day you selfish arsehole. You are not forced to sit next to them and any halfwit talking about beer gardens in Scotland is obviously a loony, at best you are talking twice a year and then only if you are stupid enough to sit next to a smoker. Is there anything you don't want banned or restricted. You must be a laugh a minute down the pub.
When you survey people on issues they don't always mean what they say. So when most people say "Brexit isn't done", they actually mean "Brexit is still a problem". When they say smoking should be banned in beer gardens they actually mean "I don't smoke and I wish others didn't smoke next to me either".
I read that the weekend strikes by ASLEF on LNER have been called off, as the dispute has been settled.
It's amazing how effective constructive talks (as well as sensible pay offers) are in settling industrial disputes. I think all the disputes inherited by Labour have now been settled, though I may be wrong.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too. This isn't government for the old anymore.
Read the data or read the data not: there is no "there will be"
18-24 has the strongest opposition to the ban. Smoking is cool and they are immortal.
No it doesn't. Indeed they have the lowest rate of Strong opposition.
Lowest rate of strong support, by a much wider margin.
For the youngest adults, smoking is basically something that other people did in the past. It's basically too expensive and difficult to start. I suspect that smoking barely happens in places where they gaver to cavort to the latest beats.
And this is a Good Thing.
But the general principle- that we no longer have a government in hock to people who want to go back to the 1970s, when they still had their youth and hair and girlfriends who would do anything for Milky Bar- is sound.
Disappointed that the cool young protagonists in alien Romulus are portrayed coolly smoking cigarettes. It is not credible that a payment from Big Tobacco is not behind this.
Not particularly. The main issue is a lack of direct evidence. No bloody knife in hand standing over a dead baby. Lots of very ill children died, there were lots of issues on the ward. She might have killed kids. I don't know either way, but it's too facile to suggest people are only interested/making noises because she is a relatively attractive blond woman.
The attacks on the verdicts I have seen lack the crucial element needed. There is a series of convictions by juries on the evidence and a 58 page Court of Appeal judgement.
To attack the verdicts, critics need to be able to frame with precision exactly the grounds on which they think the verdicts are unsafe, and do this in relation to the evidence base as it emerged over several months, and show how these grounds go to the root of the matter, which is the evidence of guilt or innocence. This is a hard and expert task.
Nothing I have seen so far gets close to this.
In practice, though not in law, they need also to explain with relation to expert evidence why the defence did not attempt to adduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
From para 5 of the Court of Appeal:
Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf
Banning smoking in beer gardens seems pretty spiteful.
Can we compromise and just ban Farage?
Could people just mind their own damn business and go inside the pub where they've already banned ciggies if a whiff of it offends them that much?
I'm not in favour of banning smoking outside even though vit can be annoying when someone is smokes next to you outside at a pub while you are eating, but comments like that are likely to make me start to favour a ban. I mean really we should be forced to go inside on a sunny day because you want to smoke next to someone eating.. Talk about selfish.
FFS, what next , fat people not allowed to sit next to you in beer garden , ban wheelchairs, no children allowed. This lot are heading to be worse than the gestapo and the blatant lie that it is to help the NHS is absolute pish as no-one will think , I cannot smoke in the beer garden once or twice a year so I better just give up smoking. Bunch of lying chancers who want to imitate Putin way of governing.
The libertarian mantra is "Freedom stops at other guy's nose." That's relevant here.
Nobody wants to be the one who says to smokers "you smell horrible and make everything around you smell horrible." But the apparent popularity of this plan says a lot about what people are thinking.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
When you have a public health service, the health of others is your business because it affects the quality of healthcare you receive and the amount of tax you pay. As we discussed earlier; spreadsheet accounting isn't sufficient - the UK would be a more prosperous and healthier country without smokers, and therefore better for everyone.
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
Do it in your own garden and stop wanting to ruin the rest of the population's day you selfish arsehole. You are not forced to sit next to them and any halfwit talking about beer gardens in Scotland is obviously a loony, at best you are talking twice a year and then only if you are stupid enough to sit next to a smoker. Is there anything you don't want banned or restricted. You must be a laugh a minute down the pub.
Given a large majority don't smoke, it's the smoker who is the selfish arsehole.
(and we get some beautiful weather on the east coast - only 53mm so far in August, compared with 215mm (lol) in Glasgow)
I read that the weekend strikes by ASLEF on LNER have been called off, as the dispute has been settled.
It's amazing how effective constructive talks (as well as sensible pay offers) are in settling industrial disputes. I think all the disputes inherited by Labour have now been settled, though I may be wrong.
Not particularly. The main issue is a lack of direct evidence. No bloody knife in hand standing over a dead baby. Lots of very ill children died, there were lots of issues on the ward. She might have killed kids. I don't know either way, but it's too facile to suggest people are only interested/making noises because she is a relatively attractive blond woman.
The attacks on the verdicts I have seen lack the crucial element needed. There is a series of convictions by juries on the evidence and a 58 page Court of Appeal judgement.
To attack the verdicts, critics need to be able to frame with precision exactly the grounds on which they think the verdicts are unsafe, and do this in relation to the evidence base as it emerged over several months, and show how these grounds go to the root of the matter, which is the evidence of guilt or innocence. This is a hard and expert task.
Nothing I have seen so far gets close to this.
In practice, though not in law, they need also to explain with relation to expert evidence why the defence did not attempt to adduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
From para 5 of the Court of Appeal:
Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf
Your arguments apply equally to every single miscarriage of justice which has ever happened, including the near 1,000 post office convictions. Which sort of undermines them a bit.
I read that the weekend strikes by ASLEF on LNER have been called off, as the dispute has been settled.
It's amazing how effective constructive talks (as well as sensible pay offers) are in settling industrial disputes. I think all the disputes inherited by Labour have now been settled, though I may be wrong.
Yep. Excellent start by Louise Haigh.
Along with Phillipson, she is one to watch for next leader. A good communicator.
Boris Johnson's Brexit legacy is being consolidated by Starmer. Only "never-Boris" Cleggites are still dreaming of a return to the pre-2016 era.
And Clegg has left the field of combat in favour of Facebook's many many dollars.
It’s quite amazing that there’s been nothing from Clegg this week, as Zuckerberg is under huge pressure regarding his relationship with the US government on what’s clearly a 1st Amendment violation.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
Not surprising when you consider 20% wanted to permanently ban nightclubs after the pandemic ended.
Covid/lockdown showed there are a lot of miserable, puritan British people who are going to love miserable, puritan Starmer.
I think people can be depressingly puritanical on paper, but I’m not entirely sure I value the results of such polling. Oftentimes I think it is an instinctual response of “do you like/would you want to do X or not?” rather than the particular proposition.
Hence, a lot of people who wouldn’t set foot in a nightclub would instinctually think “ban it for all I care”, and a lot of non-smokers would say “I don’t mind if they ban smoking in beer gardens” but as a measure of support for the actual policy, I’m still not entirely convinced.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
When you have a public health service, the health of others is your business because it affects the quality of healthcare you receive and the amount of tax you pay. As we discussed earlier; spreadsheet accounting isn't sufficient - the UK would be a more prosperous and healthier country without smokers, and therefore better for everyone.
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
I doubt if your life is spoiled more than marginally by other peoples’ smoking. You just enjoy poking people in the eye for doing something you dislike.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
When you have a public health service, the health of others is your business because it affects the quality of healthcare you receive and the amount of tax you pay. As we discussed earlier; spreadsheet accounting isn't sufficient - the UK would be a more prosperous and healthier country without smokers, and therefore better for everyone.
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
The fact you think it's OK to make something illegal because a smell of it has annoyed you is beneath contempt.
Brexit is done on that poll for most Tory voters and that was who Boris focused on as he was elected PM of a Conservative majority government.
It isn't done for most Labour and LD voters as they want Starmer to start to restore free movement and dilute Brexit.
It isn't done for most Reform voters as they want an even harder Brexit than Boris had with the RN stopping the boats and a hard border in Northern Ireland
I assume that Tory voters in that poll is the 20-something percent who voted Tory in 2024, so it's unlikely that a majority of 2019 Tory voters would agree that Brexit was done.
Those that don't want an even harder Brexit as I said, blocking up the channel tunnel, razor wire on Kent beaches, naval ships in the channel, checkpoints at the Irish border and tariffs on EU imports etc but they are mainly Reform voters now not Tories
Does anyone really want to block up the Channel Tunnel? Anyone?
Rees Mogg wanted to build a wall in the English Channel
Didn't Alan Clark want to put a self-destruct mechanism in the Channel Tunnel, in case of invasion?
To be fair to the bigoted old hypochondriac, he did live 3 miles from the tunnel entrance.
I think he was right to do so - I certainly hope there's an easy way to block it up/destroy it if the worst happens. We are constantly told of the menace of Putin to the continent - are we going to wait for him to arrive at St Pancras?
The plans for the 1960s Tunnel proposal were supposed to include demolition chambers - cavities next to the tunnel that would ordinarily be empty. In time of war, an explosive charge (nuclear?) would be placed in it.
IIRC someone asked the question if such a cavity or cavities exist for the current Channel tunnel. And didn’t get an answer.
I haven't *heard* of there being such cavities - and they would have to be known about for inspections et al.
Besides, I'm unsure what the advantage of such cavities would be: opening up the tunnel to the seabed would require a hideous amount of explosives. You'd be much better stopping the pumps (water and ventilation) and cutting off the power on the Kent side.
And the tunnel entrances are fairly defensible; pity any troops that tried to come through against an army that had any kind of early warning, and especially if they have poor air inside.
The problem (at least in the historic context) isn't so much that the enemy will make the first move through the tunnel. As noted, flooding it whilst they are on their way would spoil their day.
The problem is more that if they capture the English end of it (say a paratroop raid), it allows them to move a lot of gear in to reinforce very quickly. Just flooding it won't solve that - any bunch of half competent army engineers would have it pumped out again in a day or so. You need to be able to put it out of action in a way that will take months of not years to repair - ideally by blowing a hole from it to the seabed (iirc it's not actually very deep at points).
I think you underestimate the amount of explosive that would be required to "blow(ing) a hole from it to the seabed". It isn't that easy. On average, it is about 50 metres below the seabed. And you need an explosion that would crater upwards, not sideways or downwards.
What would you want to do?
1) Prevent trains coming through; the easiest and fastest way to get troops and equipment across. 2) In the absence of trains, prevent vehicles coming through. 3) In the absence of vehicles, prevent troops coming through.
Bringing down a few hundred metres of tunnel lining won't fox good army engineers for more than a few days before they can enable 2) and 3).
I'd actually say the best way would be fire then flood; pump gasoline down it, then set it on fire to ruin *all* the infrastructure down there and damage the linings. Then allow it to flood.
It's an interesting problem. But I'm unconvinced that mass explosives is the answer.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
When you have a public health service, the health of others is your business because it affects the quality of healthcare you receive and the amount of tax you pay. As we discussed earlier; spreadsheet accounting isn't sufficient - the UK would be a more prosperous and healthier country without smokers, and therefore better for everyone.
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
The fact you think it's OK to make something illegal because a smell of it has annoyed you is beneath contempt.
Not particularly. The main issue is a lack of direct evidence. No bloody knife in hand standing over a dead baby. Lots of very ill children died, there were lots of issues on the ward. She might have killed kids. I don't know either way, but it's too facile to suggest people are only interested/making noises because she is a relatively attractive blond woman.
The attacks on the verdicts I have seen lack the crucial element needed. There is a series of convictions by juries on the evidence and a 58 page Court of Appeal judgement.
To attack the verdicts, critics need to be able to frame with precision exactly the grounds on which they think the verdicts are unsafe, and do this in relation to the evidence base as it emerged over several months, and show how these grounds go to the root of the matter, which is the evidence of guilt or innocence. This is a hard and expert task.
Nothing I have seen so far gets close to this.
In practice, though not in law, they need also to explain with relation to expert evidence why the defence did not attempt to adduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
From para 5 of the Court of Appeal:
Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf
Your arguments apply equally to every single miscarriage of justice which has ever happened, including the near 1,000 post office convictions. Which sort of undermines them a bit.
This perfectly reasonable point is noted. However, the point applies to every single contested conviction. It applies here, but it has no special application in this case, and doesn't deal with the point that generalised dust throwing is no substitute for precise grounds for thinking a conviction is doubtful.
For myself I have an open mind but have not yet seen anything which seems to undermine in a precise way the safety of the verdicts.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
Not surprising when you consider 20% wanted to permanently ban nightclubs after the pandemic ended.
Covid/lockdown showed there are a lot of miserable, puritan British people who are going to love miserable, puritan Starmer.
I think people can be depressingly puritanical on paper, but I’m not entirely sure I value the results of such polling. Oftentimes I think it is an instinctual response of “do you like/would you want to do X or not?” rather than the particular proposition.
Hence, a lot of people who wouldn’t set foot in a nightclub would instinctually think “ban it for all I care”, and a lot of non-smokers would say “I don’t mind if they ban smoking in beer gardens” but as a measure of support for the actual policy, I’m still not entirely convinced.
How much support is there for the continuing right to smoke in the baby's bedroom? It does seem odd that the pub garden might be off limits but not the playroom.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
There will be a huge generational split too.
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
I'm a non-smoker - I can count the cigarettes I've had on my fingers, but I don't see why anyone but a complete cretin would resent a group that pays exorbitant tax, goes and indulges their habit in the freezing cold, then kindly pops off about a decade earlier than anyone else, doesn’t get dementia, doesn’t need long term social care, doesn't end up in nappies etc. etc. etc.
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
When you have a public health service, the health of others is your business because it affects the quality of healthcare you receive and the amount of tax you pay. As we discussed earlier; spreadsheet accounting isn't sufficient - the UK would be a more prosperous and healthier country without smokers, and therefore better for everyone.
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
Do it in your own garden and stop wanting to ruin the rest of the population's day you selfish arsehole. You are not forced to sit next to them and any halfwit talking about beer gardens in Scotland is obviously a loony, at best you are talking twice a year and then only if you are stupid enough to sit next to a smoker. Is there anything you don't want banned or restricted. You must be a laugh a minute down the pub.
Well I'm a never-smoker, but I've got to say if I ever head "oooopppp north" I think I'd rather enjoy a session in the pub with @malcolmg
Not particularly. The main issue is a lack of direct evidence. No bloody knife in hand standing over a dead baby. Lots of very ill children died, there were lots of issues on the ward. She might have killed kids. I don't know either way, but it's too facile to suggest people are only interested/making noises because she is a relatively attractive blond woman.
The attacks on the verdicts I have seen lack the crucial element needed. There is a series of convictions by juries on the evidence and a 58 page Court of Appeal judgement.
To attack the verdicts, critics need to be able to frame with precision exactly the grounds on which they think the verdicts are unsafe, and do this in relation to the evidence base as it emerged over several months, and show how these grounds go to the root of the matter, which is the evidence of guilt or innocence. This is a hard and expert task.
Nothing I have seen so far gets close to this.
In practice, though not in law, they need also to explain with relation to expert evidence why the defence did not attempt to adduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
From para 5 of the Court of Appeal:
Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf
Your arguments apply equally to every single miscarriage of justice which has ever happened, including the near 1,000 post office convictions. Which sort of undermines them a bit.
This perfectly reasonable point is noted. However, the point applies to every single contested conviction. It applies here, but it has no special application in this case, and doesn't deal with the point that generalised dust throwing is no substitute for precise grounds for thinking a conviction is doubtful.
For myself I have an open mind but have not yet seen anything which seems to undermine in a precise way the safety of the verdicts.
My main worry is the chart of baby deaths and who was working. It seems a slam dunk until you realise that not ALL deaths were considered as unexplained. It reminds me too much of the Meadows/ Sally Clarke case. When statistics is used to prove things, you have to be really careful - see the replication crisis in biology and psychology for instance. When stats meets the public (the jury) you need to be even more careful.
On smoking in pub gardens, I'd have thought it sensible to leave it to pub landlords to choose, which I guess they already can. If they want non-smoking outside spaces (for example, because their garden is mainly people dining) then that's fine. That's pretty much how cafes and restaurants with outside seating operate around my way. Conversely, if pubs want to allow smoking that's fine too. Customers could choose elsewhere if they don't like it.
Absolutely. The intention to ban it is ridiculous overreach
The information that I find most interesting is that Reform is now no more pro Brexit than the Conservative party. My observation is that the Reform party is morphing in the same way that the right wing parties have done in EC. Control of immigration is now seen as key and the single market is no longer a big issue. In the new Reform party Nigel Farage is looking more and more dated and a new generation will come to the fore.
The party most threatened by Reform is now Labour and not the Tories. It is hard to know why Keir Starmer approval rating is dropping so fast but my gut feeling is that young white working class men are the biggest movers.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I do think the Reform leadership and the membership/voters are in two different places and that divergence is likely to grow. The anti-immigration schtick holds them together for now but while Farage and Tice are small-state Thatcherites who would love to see tax cuts, the average Reform voter (especially in Labour constituencies) is more likely to support Johnson's "levelling up" agenda with the promise of money and resources for the north and midlands.
The betrayal of the Sunak Conservatives with the cancellation of HS2 and the scrapping of most of the Johnson programme will take a long time to be forgotten but instead the Reform voters will be looking to Labour to deliver both on the immigration question and on additional spending in WWC areas.
The question is whether Reform is more in the mood of Alternative for Germany or in fact more of a Wagenknecht-style movement. I think it may have been the former but may become the latter and that's the big threat for Labour.
Despite regaining the Red Wall seats, Labour’s position is far weaker in them than it was pre 2017. Added to which, a recent poll showed 25% of Labour voters would consider voting Reform, compared to 6% Conservative. A modest fall in Labour support, combined with Conservatives voting tactically, could see quite a few such seats going Reform.
Starmer is losing the social media battle and his supporters seem rattled. Lineker might just be an ex football player but he has 8 million followers on X and one of the key Labour influencers. When he suggests he might stop posting that is a big deal. I am looking for ways to take a bet on Reform even for the next Scottish election.
As some of you may know my father was a Lib Dem candidate in Aberdeen when I was young and they have got the vast majority of my votes. I am intrigued how quiet they are at the moment. Expect them to pick up the baton on Europe if Starmer drops it. Otherwise the Lib Dems will I believe focus on consolidation in the seats they won and keeping their heads down.
The Tories are the wild card. I personally cant see them getting back into power on their own any time soon. They risk watching their voters slowly die off with no new blood coming in to replace them.
Up here in Scotland the SNP are another wild card. They are all over the place. Humza is a disaster outside of Parkhead. Swinney is out of his depth. No idea what happens next.
All in all we are heading for one of the most volatile parliaments ever which as any trader will tell you is where you make money. The country may be in deep *** but maybe we can improve our pensions.
Reform can't win without Tory support either and the tax rises and slow growth and strikes we are heading for under Labour will start to switch middle aged voters back away from Labour
Not particularly. The main issue is a lack of direct evidence. No bloody knife in hand standing over a dead baby. Lots of very ill children died, there were lots of issues on the ward. She might have killed kids. I don't know either way, but it's too facile to suggest people are only interested/making noises because she is a relatively attractive blond woman.
The attacks on the verdicts I have seen lack the crucial element needed. There is a series of convictions by juries on the evidence and a 58 page Court of Appeal judgement.
To attack the verdicts, critics need to be able to frame with precision exactly the grounds on which they think the verdicts are unsafe, and do this in relation to the evidence base as it emerged over several months, and show how these grounds go to the root of the matter, which is the evidence of guilt or innocence. This is a hard and expert task.
Nothing I have seen so far gets close to this.
In practice, though not in law, they need also to explain with relation to expert evidence why the defence did not attempt to adduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
From para 5 of the Court of Appeal:
Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf
Your arguments apply equally to every single miscarriage of justice which has ever happened, including the near 1,000 post office convictions. Which sort of undermines them a bit.
This perfectly reasonable point is noted. However, the point applies to every single contested conviction. It applies here, but it has no special application in this case, and doesn't deal with the point that generalised dust throwing is no substitute for precise grounds for thinking a conviction is doubtful.
For myself I have an open mind but have not yet seen anything which seems to undermine in a precise way the safety of the verdicts.
It's just too nerdy for this site, but for starters the evidence about natural vs artificial insulin is desperately flawed. And the failure to introduce expert evidence by the defence is incomprehensible - if nothing else you can always legitimately point out limitations in the evidence against you even if you have no positive case to make.
I think it's fair to say that smokers don't realise how much the rest of us (86%) resent them.
Not surprising when you consider 20% wanted to permanently ban nightclubs after the pandemic ended.
Covid/lockdown showed there are a lot of miserable, puritan British people who are going to love miserable, puritan Starmer.
I think people can be depressingly puritanical on paper, but I’m not entirely sure I value the results of such polling. Oftentimes I think it is an instinctual response of “do you like/would you want to do X or not?” rather than the particular proposition.
Hence, a lot of people who wouldn’t set foot in a nightclub would instinctually think “ban it for all I care”, and a lot of non-smokers would say “I don’t mind if they ban smoking in beer gardens” but as a measure of support for the actual policy, I’m still not entirely convinced.
How much support is there for the continuing right to smoke in the baby's bedroom? It does seem odd that the pub garden might be off limits but not the playroom.
Good point. I think, on balance, a blanket ban in beer gardens is too far.
But it would be good to come up with some mechanism to make it more socially acceptable for pubs to introduce their own bans. I think they would be very popular once you push past the hysterics from Reform-type people.
We laugh, but he has seemed to me to p*ss off a sizeable chunk of people in a very short space of time. I find him oddly charmless and rather prickly.
He can probably afford to p*ss people off, if he delivers meaningful results. But the jury will be out on that one for some time.
Remember, I've always said this will be a one term government, despite the landslide.
Starmer might be a one term PM, not sure Labour will be a one term government, if the polls suggest he is heading for defeat they will likely replace him with someone more Blairite like Streeting.
If they replaced him with someone more leftwing like Rayner however that Labour majority could soon go even if Labour still won most seats
Not particularly. The main issue is a lack of direct evidence. No bloody knife in hand standing over a dead baby. Lots of very ill children died, there were lots of issues on the ward. She might have killed kids. I don't know either way, but it's too facile to suggest people are only interested/making noises because she is a relatively attractive blond woman.
The attacks on the verdicts I have seen lack the crucial element needed. There is a series of convictions by juries on the evidence and a 58 page Court of Appeal judgement.
To attack the verdicts, critics need to be able to frame with precision exactly the grounds on which they think the verdicts are unsafe, and do this in relation to the evidence base as it emerged over several months, and show how these grounds go to the root of the matter, which is the evidence of guilt or innocence. This is a hard and expert task.
Nothing I have seen so far gets close to this.
In practice, though not in law, they need also to explain with relation to expert evidence why the defence did not attempt to adduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
From para 5 of the Court of Appeal:
Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf
Your arguments apply equally to every single miscarriage of justice which has ever happened, including the near 1,000 post office convictions. Which sort of undermines them a bit.
This perfectly reasonable point is noted. However, the point applies to every single contested conviction. It applies here, but it has no special application in this case, and doesn't deal with the point that generalised dust throwing is no substitute for precise grounds for thinking a conviction is doubtful.
For myself I have an open mind but have not yet seen anything which seems to undermine in a precise way the safety of the verdicts.
My main worry is the chart of baby deaths and who was working. It seems a slam dunk until you realise that not ALL deaths were considered as unexplained. It reminds me too much of the Meadows/ Sally Clarke case. When statistics is used to prove things, you have to be really careful - see the replication crisis in biology and psychology for instance. When stats meets the public (the jury) you need to be even more careful.
Perfectly interesting point as an absolute beginning. But can this be built into a truly arguable ground for the convictions being unsafe with reference to the evidence adduced by the prosecution? Did they call statistical evidence about probabilities? If so, what was it used to prove? How was the jury directed? Was it a fact in issue? Is there now evidence unavailable before? What would the additional evidence prove?
Fair questions; turning this comment into precision is the challenge. Worth noting that the defence has not (SFAIK) tried to do so. Maybe the CCRC awaits.
Deservedly ridiculed in the comments. They are desperate, and clueless.
Just checked when I last did my CV (In 2006 for my current role) - mentions of my Burger King job... Zero. And that was 4 years after leaving university !
I see loads of CVs where people refer to summer work. At least it tells you they got off their arse.
Yep. I’d much rather see someone who worked a McJob in the summer as a student, than one who did an unpaid internship at some fancy place in big city. Unless of course I’m the hiring manager for that fancy place in the big city.
We laugh, but he has seemed to me to p*ss off a sizeable chunk of people in a very short space of time. I find him oddly charmless and rather prickly.
He can probably afford to p*ss people off, if he delivers meaningful results. But the jury will be out on that one for some time.
Remember, I've always said this will be a one term government, despite the landslide.
Starmer might be a one term PM, not sure Labour will be a one term government, if the polls suggest he is heading for defeat they will likely replace him with someone more Blairite like Streeting.
If they replaced him with someone more leftwing like Rayner however that Labour majority could soon go even if Labour still won most seats
Streeting is gone at the next election. He barely hung on 2024, so 2029? No chance!
Minority view I know, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by SKS in government. Early days, of course, but his focus appears to be on reform and improved efficiency rather than courting popularity. Very different to Blair in that respect and in a good way as far as I’m concerned.
Comments
The opportunities are there
- Boris Johnson's legacy fundamentally changed the orientation of the country
- The Labour government has accepted this and is consolidating it by "making Brexit work"
- The type of Tory who was more comfortable in the coalition is among the last to come to terms with it
Edit: I'm completely wrong haha! Pretty even across all age groups. Vapers influencing the figures for young people?
It's actually consistent across all groups polled except for, like usual, Reform voters.
Proposals drawn up for consideration as part of new tobacco and vapes bill"
One of the authors of this article, along with Lucy Fisher, is Rachel Banning-Lover.
https://www.ft.com/content/f2500012-a509-4b3e-b3ee-12497f76f163
Plans have been derided as ‘mad’ and an attack on working-class culture"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/29/sue-gray-plan-ban-smoking-pub-gardens-ministers/
Starmer is losing the social media battle and his supporters seem rattled. Lineker might just be an ex football player but he has 8 million followers on X and one of the key Labour influencers. When he suggests he might stop posting that is a big deal. I am looking for ways to take a bet on Reform even for the next Scottish election.
As some of you may know my father was a Lib Dem candidate in Aberdeen when I was young and they have got the vast majority of my votes. I am intrigued how quiet they are at the moment. Expect them to pick up the baton on Europe if Starmer drops it. Otherwise the Lib Dems will I believe focus on consolidation in the seats they won and keeping their heads down.
The Tories are the wild card. I personally cant see them getting back into power on their own any time soon. They risk watching their voters slowly die off with no new blood coming in to replace them.
Up here in Scotland the SNP are another wild card. They are all over the place. Humza is a disaster outside of Parkhead.
Swinney is out of his depth. No idea what happens next.
All in all we are heading for one of the most volatile parliaments ever which as any trader will tell you is where you make money. The country may be in deep *** but maybe we can improve our pensions.
I didn't even really agree with it being banned in pubs.
18-24 has the strongest opposition to the ban. Smoking is cool and they are immortal.
There's an attitude surrounding public health education and information which didn't exist in the 1970s and 1980s. Whether it's the propaganda deriding the so called "nanny state" or something else I don't know. There's a sharpness around notions of personal freedom which didn't exist before either but even Thatcher argued with freedom came personal responsibility which included awareness of the consequences of your own personal lifestyle decisions on your family and community.
It's also worth noting that the UK grid is still being propped up by what's effectively a coal power station in the form of Drax, except we're cutting down virgin forest in the US and burning it in Drax instead of coal, because we're insane (if not as insane as the Germans). Running Drax on coal would be cheaper, and have a smaller carbon footprint, but we burn wood in it because Ed Miliband was too stupid to understand this, and no one since has been brave enough to point out the reality.
He intends to govern like this is the start of a 1,000 year reich.
They're left-wing activists cosplaying as moderates.
Just saying
We had trouble enough getting rid of them last time.
The problem is more that if they capture the English end of it (say a paratroop raid), it allows them to move a lot of gear in to reinforce very quickly. Just flooding it won't solve that - any bunch of half competent army engineers would have it pumped out again in a day or so. You need to be able to put it out of action in a way that will take months of not years to repair - ideally by blowing a hole from it to the seabed (iirc it's not actually very deep at points).
Those anti European lefties!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ErviQJYWas
Just realise that what other people do is *none of your business*. We are every bit as censorious as the Victorians these days, minus their overachieving work ethic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_scheme
There is also an altruistic element to this - death by lung disease is a terrible way to go, and you also have higher risks of heart conditions, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction...
On a personal level, smokers have ruined many a beautiful day in Scotland. They don't come around very often, and I want to sit in the sun with my pint without putting up with it (including cherry bath bomb vapes).
Those student exchanges are still happening. The EU tried to play us over Erasmus and the last government said no thanks. That's all.
https://theconversation.com/people-think-they-are-much-better-at-understanding-others-than-they-actually-are-new-research-236273
There really isn't an age or class bias to the survey. Perhaps Gen X least keen on the ban.
Old enough to be used to smoking, young enough to have not yet died of it.
And this is a Good Thing.
But the general principle- that we no longer have a government in hock to people who want to go back to the 1970s, when they still had their youth and hair and girlfriends who would do anything for Milky Bar- is sound.
It's amazing how effective constructive talks (as well as sensible pay offers) are in settling industrial disputes. I think all the disputes inherited by Labour have now been settled, though I may be wrong.
To attack the verdicts, critics need to be able to frame with precision exactly the grounds on which they think the verdicts are unsafe, and do this in relation to the evidence base as it emerged over several months, and show how these grounds go to the root of the matter, which is the evidence of guilt or innocence. This is a hard and expert task.
Nothing I have seen so far gets close to this.
In practice, though not in law, they need also to explain with relation to expert evidence why the defence did not attempt to adduce evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
From para 5 of the Court of Appeal:
Two points may be noted at the outset. First, though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their
own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant’s behalf
Nobody wants to be the one who says to smokers "you smell horrible and make everything around you smell horrible." But the apparent popularity of this plan says a lot about what people are thinking.
(and we get some beautiful weather on the east coast - only 53mm so far in August, compared with 215mm (lol) in Glasgow)
Hence, a lot of people who wouldn’t set foot in a nightclub would instinctually think “ban it for all I care”, and a lot of non-smokers would say “I don’t mind if they ban smoking in beer gardens” but as a measure of support for the actual policy, I’m still not entirely convinced.
What would you want to do?
1) Prevent trains coming through; the easiest and fastest way to get troops and equipment across.
2) In the absence of trains, prevent vehicles coming through.
3) In the absence of vehicles, prevent troops coming through.
Bringing down a few hundred metres of tunnel lining won't fox good army engineers for more than a few days before they can enable 2) and 3).
I'd actually say the best way would be fire then flood; pump gasoline down it, then set it on fire to ruin *all* the infrastructure down there and damage the linings. Then allow it to flood.
It's an interesting problem. But I'm unconvinced that mass explosives is the answer.
For myself I have an open mind but have not yet seen anything which seems to undermine in a precise way the safety of the verdicts.
Drunk Malc would be very entertaining! 😂
He can probably afford to p*ss people off, if he delivers meaningful results. But the jury will be out on that one for some time.
But it would be good to come up with some mechanism to make it more socially acceptable for pubs to introduce their own bans. I think they would be very popular once you push past the hysterics from Reform-type people.
If they replaced him with someone more leftwing like Rayner however that Labour majority could soon go even if Labour still won most seats
Fair questions; turning this comment into precision is the challenge. Worth noting that the defence has not (SFAIK) tried to do so. Maybe the CCRC awaits.
Got pilloried on here for it.