Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling analysis: LAB hopes that GRN voters will fall in li

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited October 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling analysis: LAB hopes that GRN voters will fall in line behind them in the marginals not supported by Lord A’s polling

Today’s YouGov of CON 31, LAB 34, LD 6, UKIP 17, GRN 7 highlights the need to analyse what is happening to the GRN vote and what might happen in the key battlegrounds that will decide GE15.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    First, like San Francisco!
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Rob1909 said:
    Yeah, what a sad excuse for a human being.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    How on Earth can the Lib Dems be included in more debates than UKIP when they are only the fifth most supported party in the UK? UKIP have almost triple the support.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Just as some Tories have misunderstood UKIP voters it looks like Labour are set to do the same with Green voters - they won't "see sense" and "come home" as there is "no alternative" - It not as if Labour "isn't talking to them" - they aren't even speaking the same language. It looks like the "Red Liberals" who had "nowhere else to go" - do.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Rob1909 said:
    Lovies Labour's Lost.....
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Rob1909 said:
    She is a complete waste of oxygen.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    RodCrosby said:

    Rob1909 said:
    Yeah, what a sad excuse for a human being.
    Israel supporters have no right to complain that Palestine can't be accepted as a state due to no agreed borders when they are continuing to colonise the place.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited October 2014
    Yougov

    LD's 2010 VI retention of 22% matches their 2014 lowest near the end of September.

    Today's beneficiaries of this LD generosity are:
    Labour: 32
    Cons: 15
    UKIP: 15
    Green: 14
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    Sadly true including UKIP there. What a depressing contrast today to such a promising libertarian and flat tax platform in 2010.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    RodCrosby said:

    Rob1909 said:
    Yeah, what a sad excuse for a human being.
    Hmmm - Labour's hostility to Israel has clearly nothing to do with courting their Muslim vote. It's all about principles with Miliband.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Today's Yougov shows the LD VI at 100 votes, ~90 of which came from their 2010 VI. So they are showing little appeal to switchers or DNV in 2010.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Important debate around drug policy today.The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 effectively introduced the same failed policy that the USA tried with the prohibition-the same predictable effects when you have a system with criminals in charge.
    There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
    Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html


  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @volcanopete
    "All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance."

    Emigrate?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.
    Do they ? Yet they are prepared to work to give us a referendum to choose. Kippers want the other guy to be PM.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.
    Do they ? Yet they are prepared to work to give us a referendum to choose. Kippers want the other guy to be PM.
    You can repeat this lie as much as you want, it doesn't make it true. UKIP want to do as well as they can. Whether Tweedledum or Tweedledee is PM is secondary. UKIP in power would give us a referendum far sooner than the Tories would.
  • Important debate around drug policy today.The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 effectively introduced the same failed policy that the USA tried with the prohibition-the same predictable effects when you have a system with criminals in charge.
    There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
    Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html


    In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET

    I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.

    I would introduce three new offences
    * Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
    * Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
    * Driving while under the influence of drugs

    Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.

    To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.

    That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Socrates said:

    How on Earth can the Lib Dems be included in more debates than UKIP when they are only the fifth most supported party in the UK? UKIP have almost triple the support.

    Yes, and one MP!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.
    Do they ? Yet they are prepared to work to give us a referendum to choose. Kippers want the other guy to be PM.
    That’s the trouble with a country which has an electoral system based on one side being in and the other being out, and a legislature that confirms that situation. People make statements like TGOHF’s. Socrates’s friends, if any actually get elected at the GE will be part of the Opposition; a rag bag of one large and several small parties with, apart from the Nationalists, no commonality!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    The sad demise of the Liberal Democrats continues. Down to fifth now. Will this party be represented in debates again? They seem to be slipping from serious losses to something biblical as the election approaches. I wish it was otherwise.

    I really don't like the Greens. The Labour party's refusal to live in the real world, address major issues like the deficit and to engage with the private sector rather than being almost entirely focussed on the public sector looks like hard edged realism compared to them. It is a middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them. It does not say anything good about our politics that they are on the up. It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @DavidL
    " It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make. "

    "Ministers are considering drastically cutting the main Employment and Support Allowance sickness benefit, internal documents seen by the BBC suggest"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29821696

    Yes, I see what you mean.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693
    Firewall.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Today programme going rather large on the drugs thing
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin
    Leave drugs in the hands of the criminals, "whatafrukinstroke" of genius.
    (Worked really well during "prohibition")
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Sample found:

    2010 LD Voters: 425
    2014 LD Voters: 91

    Vote reduction 78.6%

    Implies a vote share of c.5% in 2014, which mirrors most of the by election outcomes.

    Do they stand to lose hundreds of thousands in lost deposits?




  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    Important debate around drug policy today.The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 effectively introduced the same failed policy that the USA tried with the prohibition-the same predictable effects when you have a system with criminals in charge.
    There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
    Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html


    In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET

    I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.

    I would introduce three new offences
    * Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
    * Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
    * Driving while under the influence of drugs

    Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.

    To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.

    That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
    Driving under the influence of drugs is already an offence. That is your free legal advice for the morning.

    But the argument that the state does not have any legitimate interest in what people put into their bodies is specious. It is the state that has to pick up the consequences which are horrific. Are we to be free to eat contaminated food as well?

    Of course anyone rational has to recognise that the war on drugs has gone slightly less well than the war in Afghanistan (which has a record opium crop we were supposed to be getting rid of) and a major change of tactics and emphasis is called for. Some decriminalisation around the edges such as possession of cannabis may well make sense. But hard drugs kill. Far too often for the state to stand idly by.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    DavidL said:

    The sad demise of the Liberal Democrats continues. Down to fifth now. Will this party be represented in debates again? They seem to be slipping from serious losses to something biblical as the election approaches. I wish it was otherwise.

    I really don't like the Greens. The Labour party's refusal to live in the real world, address major issues like the deficit and to engage with the private sector rather than being almost entirely focussed on the public sector looks like hard edged realism compared to them. It is a middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them. It does not say anything good about our politics that they are on the up. It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make.

    Agreed - but the Greens are just the tip of the iceberg (I know lol) - the parties thriving at the moment are those who in truth would be terrified if they won, because they'd have to face the real world rather than the comforts of sniping from the guidelines. Even any serious and honest Labour supporters are frantic at the idea of Miliband in charge. Only about 30% of voters really want the honesty - which, at best will be stable but not increasing living standards while the debt is paid down.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited October 2014

    Just as some Tories have misunderstood UKIP voters it looks like Labour are set to do the same with Green voters - they won't "see sense" and "come home" as there is "no alternative" - It not as if Labour "isn't talking to them" - they aren't even speaking the same language. It looks like the "Red Liberals" who had "nowhere else to go" - do.

    I know, I should aggregate the results from many polls, but I've just chosen one in July 2012 to compare with today's YouGov.

    The 2010 Lib Dem vote splits as follows (with changes from July 2012)
    Conservative     15% (+1)
    Labour 32% (-6)
    Liberal Democrat 22% (-11)
    UKIP 15% (+12)
    Green 14% (+8)
    Other 3% (-2)
    WNV/DK 22% (-5)
    NB YouGov give their percentages as net of WNV/DK.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edited October 2014
    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend this belief into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
  • DavidL said:

    The sad demise of the Liberal Democrats continues. Down to fifth now. Will this party be represented in debates again? They seem to be slipping from serious losses to something biblical as the election approaches. I wish it was otherwise.

    I really don't like the Greens..... It is a middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them. It does not say anything good about our politics that they are on the up. It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make.

    The inevitable result of the Libdems in part ceasing to be a middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them. Greens are absolute poison to Libdem electoral prospects.

    It is sad though that the Libdems are being punished for in part joining the real world in the coalition, which is very creditable of them, rather than their remaining attachment to other worldness such as Mr Huhnes and Daveys disastrous energy policies, the fruits of which are now becoming apparent as we face possible power cuts this winter.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited October 2014

    Socrates said:

    How on Earth can the Lib Dems be included in more debates than UKIP when they are only the fifth most supported party in the UK? UKIP have almost triple the support.

    Yes, and one MP!
    Tactical voting will hopefully sort that out in Brighton come 2015. I would hazard a guess that Brighton is the only place in the country where hardline Tory and UKIP supporters will be voting Labour at the coming general election.

    It is places like Yeovil which should be Libdem shoo ins where the Greens splitting the Libdem vote will be significant and catastrophic (to the benefit of the Tories). Hence the Libdem suggestion of an alliance of some sort yesterday.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Tunisia leading the way for the Arab world:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29828706
  • felix said:

    DavidL said:

    The sad demise of the Liberal Democrats continues. Down to fifth now. Will this party be represented in debates again? They seem to be slipping from serious losses to something biblical as the election approaches. I wish it was otherwise.

    I really don't like the Greens. The Labour party's refusal to live in the real world, address major issues like the deficit and to engage with the private sector rather than being almost entirely focussed on the public sector looks like hard edged realism compared to them. It is a middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them. It does not say anything good about our politics that they are on the up. It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make.

    Agreed - but the Greens are just the tip of the iceberg (I know lol) - the parties thriving at the moment are those who in truth would be terrified if they won, because they'd have to face the real world rather than the comforts of sniping from the guidelines. Even any serious and honest Labour supporters are frantic at the idea of Miliband in charge. Only about 30% of voters really want the honesty - which, at best will be stable but not increasing living standards while the debt is paid down.

    As far as I can tell there are two parties offering significant and unfunded tax cuts post-2015. How honest is that?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @DavidL
    "But hard drugs kill"

    You can have a full blown heroin habit, still hold down a job, and be perfectly healthy.
    It does of course need access to clean needles, and uncut heroin. (street heroin in Glasgow was about 10% pure)
    OK if you are rich, but if not, you suffer.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Today's Yougov 2010:2014 vote ratios

    Labour 516:571 = 10.65% up = 32.83% (applied to 2010 vote)
    Tory 521: 446 = 14.4% down = 31.65% (applied to 2010 vote)

    Labour lead 1.18%

    Over the last ten days the average vote ratio lead has been 0.78%, with Labour ahead seven times, the Tories ahead on three.


  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited October 2014

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things are more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend their beliefs into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    If there were no welfare state there would be no need for immigration restrictions.

    It is only because we distort the market with welfare and state pension payments along with free healthcare that we disprortionately attract people from countries that don't.

    If we abolished the welfare state completely it would be France that had the immigration problem as poverty stricken chavs desperately tried to get to France for the free money and healthcare on offer in western Europe.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL
    " It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make. "

    "Ministers are considering drastically cutting the main Employment and Support Allowance sickness benefit, internal documents seen by the BBC suggest"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29821696

    Yes, I see what you mean.

    We need to close a spending gap of about £100bn, roughly 6% of GDP. If Labour acknowledged this, were willing to say what they would cut and what taxes they would increase to bridge that gap they would have something to bring to the conversation. I would not pretend for a moment that the tories are going to make all the right choices on this. I personally would support more taxes so that the cuts on the poor can be modified or at least reduced in scale.

    But Ed has nothing to say about this. Nothing at all. The Lib Dems do but no one is listening to them.
  • Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things are more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend their beliefs into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    If there were no welfare state there would be no need for immigration restrictions.

    It is only because we distort the market with welfare and state pension payments that we disprortionately attract people from countries that don't.

    I guess that explains why EU immigrants are so much less likely to be claiming benefits than those people born here. Is there any evidence anywhere that any of them have come to take advantage of the pension system?

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend this belief into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    Hmmm I presume then you acknowledge that Labour's new hard line on immigration is a bit of a fib?
  • felix said:

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend this belief into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    Hmmm I presume then you acknowledge that Labour's new hard line on immigration is a bit of a fib?

    It's a sop to voters. I doubt the Labour leadership is doing it for reasons of conviction. But then neither are the Tories. Both big parties know that immigration is a big issue and that they have to be seen to be doing something about it.

  • Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend this belief into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    You do know that during the 1980s coal and steel production were subsidised with taxpayers money.

    Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the subsidies should have been ?

    And while you're at it would you remind us how much help the last Labour government gave to heavy industry.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL
    "But hard drugs kill"

    You can have a full blown heroin habit, still hold down a job, and be perfectly healthy.
    It does of course need access to clean needles, and uncut heroin. (street heroin in Glasgow was about 10% pure)
    OK if you are rich, but if not, you suffer.

    I am sorry but that is a myth. Every day in this country young people die of overdoses, mainly of heroin. It is a national disgrace brought about by an indifference that disgusts me. The glorious NHS runs away from addicts and does not help them. And people die.

    Anyone who thinks they live anything close to a normal life whilst addicted to that substance is deluding themselves. Anyone who thinks that it will not have a terrible consequence on their health is frankly crazy.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    DavidL said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL
    " It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make. "

    "Ministers are considering drastically cutting the main Employment and Support Allowance sickness benefit, internal documents seen by the BBC suggest"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29821696

    Yes, I see what you mean.

    We need to close a spending gap of about £100bn, roughly 6% of GDP. If Labour acknowledged this, were willing to say what they would cut and what taxes they would increase to bridge that gap they would have something to bring to the conversation. I would not pretend for a moment that the tories are going to make all the right choices on this. I personally would support more taxes so that the cuts on the poor can be modified or at least reduced in scale.

    But Ed has nothing to say about this. Nothing at all. The Lib Dems do but no one is listening to them.
    To this Green Party member cutting disability benefits while planning tax cuts for the richest 10-15% sounds a lot like a "middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them".

    It's absurd for the Tories to accuse other parties of not living in the real world on the deficit when Cameron persists in talking about "paying down the debt" when the debt pile is still growing at a rate of ~£100bn a year, for which he has been corrected by senior statistics officials.
  • DavidL said:

    The sad demise of the Liberal Democrats continues. Down to fifth now. Will this party be represented in debates again? They seem to be slipping from serious losses to something biblical as the election approaches. I wish it was otherwise.

    We need a few more parties running nationally so that the Yellow Pox can poll less than them. How long till Clegg leads his party below Respect or the English Democrats, or the Monster Raving Loonies, or Bus Stop Elvis? And all the time over on LibDemVoice the Orange Book loyalists boast about Real Liberalism until in the end the only people voting for them are themselves.

    Its an instructive lesson in politics. All politicians are seen as liars, but good liars. Clegg was a bad liar and blatantly so. And this is the result.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    I was refering to UKIP, not the Greens, see Mr Crates comment.

    Socrates said:

    How on Earth can the Lib Dems be included in more debates than UKIP when they are only the fifth most supported party in the UK? UKIP have almost triple the support.

    Yes, and one MP!
    Tactical voting will hopefully sort that out in Brighton come 2015. I would hazard a guess that Brighton is the only place in the country where hardline Tory and UKIP supporters will be voting Labour at the coming general election.

    It is places like Yeovil which should be Libdem shoo ins where the Greens splitting the Libdem vote will be significant and catastrophic (to the benefit of the Tories). Hence the Libdem suggestion of an alliance of some sort yesterday.

  • Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend this belief into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    You do know that during the 1980s coal and steel production were subsidised with taxpayers money.

    Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the subsidies should have been ?

    And while you're at it would you remind us how much help the last Labour government gave to heavy industry.

    Do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government.

    More working class communities in the UK were destroyed by the decline in heavy industry in the 80s and 90s than by anything else since 1945. I think it could have been much better managed if it had been done from a perspective that there are more important things than the market.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL
    " It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make. "

    "Ministers are considering drastically cutting the main Employment and Support Allowance sickness benefit, internal documents seen by the BBC suggest"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29821696

    Yes, I see what you mean.

    We need to close a spending gap of about £100bn, roughly 6% of GDP. If Labour acknowledged this, were willing to say what they would cut and what taxes they would increase to bridge that gap they would have something to bring to the conversation. I would not pretend for a moment that the tories are going to make all the right choices on this. I personally would support more taxes so that the cuts on the poor can be modified or at least reduced in scale.

    But Ed has nothing to say about this. Nothing at all. The Lib Dems do but no one is listening to them.
    To this Green Party member cutting disability benefits while planning tax cuts for the richest 10-15% sounds a lot like a "middle class indulgence of the haves who want to draw the ladder up behind them".

    It's absurd for the Tories to accuse other parties of not living in the real world on the deficit when Cameron persists in talking about "paying down the debt" when the debt pile is still growing at a rate of ~£100bn a year, for which he has been corrected by senior statistics officials.
    The government plans for reducing the deficit are set out in their financial strategy. I personally agree that even talking about tax cuts when facing such a challenge was dishonest but that is politics I suppose. The tories aspire to lower taxes one day. In reality that day is a long way off.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    The sad demise of the Liberal Democrats continues. Down to fifth now. Will this party be represented in debates again? They seem to be slipping from serious losses to something biblical as the election approaches. I wish it was otherwise.

    We need a few more parties running nationally so that the Yellow Pox can poll less than them. How long till Clegg leads his party below Respect or the English Democrats, or the Monster Raving Loonies, or Bus Stop Elvis? And all the time over on LibDemVoice the Orange Book loyalists boast about Real Liberalism until in the end the only people voting for them are themselves.

    Its an instructive lesson in politics. All politicians are seen as liars, but good liars. Clegg was a bad liar and blatantly so. And this is the result.
    So they should be putting you down as a maybe?
  • DavidL said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL
    "But hard drugs kill"

    You can have a full blown heroin habit, still hold down a job, and be perfectly healthy.
    It does of course need access to clean needles, and uncut heroin. (street heroin in Glasgow was about 10% pure)
    OK if you are rich, but if not, you suffer.

    I am sorry but that is a myth. Every day in this country young people die of overdoses, mainly of heroin. It is a national disgrace brought about by an indifference that disgusts me. The glorious NHS runs away from addicts and does not help them. And people die.

    Anyone who thinks they live anything close to a normal life whilst addicted to that substance is deluding themselves. Anyone who thinks that it will not have a terrible consequence on their health is frankly crazy.
    Just as many people die of alcohol abuse.

    Why is it that you could quite legally buy heroin in a Chemist until 1914 and people were not keeling over everywhere?

    Sorry but it is not the job of the state to protect consenting adults from their own lack of self control by banning things from everyone. The criminal law is for when those who don't have self control cause a nuisance to others as a result of their lack of self control.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @DavidL
    Most addicts know their tolerance levels pretty well.
    What does tend to happen though, is someone raids a chemist, or the addicts "supplier" gets busted, and then the poor sod is injecting 30%+ heroin, instead of the 10% he/she was getting before.
    One reason the "drugs war" fails is because the people who think they know don't, and the people who do know are ignored.
  • DavidL said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @DavidL
    " It is yet more evidence of the disengagement of the electorate from the hard decisions that our leaders have to make. "

    "Ministers are considering drastically cutting the main Employment and Support Allowance sickness benefit, internal documents seen by the BBC suggest"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29821696

    Yes, I see what you mean.

    We need to close a spending gap of about £100bn, roughly 6% of GDP. If Labour acknowledged this, were willing to say what they would cut and what taxes they would increase to bridge that gap they would have something to bring to the conversation. I would not pretend for a moment that the tories are going to make all the right choices on this. I personally would support more taxes so that the cuts on the poor can be modified or at least reduced in scale.

    But Ed has nothing to say about this. Nothing at all. The Lib Dems do but no one is listening to them.
    Agreed.

    But you don't mention what Cameron has to say.

    Which is magic money tree promises of spending increases and tax cuts plus lies about "paying down Britain's debts".
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    @Smarmy?

    Raids a chemist? This ain't the seventies you know.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin
    Pretty difficult these days I admit.
    A lot of the old working class professions have gone by the wayside,these days it is all fraud and computers, where is the craftsmanship in that?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Smarmeron said:

    @JBriskin
    Pretty difficult these days I admit.
    A lot of the old working class professions have gone by the wayside,these days it is all fraud and computers, where is the craftsmanship in that?

    Lol - you got your Aks ready today Smamry?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    DavidL said:

    Important debate around drug policy today.The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 effectively introduced the same failed policy that the USA tried with the prohibition-the same predictable effects when you have a system with criminals in charge.
    There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
    Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html


    In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET

    I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.

    I would introduce three new offences
    * Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
    * Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
    * Driving while under the influence of drugs

    Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.

    To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.

    That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
    Some decriminalisation around the edges such as possession of cannabis may well make sense. But hard drugs kill. Far too often for the state to stand idly by.
    Whereas you wake up after 10 pints of lager and a few bottles of WKD feeling refreshed and raring to go.

    (Of course you are in A&E upon your reawakening.)
  • Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things are more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend their beliefs into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    If there were no welfare state there would be no need for immigration restrictions.

    It is only because we distort the market with welfare and state pension payments along with free healthcare that we disprortionately attract people from countries that don't.

    If we abolished the welfare state completely it would be France that had the immigration problem as poverty stricken chavs desperately tried to get to France for the free money and healthcare on offer in western Europe.
    You could never achieve those policies democratically. Do you believe in democracy?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Colorado seem to have the right idea - rake in taxes from pot.

    Dunno why we don't try it here - timidity of politicians.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TGOHF
    "That's the crux of the apostrophe", as dear old Frank used to say.
    Drugs are easier than tobacco and booze to smuggle, this limits the amount of tax you can apply. (laffer curve?)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    YouGov published an article on UKIP and the Greens the other day.

    The Green supporters are: 2010-Con 9%, 2010-Lab 22%, 2010-LD 50%, 2010-other 18%

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-and-new-politics-protest/
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Smarmeron said:

    @TGOHF
    "That's the crux of the apostrophe", as dear old Frank used to say.
    Drugs are easier than tobacco and booze to smuggle, this limits the amount of tax you can apply. (laffer curve?)

    Invalid

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Important debate around drug policy today.The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 effectively introduced the same failed policy that the USA tried with the prohibition-the same predictable effects when you have a system with criminals in charge.
    There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
    Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html


    In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET

    I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.

    I would introduce three new offences
    * Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
    * Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
    * Driving while under the influence of drugs

    Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.

    To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.

    That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
    Some decriminalisation around the edges such as possession of cannabis may well make sense. But hard drugs kill. Far too often for the state to stand idly by.
    Whereas you wake up after 10 pints of lager and a few bottles of WKD feeling refreshed and raring to go.

    (Of course you are in A&E upon your reawakening.)
    I'm not sure that a lost war on alcohol can justify opening new fronts on heroin and cocaine - unless you want massive tax hikes to pay for the subsequent NHS costs.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin
    How so?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Smarmeron said:

    @TGOHF
    "That's the crux of the apostrophe", as dear old Frank used to say.
    Drugs are easier than tobacco and booze to smuggle, this limits the amount of tax you can apply. (laffer curve?)

    But tobacco taxes aint zero - neither would pot taxes be.

    Better to have a bit of something than nothing - there aren't many illicit stills in the Uk despite the high booze taxes.

  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited October 2014
    TGOHF said:

    Colorado seem to have the right idea - rake in taxes from pot.

    Dunno why we don't try it here - timidity of politicians.

    The deficit may be about to make them less timid.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    I'm not too surprised - I do know some tactical Green voters but most are uninterested in the outcome ("you're al the same") and simply want to support a strongly left-wing environmentalist position. In that, they differ markedly from 2010 LibDems, who in general have no recollection of 2010 LibDem policies except higher personal allowance (tick) and tuition fees (ahem), and merely wanted to vote for a fresh-sounding left of centre party rather than a tired 13-year Labour government. Many LibDems have switched heavily to us and are more committed to that choice than any other major bloc of voters. The Greens, not so.

    BTW, Chestnut posted last night about the increased Labour lead:

    "Labour will be up with LD switchers/AB voters in London/South"

    As Chestnut does this regularly, it's worth pointing out that he was mistaken. YG's samples today show Labour's lead in London low and a relatively poor score among AB voters and in the South. 2010 LibDems are 32/22/15/15 for Lab/Lib/Con/UKIP.

    It shows a healthy Labour lead lead in the Midlands (37-31) and, a bit implausibly given this week's news cycle, a recovery in Scotland. Basically it's fool's gold to hunt for meaning in the subsamples in a single poll - in reality it's just a general slight Labour improvement, which may be sampling error or genuine, who knows? It reinforces the impression that Labour remains slightly ahead on votes (and probably therefore more so on seats) with 6 months to go.

  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Smarmeron said:

    @JBriskin
    How so?

    Laffer applies to income tax - mostly - Your point is just not very relevant at all. Well done on the Aks though
  • Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend this belief into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    You do know that during the 1980s coal and steel production were subsidised with taxpayers money.

    Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the subsidies should have been ?

    And while you're at it would you remind us how much help the last Labour government gave to heavy industry.

    Do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government.

    More working class communities in the UK were destroyed by the decline in heavy industry in the 80s and 90s than by anything else since 1945. I think it could have been much better managed if it had been done from a perspective that there are more important things than the market.

    So how much more taxpayer subsidies would you have given them ?

    Or do you have some other idea which would have helped.

    Its easy to complain thirty years later on an internet forum but as you think it could have been much better managed please tell us how you would have helped places in the Welsh Valleys and County Durham which existed solely as a result of a heavy industry which was then massively uneconomic.

    The decline of heavy industry happened throughout the Western World from the mid 1970s onwards - there's a reason the 'rustbelt' in the USA is called the rustbelt.

    Recessions, rising costs, cheaper foreign competition, environmental controls, increased mechanisation all played a part.

    While the mining industry in Britain had been in decline from 1914 onwards.

    What do you do for a pit village when there's no more coal extractable down its pit ?
  • Amsterdam never strikes me as a particularly good advert for relaxed drugs laws.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2014
    The process where by any one who is sick gets given an extra £1500 a year just by virtue of longevity of sickness, as opposed to the actual extent or impact of their disability or illness is wasteful, and it does create a financial incentive to leave the dole queue and go to the doctor's surgery.

    Welfare should be needs or contribution based. It shouldn't be like a non-contributory long service award or automatic pay progression.

    Similar sorts of nonsense exist among pensioner benefits.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    RT (not re-tweet) going UK (Today)

    More likely than bringing Bbc3 down
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TGOHF
    Booze and tobacco smuggling is still quite lucrative, and as for a still, it's basic chemistry, or as an alternative, freeze wine to concentrate the alcohol (just scrape off the slush, as water freezes easier) and make your own brandy?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Amsterdam never strikes me as a particularly good advert for relaxed drugs laws.

    A lot more pleasant than Brixton.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Smarmeron said:

    @TGOHF
    Booze and tobacco smuggling is still quite lucrative, and as for a still, it's basic chemistry, or as an alternative, freeze wine to concentrate the alcohol (just scrape off the slush, as water freezes easier) and make your own brandy?

    % of booze that is fake ? Tiny. May be issues with dodgy spirits in bars I guess.

    The SNP should legalise pot in Scotland - classic Nat wedge issue.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    JBriskin said:

    RT (not re-tweet) going UK (Today)

    More likely than bringing Bbc3 down

    Am I the only one on here who struggles to understand most of your posts?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TGOHF
    Arran would become a "Klondike", but it is boderline for planting out doors in Scotland.
    Cornwall would be in with a good shout though.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Smarmeron said:

    @TGOHF
    Arran would become a "Klondike", but it is boderline for planting out doors in Scotland.
    Cornwall would be in with a good shout though.

    Somebody set us up the bomb?

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    chestnut said:

    The process where by any one who is sick gets given an extra £1500 a year just by virtue of longevity of sickness, as opposed to the actual extent or impact of their disability or illness is wasteful, and it does create a financial incentive to leave the dole queue and go to the doctor's surgery.

    Welfare should be needs or contribution based. It shouldn't be like a non-contributory long service award or automatic pay progression.

    Similar sorts of nonsense exist among pensioner benefits.

    I broadly agree but for many their pensions are contribution based and therefore should not be conflated with non-contributory benefits.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693
    DavidL said:

    Important debate around drug policy today.The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 effectively introduced the same failed policy that the USA tried with the prohibition-the same predictable effects when you have a system with criminals in charge.
    There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
    Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html


    In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET

    I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.

    I would introduce three new offences
    * Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
    * Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
    * Driving while under the influence of drugs

    Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.

    To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.

    That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
    Driving under the influence of drugs is already an offence. That is your free legal advice for the morning.

    But the argument that the state does not have any legitimate interest in what people put into their bodies is specious. It is the state that has to pick up the consequences which are horrific. Are we to be free to eat contaminated food as well?
    That's a big part of the reason why I'd support a radical reform of the NHS, perhaps even to end with individual health savings accounts.

    Then the government would have no excuse for telling us how to live our own lives, as they impertinently think they have the right to at the moment.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Important debate around drug policy today.The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 effectively introduced the same failed policy that the USA tried with the prohibition-the same predictable effects when you have a system with criminals in charge.
    There needs to be all-party consensus to move forward,at least on a medical cannabis act.Green gold must be regulated to protect the young brains of our children and grandchildren.The status quo is no longer an option.Change has to come,a change not within the monopoly of the Green party.
    Promises to be an interesting debate.All I ask is that policy is based on evidence,not prejudice and ignorance.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html


    In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET

    I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.

    I would introduce three new offences
    * Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
    * Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
    * Driving while under the influence of drugs

    Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.

    To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.

    That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.
    Some decriminalisation around the edges such as possession of cannabis may well make sense. But hard drugs kill. Far too often for the state to stand idly by.
    Whereas you wake up after 10 pints of lager and a few bottles of WKD feeling refreshed and raring to go.

    (Of course you are in A&E upon your reawakening.)
    I'm not sure that a lost war on alcohol can justify opening new fronts on heroin and cocaine - unless you want massive tax hikes to pay for the subsequent NHS costs.
    Actually, legalising them will probably reduce NHS costs. Many years ago I heard a senior policeman argue that legalising cannabis and heroin would lead to a massive fall in crime soince the drugs would be easily obtainable and consequently cheaper. Those “on the edge” would haven’t have to steal, and sell the products in pubs etc to fund their life-style.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Clegg’s grand strategy of ‘differentiation’ appears to be going to plan then…. !
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Smarmeron said:

    @TGOHF
    Arran would become a "Klondike", but it is boderline for planting out doors in Scotland.
    Cornwall would be in with a good shout though.

    A Cornish referendum - on pot - why not ? MK should make it their lead policy.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited October 2014
    felix said:

    JBriskin said:

    RT (not re-tweet) going UK (Today)

    More likely than bringing Bbc3 down

    Am I the only one on here who struggles to understand most of your posts?
    Thank god you said that. I thought it was just me and that I had missed the essential initial post that would explain everything he says thereafter.

    As for drugs wars, etc - there is also of course a good deal of criminality that would be diminished if not erased via the legalisation of drugs. Perhaps outweighing the accepted harm increased drugs usage would cause.

    (Edit: which, re drugs/criminality, is of course a trivially obvious observation)
  • @another_richard - You manage the process, you do not just let it happen and leave hundreds or even thousands of people in countless communities without work or futures. My preference would have been for us to use our North Sea oil tax bonanza to fund improvements in infrastructure and to have replaced the hundreds of thousands of council houses sold off at heavily subsidised prices. That would have provided a lot of work and created the conditions under which alternatives to heavy industry could have emerged. In addition, we would now have more homes for people to live in and less of a divide between the north and the south. There was nothing that could have been done to prevent the migration of heavy industry eastwards, but leaving those affected to the market when - as you say - there was nothing else for them to go to was a choice. And one that still has significant, negative knock-on effects today.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    It's a difficult choice if you believe in left wing rigged market economics at the next election - Labour, LDs, Greens and Kippers to choose from.

    It's the Tories that support the mass regulation, protectionist tariffs and Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.

    Restricting immigration is undoubtedly rigging the market though. It is ironic that right wing parties such as the Tories and UKIP - which would not dream of subsidising prices or businesses facing foreign competition - are happy to restrict their room to manoeuvre in this area. It's good to see that they believe there are some things more important than the market. It would be even better to see them extend this belief into other areas. If only the Tories had held similar views in the 1980s many communities based around heavy industry would not have been devastated in the way they were.
    You do know that during the 1980s coal and steel production were subsidised with taxpayers money.

    Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the subsidies should have been ?

    And while you're at it would you remind us how much help the last Labour government gave to heavy industry.

    Do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government.

    More working class communities in the UK were destroyed by the decline in heavy industry in the 80s and 90s than by anything else since 1945. I think it could have been much better managed if it had been done from a perspective that there are more important things than the market.

    So how much more taxpayer subsidies would you have given them ?

    Or do you have some other idea which would have helped.

    Its easy to complain thirty years later on an internet forum but as you think it could have been much better managed please tell us how you would have helped places in the Welsh Valleys and County Durham which existed solely as a result of a heavy industry which was then massively uneconomic.

    The decline of heavy industry happened throughout the Western World from the mid 1970s onwards - there's a reason the 'rustbelt' in the USA is called the rustbelt.

    Recessions, rising costs, cheaper foreign competition, environmental controls, increased mechanisation all played a part.

    While the mining industry in Britain had been in decline from 1914 onwards.

    What do you do for a pit village when there's no more coal extractable down its pit ?
    You establish an alternative, accessible source of employment. There are complaints in said Valleys that yes, there are jobs in Cardiff, but no transport to get to them.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin

    We cannae compete Captain!
    http://tinyurl.com/o55zfz5
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Lol - I've never been overly keen on tinyurls Smarmy. I didn't click
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173


    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-chance-to-reform-the-uks-backwards-drug-policy-is-finally-here-and-we-cannot-waste-it-9826766.html




    In other words YOU CANNOT BUCK THE MARKET

    I would repeal all existing drugs acts and would allow the sale and possession of drugs by and to anyone over the age of 18. It is no business of the state to regulate who possesses and sells plant products.

    I would introduce three new offences
    * Being in a public place while under the influence of drugs (equivalent of drunk and disorderly)
    * Causing a nuisance while under the influence of drugs
    * Driving while under the influence of drugs

    Both would attract a mandatory six month sentence in a secure rehabilitation unit, which is not part of a prison where people convicted of other offences held.

    To sell drugs a licence would be needed which any shop or individual could apply for. An excise duty would be introduced to pay for the drug rehabilitation above.

    That would eliminate the gangs and restore reasonable liberties while criminising bad behaviour that causes a nuisance or danger to others.

    Some decriminalisation around the edges such as possession of cannabis may well make sense. But hard drugs kill. Far too often for the state to stand idly by.

    Whereas you wake up after 10 pints of lager and a few bottles of WKD feeling refreshed and raring to go.

    (Of course you are in A&E upon your reawakening.)

    I'm not sure that a lost war on alcohol can justify opening new fronts on heroin and cocaine - unless you want massive tax hikes to pay for the subsequent NHS costs.

    Actually, legalising them will probably reduce NHS costs. Many years ago I heard a senior policeman argue that legalising cannabis and heroin would lead to a massive fall in crime soince the drugs would be easily obtainable and consequently cheaper. Those “on the edge” would haven’t have to steal, and sell the products in pubs etc to fund their life-style.

    I can see how this might save the Police money but not the NHS - easier access to heroin, cocaine and worse is unlikely to lead to a healthier lifestyle and save the NHS money - that was my point.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Legalising drugs is a complicated issue.

    I'm still involved with rugby and spend a lot of time with a lot of 17-25 year olds. They are all fit, strong young men, but these days - when they party - they abuse drugs more than alcohol. It's the culture these days.

    There is a big difference between recreationally using drugs like they do (weed, meow, MDMA, (poor quality) coke) and lifestyle drugs (daily weed smoking, heroin, crack, prescription meds (there is a lot of web-bought valium abuse going on).

    Recreational drug (ab)use is probably having little more effect than binger drinking would on their health and I certainly think legalisation would remove the chances of buying something lethal (there was bad ecstasy going about last year, cut with (poisonous) PMA, not MDMA - it killed a handful of people at festivals). I'd legalise and control the lot on that front.

    But would I legalise heroin and crack cocaine and crystal meth? Highly addictive stuff that 99% of young party-goers would never countenance using? It'd be a big call.

    Then you have the complication of internet (legal high) type drugs like that Ivory Wave coming on the market. Some guy in Florida tried to eat the face of a tramp when he used it, so powerfully hallucinatory was its effect. Should we legalise that stuff?

    And what about that Krokodil drug over in Russia, killing people twice as quickly as cut-heroin. It rots flesh (go see on Youtube) and is highly addictive. It is hard to prohibit because it can be made at home using cleaning products. It's the Russian drug-equivalent of drinking your aftershave.

    I suppose there will always be people who want to screw themselves up, and legalisation of all drugs would kill them more quickly. But then, they are the type of people doing hard drugs anyway, and no laws are ever going to stop them.

    I tend to think that criminalising a bunch of college students for sharing a joint on their break-time is a bit pointless. And as Bill Hicks memorably alluded to, recreational drug users ain't beating eachother up on the streets. They are generally hugging and smiling.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    JBriskin said:

    RT (not re-tweet) going UK (Today)

    More likely than bringing Bbc3 down

    Am I the only one on here who struggles to understand most of your posts?
    Thank god you said that. I thought it was just me and that I had missed the essential initial post that would explain everything he says thereafter.

    As for drugs wars, etc - there is also of course a good deal of criminality that would be diminished if not erased via the legalisation of drugs. Perhaps outweighing the accepted harm increased drugs usage would cause.

    (Edit: which, re drugs/criminality, is of course a trivially obvious observation)
    So it's not just me! I too thought I was missing something.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin
    I could cut the link for you instead, but I think the mods get upset if the thread gets spammed by YouTube links.
    https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc8nwRHAplU
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Smarmeron said:

    @JBriskin
    I could cut the link for you instead, but I think the mods get upset if the thread gets spammed by YouTube links.
    https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc8nwRHAplU

    Mods may or may not be more laizze faire than you think Smarmy.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    OT. On the other hand, the responses may simply reflect a current lack of perception of many Green voters that they are in a Con/Lab marginal seat, something that the constituency question in itself isn't going to alert them to. When faced by a concerted attempt by Labour to squeeze Green supporters in Con/Lab marginals, that has the potential to change, given this finding by Ashcroft in the same marginals poll:
    Q.5 Are there any of the following political parties that you would definitely not vote for at the next General Election?
    Green voters:
    not LD 59%
    not UKIP 89%
    not Con 79%
    not Lab 43%
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin
    They might be, but why take the chance? I like to obey the law.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Smarmeron said:

    @JBriskin
    They might be, but why take the chance? I like to obey the law.

    Implying I should be typing more.

    You got my zimbawaen dollars ready yet?

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    In the Valleys you have a choice..toothpaste or bus fare..
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,121

    OT. On the other hand, the responses may simply reflect a current lack of perception of many Green voters that they are in a Con/Lab marginal seat, something that the constituency question in itself isn't going to alert them to. When faced by a concerted attempt by Labour to squeeze Green supporters in Con/Lab marginals, that has the potential to change, given this finding by Ashcroft in the same marginals poll:
    Q.5 Are there any of the following political parties that you would definitely not vote for at the next General Election?
    Green voters:
    not LD 59%
    not UKIP 89%
    not Con 79%
    not Lab 43%

    It's an interesting point. Although I'd be surprised if people didn't know they live in a marginal. In my experience its one of the few political things people are aware of. But having said that, it would be an excellent polling question to add.

  • It is perhaps worth noticing more generally that it is very, very hard to find a country which has simultaneously enjoyed a sustained economic boom (as we did in the middle of the 19th century) and universal suffrage. I suspect that the latter inhibits the former.

    I get the sense that more and more right-wing Peebies are picking up on this essential contradiction. Since Marx said that politics is determinant in the last instance we may be sure that, in fact, the reverse is true and that societies which do not tailor their political arrangements to the iron laws of the dismal science will, over time, lose out to those which do.

    The main reason I come here each morning is to pick up on political trends which do not surface elsewhere until much later. The trend I see these days is that of the "Weimarization" of our politics. More and more, people are coming to see that the twin pressures of economic decline (at least relative, if not absolute) and identity politics are such that Parliamentary democracy is no longer capable of governing the country.

    How long before a jury acquits a defendant of murder by accepting his plea of self-defence: "the guy was a leftie, he was therefore a threat to us all, so by killing him I am not a criminal but a hero"?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin
    Yes, agreed rates in intergalactic spacebucks?
This discussion has been closed.