@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.
Money was spent on infrastructure. In fact, they did bloody well at it given the massive criticism they faced from ... Labour and the green lobby. Remember Swampy?
Compare the miles of roads built between 1980 and 1997 compared with 1997 and 2010 Compare the miles of railways electrified between 1980 and 1997 compared with 1997 and 2010 Compare house building. etc, etc.
They also spent vast amounts on regeneration (e.g. Docklands, garden festivals), and attracted other industry in (Nissan, Honda, Toyota et al). Compare that with Labour: e.g. closure of Rover and my beloved Butterley.
IME the main problem in the area where pits and other heavy industry closed was one of skills, which reflects poorly on the schools from the 1950s onwards. Many children were educated just to go into those industries. Reskilling is difficult, and harder the older people are, as is instilling a sense of self-worth.
I'd agree with you if Labour had done anything to improve matters in, say, Merthyr Tyfdil, in their 13 years in power. But they did not. Why? Because it is difficult, and there is no magic wand to be waved, and money spent can, if unwisely spent, disappear down a black hole.
I think it's pretty obvious that if you legalise drugs you will shift the demand curve to the right. Any proponent of legalisation would have to accept that. I am one such proponent.
The question therefore becomes: would the criminality avoided by having a legal trade in drugs compensate for the increased harm of wider usage?
I think registration, a huge education programme, perhaps even licensing (to start with) would be required for the harder drugs. It is not at all a given that because you take soft drugs you will inevitably graduate onto harder ones.
As you say, for those people determined to hit the hardest drugs, legality is not the issue. I think rather, that if "safe" drugs are available, with full transparency and education, then most people would opt for remaining within those "safe" boundaries.
And yes, agree with your Bill Hicks quote - to criminalise people for sitting in front of Strictly smoking a joint seems bizarre.
@Innocent_Abroad Every corrupt State needs a "whipping boy" to keep the rest assured that once that problem is dealt with, it will be a land of milk and honey. Each party has it's own favourites.
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.
Perhaps.
The boundaries haven't changed, so this aids your point.
However, the rise of UKIP has changed what constituencies are marginal - just see Heywood and Middleton as an example.
Not withstanding Mike's analysis, many things must keep Ed awake at night, but a new one might be that the BBC relents and the Greens are in the debates and experience a Clegg moment.
@Innocent_Abroad Every corrupt State needs a "whipping boy" to keep the rest assured that once that problem is dealt with, it will be a land of milk and honey. Each party has it's own favourites.
My suggestion is that that "whipping boy" will become electoral democracy itself. After UKIP has imploded amongst rage - and laughter.
The irony is that if Israel found itself at war with the UK she'd be with Israel from day one yet when Muslims find themselves drawn into fighting for what they see as Muslim causes they are beyond the pale
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...
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"?
I think the last paragraph is OTT, frankly under the current establishment its far more likely that a defendent would claim that they were hard right or a racist and "by killing him I am not a criminal but a hero"
The issue with democracy is that to have a functioning democracy you need a demos. In otherwords the overwhelming majority of the electorate needs to have a common set of values that they all broadly agree on. This was the case in the UK until major immigration resulted in people with cultures that conflicted with the then UK culture arrived, and worse, were discouraged from integrating. As a result the electorate starts splitting on ethnic identity.
A second problem, and perhaps the more major problem, given the exponentially increasing national debt and no government willing to tackle it properly standing a chance of being elected, was stated eloquently by Alexander Fraser Tytler:
"It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
@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.
Money was spent on infrastructure. In fact, they did bloody well at it given the massive criticism they faced from ... Labour and the green lobby. Remember Swampy?
Compare the miles of roads built between 1980 and 1997 compared with 1997 and 2010 Compare the miles of railways electrified between 1980 and 1997 compared with 1997 and 2010 Compare house building. etc, etc.
They also spent vast amounts on regeneration (e.g. Docklands, garden festivals), and attracted other industry in (Nissan, Honda, Toyota et al). Compare that with Labour: e.g. closure of Rover and my beloved Butterley.
IME the main problem in the area where pits and other heavy industry closed was one of skills, which reflects poorly on the schools from the 1950s onwards. Many children were educated just to go into those industries. Reskilling is difficult, and harder the older people are, as is instilling a sense of self-worth.
I'd agree with you if Labour had done anything to improve matters in, say, Merthyr Tyfdil, in their 13 years in power. But they did not. Why? Because it is difficult, and there is no magic wand to be waved, and money spent can, if unwisely spent, disappear down a black hole.
As I said to Richard, do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government. Its failure to address the issues you raise was one of its greatest failings.
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
As I said to Richard, do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government. Its failure to address the issues you raise was one of its greatest failings.
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
You could argue that it was welfare that left us with those countless hollowed out communities that remain today.
If there was no welfare they would have all been forced to abandon those communities and go elsewhere - or starve, just as the stanney communities in the nineteenth century were abandoned when tin mining declined.
Thats why there are countless wholly abandoned stannery communites in west Devon & Cornwall comprising ruined buildings and countless poverty stricken workless communities in South Wales.
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
I think we do. I believe in it absolutely. It has helped me and tens of millions of others. Maybe even you.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. If it's illegal, you need an income of around £100,000 a year to finance it, and you have to buy it from criminals, who will encourage you to increase the dose and suggest criminal ways to finance it. If it's legal, you get it free from your GP, who advises you to cut back and offers help when you're ready to do it. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
The irony is that if Israel found itself at war with the UK she'd be with Israel from day one yet when Muslims find themselves drawn into fighting for what they see as Muslim causes they are beyond the pale
Oh of course the authorities in Palestine are directly comparable to the parliamentary democracy that is the UK and successive UK govts have consistently argued that Israel should be bombed into the Mediterranean. I think you're better employed analysing the state of the nation in your walks up and down Old Compton street, Soho - also known as where the real England resides.
Interesting article in today's DT about ending of QE. It notes that China has stopped buying US treasury bonds, a major development in economics that had passed me by. Indeed China is now selling such bonds.
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
I think we do. I believe in it absolutely. It has helped me and tens of millions of others. Maybe even you.
Lets not get too warm and cuddly about the NHS. Sometimes its been appalling and people should be charged for what they did/didn't do
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
I think we do. I believe in it absolutely. It has helped me and tens of millions of others. Maybe even you.
If so, you should be against immigration, as immigrants weren't born here from contributors to the NHS.
I'd agree with you if Labour had done anything to improve matters in, say, Merthyr Tyfdil, in their 13 years in power. But they did not. Why? Because it is difficult, and there is no magic wand to be waved, and money spent can, if unwisely spent, disappear down a black hole.
As I said to Richard, do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government. Its failure to address the issues you raise was one of its greatest failings.
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
The interesting aspect of housing is that in say mid 1990s, how great was the housing shortage?
I don't know if there are reliable figures, but I suspect the housing shortage has increased exponentially in recent years with a combination of single parents, split marriages, young people settling later so having individual housing needs as opposed to joint requirements and the old canard immigration.
If it wasn't seen or predicted to be the massive issue it is now, then it is understandable that more action wasn't taken.
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
I think we do. I believe in it absolutely. It has helped me and tens of millions of others. Maybe even you.
Lets not get too warm and cuddly about the NHS. Sometimes its been appalling and people should be charged for what they did/didn't do
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
I think we do. I believe in it absolutely. It has helped me and tens of millions of others. Maybe even you.
Lets not get too warm and cuddly about the NHS. Sometimes its been appalling and people should be charged for what they did/didn't do
The NHS is only one part of the welfare state.
The welfare state doesn't always look after people they way it should either.
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
I think we do. I believe in it absolutely. It has helped me and tens of millions of others. Maybe even you.
If so, you should be against immigration, as immigrants weren't born here from contributors to the NHS.
Support the Welfare State? Vote UKIP!
If I felt UKIP was committed to the welfare state I would be far more inclined to give it the time of day. Instead, I get the strong feeling that UKIP''s sincerity on the subject is about as genuine as Labour's on immigration.
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?
The Welfare State - "From the cradle to the grave."
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
I think we do. I believe in it absolutely. It has helped me and tens of millions of others. Maybe even you.
Lets not get too warm and cuddly about the NHS. Sometimes its been appalling and people should be charged for what they did/didn't do
The NHS is only one part of the welfare state.
The welfare state doesn't always look after people they way it should either.
I'd agree with you if Labour had done anything to improve matters in, say, Merthyr Tyfdil, in their 13 years in power. But they did not. Why? Because it is difficult, and there is no magic wand to be waved, and money spent can, if unwisely spent, disappear down a black hole.
As I said to Richard, do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government. Its failure to address the issues you raise was one of its greatest failings.
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
The interesting aspect of housing is that in say mid 1990s, how great was the housing shortage?
I don't know if there are reliable figures, but I suspect the housing shortage has increased exponentially in recent years with a combination of single parents, split marriages, young people settling later so having individual housing needs as opposed to joint requirements and the old canard immigration.
If it wasn't seen or predicted to be the massive issue it is now, then it is understandable that more action wasn't taken.
Taking house prices as a guide then there were few housing shortage problems in the mid 1990s.
That home ownership rose from 10% to 70% over the 20th century is a good indicator of the growing economic equality achieved.
Something which has gone into rapid reverse during the 21st century.
Rodney Crosby is a holocaust denier and therefore far from a neutral source when it comes to pro-Israel columns of Maureen Lipman. However, in this case I agree that her article was worryingly flawed.
Soft drugs in with alcohol and tobacco. Over 18s only, restrictions on sellers to make sure they obey. Hard drugs such as Heroin for sale to registered users only for use in specified locations, fron Chemist or GP.
Tax them destroy (or make them find a new income stream) the criminal suppliers, reduce the crime by desperate addicts.
While you are doing it, can you legalise prostitution too? I'm sure the sellers of services (male and female) could be far better protected within a legal framework.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. If it's illegal, you need an income of around £100,000 a year to finance it, and you have to buy it from criminals, who will encourage you to increase the dose and suggest criminal ways to finance it. If it's legal, you get it free from your GP, who advises you to cut back and offers help when you're ready to do it. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
A fine post, Nick. Sensible drug laws in this country have run aground against tgr reactionary insanity of the tabloid press, whose power is now severely waning. I am convinced that a politician who shows bravery in this area will be rewarded at the ballot box.
Rodney Crosby is a holocaust denier and therefore far from a neutral source when it comes to pro-Israel columns of Maureen Lipman. However, in this case I agree that her article was worryingly flawed.
As Labour morphs into Respect it is hardly surprising that it will lose the Jewish vote.
As I said to Richard, do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government. Its failure to address the issues you raise was one of its greatest failings.
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
But you are acting as if there are easy answers: as I pointed out, the governments of the 1980s and 1990s did many of the things you wanted, often against massive protest.
You keep on calling for infrastructure, and I show a heck of a lot was done. But the problem was incredibly deep and hard to solve, which is why it has not been solved to this day.
Could they have done more? Yes. Hindsight is like that. But doing more might have damaged other parts of the economy. You cannot spend money twice.
Did they do more than you imply? Hell, yes.
Did they do more than Labour: yes. But as you say, that's a very low baseline.
Imagine London without Heseltine, the LDDC and Docklands. Labour were against that as well, Bob Mellish aside.
That would have been London now, if Labour had had the oil money.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. If it's illegal, you need an income of around £100,000 a year to finance it, and you have to buy it from criminals, who will encourage you to increase the dose and suggest criminal ways to finance it. If it's legal, you get it free from your GP, who advises you to cut back and offers help when you're ready to do it. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
A fine post, Nick. Sensible drug laws in this country have run aground against tgr reactionary insanity of the tabloid press, whose power is now severely waning. I am convinced that a politician who shows bravery in this area will be rewarded at the ballot box.
@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.
There was a lot more house building and infrastructure investment in the 1980s than there has been since 2000.
Then you have the issue of location - building council houses and roads in the South-East might have been a good idea but it doesn't help a former miner in Wales of the North-East. There was certainly no shortage of very cheap housing in pit villages during the 1980s.
And there's the skillset issue as well - there was increasingly little requirement for former miners in their 50s or for that matter poorly educated, unskilled teenagers. Traditional heavy industry had provided a source of employment for such people but by the 1980s even that required employees with higher skills.
Soft drugs in with alcohol and tobacco. Over 18s only, restrictions on sellers to make sure they obey. Hard drugs such as Heroin for sale to registered users only for use in specified locations, fron Chemist or GP.
Tax them destroy (or make them find a new income stream) the criminal suppliers, reduce the crime by desperate addicts.
While you are doing it, can you legalise prostitution too? I'm sure the sellers of services (male and female) could be far better protected within a legal framework.
Prostitution is legal. Feminists and the Democratic Unionists (now there's a weird alliance!) want to criminalise people who purchase sex.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. If it's illegal, you need an income of around £100,000 a year to finance it, and you have to buy it from criminals, who will encourage you to increase the dose and suggest criminal ways to finance it. If it's legal, you get it free from your GP, who advises you to cut back and offers help when you're ready to do it. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
As I understand it, this used to be the case in the UK.
The change was not due to media pressure, but because the UK signed up to an international anti-drug treaty/agreement (the name of which I forget), and this (pressure from the USA) is what prevents a change in UK policy.
As somebody who does not like the state or any institution (including corporates) being overly bossy or demanding of individuals (hence my name!) I had a bit of sympathy for the old Greens who seemed more anarchic (liked the fact they did not have a leader for a while!) than socialist . I even voted for them once in the Euro elections in the 90's.
However nowadays they seem to be stuffed full of hard line statists who seem more interested in red issues than green or liberal ones. I follow all political parties twitter accounts (mainly to see if there are any betting angles) but the stuff from the Greens is always the tedious stuff about evil corporates . They don't seem to realise that corporates are usually a big pool of individuals trying to make a living . They need to grow up and become positive again imo
For all of the partisan Labour vs Tory bickering on who did what when, its really very simple. For 30 years now both parties have presided over the dismantling of heavy industry and its partial replacement with service "industry" and now thats increasing departure as retail shrinks and stuff like call centres migrates.
Tories accuse Labour accuse Tories of various policy failings where both are identical: 1. PFI. A Tory idea exploded by Brown to avoid Tory accusations of overspending. Criticised by Tories in opposition then exploded again by Osborne. Both sides criticise it bitterly in opposition, both sides sign vast contracts in government.
2. Regulation. Lawson had the big bang to kick off laisse-faire, Brown made the BofE independent and had light-touch regulation which Osborne and Cameron bitterly criticised as tying the city up in red tape (Cameron even calling Brown "the great regulator" in speeches). Tories now allegedly regulating banks who keep landing multi-billion pound fines for illegal cartel behaviour, with Labour saying that instead of regulating the banks they would regulate them.....
3. Welfare. Tories dumped the unemployed onto Invalidity Benefit under Major to reduce dole figures (as bitterly complained about by GPs at the time in the press). Labour renamed the benefit to let them do the same, then got tough and hired ATOS to weed out the "fakers". Tories criticise ATOS then broaden their contract leading to ATOS "doctors" curing the terminally ill. Labour introduce sanctions on job seekers, Tories toughen sanctions, Labour object. Labour's proposed policy? Sanctions.
4. The NHS. Tories introduce the internal market. Labour scrap it. Then reinstate in in different form. Then restructure it along with the bodies running hospitals - twice. Then the Tories pledge no top-down reorganisation like the three done by Labour and do the biggest reorganisation yet. Labour introduce the private sector to cut 18 month waiting lists, then start contracting things out to the private sector on a bigger scale. Tories decide to contract everything out, Labour object, have a policy to oppose the Tories' top-down reorganisation with a top-down reorganisation to undue the top-down reorganisation.
Rodney Crosby is a holocaust denier and therefore far from a neutral source when it comes to pro-Israel columns of Maureen Lipman. However, in this case I agree that her article was worryingly flawed.
As Labour morphs into Respect it is hardly surprising that it will lose the Jewish vote.
It is a shame that there has to be such a thing as the Jewish vote or the Muslim vote. I find the idea of defining oneself by ones religion very odd
Rodney Crosby is a holocaust denier and therefore far from a neutral source when it comes to pro-Israel columns of Maureen Lipman. However, in this case I agree that her article was worryingly flawed.
As Labour morphs into Respect it is hardly surprising that it will lose the Jewish vote.
The current Israeli government is gratuitously spiteful towards Palestinians in the West Bank. The latest wheeze is to ban them from using buses to travel to work in Israel, lest Israelis be offended by their presence. At least in the Jim Crow era, blacks were allowed to sit at the back of the bus. I'd be quite happy to see formal recognition of a Palestinian state.
A lot has been said about providing jobs to the areas that were hit by the closure of a mono-industry.
However, at the same time as these industries became globally uneconomic, the centre of gravity of industrial development (except for N America) has shifted away from Western Europe to Asia (if you include Russia in Asia).
So the UK is situated at the outer edge and far away from the centre of this circle of development. So any new investment has to have a mighty good economic reason to set up a new business on the edge of this circumference. In the past generous grants were given to overseas companies to set up businesses, but in the end many of these have closed as they in turn have become economically uncompetitive.
At the moment the UK's car industry has bucked this trend, but we have seen closures of much of the Van industry in the last year. Our microbiology and nano-technology could lead as well.
We have to recognise that unless we vastly and rapidly improve both our education and skills sets, the UK will fall further behind in innovation which with our cost structure could be the only way of being competitive. Even James Dyson had to shift his manufacturing to Asia for cost and competition reasons.
In order to do this the whole culture and aspiration of our education has to change. Schools should have longer hours (8.30-4.30) and we need teachers who are both knowledgeable and good communicators. We need to start languages and solid learning from the age of 5 and raise the bar of expectations. Those who are not suited to the academic path need early training in other skill sets.
The rest of the world does not owe any of us a living and we have to do things more efficiently and at a lower cost to survive. Unfortunately many of our politicians (at all levels), trade unionists and educators are mentally still in the 1970s and those solutions are no longer valid.
I see that the Welsh Government will get £2bn in EU grants over the next 5 years. If that goes the same way as previous EU money, most of it will be wasted on useless bureaucracy and administration, where you have helpers, aiding enablers, who are helping leaders, who are helping diversity specialists and are advising equality specialists who are pushing an employment adviser in an area where there are very few jobs. And you think I am joking?
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never (and never been drunk either) - I don't want to mess with my mind: it might have its odd qualities, but it's mine, and I don't want a booze merchant or a dealer fiddling with it. Yeah, it's a limited view, but hey.
Embarrassingly, my mum was more cool than me - nonchalantly said she'd been given marijuana as a prank at a party in the 30s and smoked it thinking it was a regular fag. The prankster leered and asked how she felt now - she said it hadn't done anything for her, sorry...
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.
The key words there are "in power"
How likely do you think it is that they will be in power?
As I said to Richard, do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government. Its failure to address the issues you raise was one of its greatest failings.
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
But you are acting as if there are easy answers: as I pointed out, the governments of the 1980s and 1990s did many of the things you wanted, often against massive protest.
You keep on calling for infrastructure, and I show a heck of a lot was done. But the problem was incredibly deep and hard to solve, which is why it has not been solved to this day.
Could they have done more? Yes. Hindsight is like that. But doing more might have damaged other parts of the economy. You cannot spend money twice.
Did they do more than you imply? Hell, yes.
Did they do more than Labour: yes. But as you say, that's a very low baseline.
Imagine London without Heseltine, the LDDC and Docklands. Labour were against that as well, Bob Mellish aside.
That would have been London now, if Labour had had the oil money.
Labour had oil money and like the Tories frittered it away.
I am afraid I do not agree with you that there was a high level of infrastructure investment in the 80s and 90s. This from an IFS report in 2001:
Total gross public investment (measured by gross capital formation – a concept we will outline in Box 2) as a percentage of GDP has fallen almost continuously since the mid-1970s (Figure 2.1). It comprised 8.9% of GDP in 1975 and fell to 1.7% in 2000. The decline was therefore 7.2 percentage points of GDP, which in 2000 represented around £67 billion. Net public investment, for which a longer data series is available, has been declining for a longer period. It shows a similar collapse (Figure 2.2), from 5.3% in 1975 to 0.5% in 2000. The net investment data show that the 1960s and 1970s were periods of exceptionally high public investment by post-war standards but that the current investment level compares unfavourably even with that in 1948 (1.3%). The gross and net series are broadly similar; hereafter, we will concentrate mainly on gross data.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. If it's illegal, you need an income of around £100,000 a year to finance it, and you have to buy it from criminals, who will encourage you to increase the dose and suggest criminal ways to finance it. If it's legal, you get it free from your GP, who advises you to cut back and offers help when you're ready to do it. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
As I understand it, this used to be the case in the UK.
The change was not due to media pressure, but because the UK signed up to an international anti-drug treaty/agreement (the name of which I forget), and this (pressure from the USA) is what prevents a change in UK policy.
Channel 4 ran a series on this back in 2004-ish.
I think you may be referring to the 1961 International treaty agreement refered to as the ‘Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs’ - I believe it was the bases for the UK’s 'The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971'.
Soft drugs in with alcohol and tobacco. Over 18s only, restrictions on sellers to make sure they obey. Hard drugs such as Heroin for sale to registered users only for use in specified locations, fron Chemist or GP.
Tax them destroy (or make them find a new income stream) the criminal suppliers, reduce the crime by desperate addicts.
While you are doing it, can you legalise prostitution too? I'm sure the sellers of services (male and female) could be far better protected within a legal framework.
Prostitution is legal. Feminists and the Democratic Unionists (now there's a weird alliance!) want to criminalise people who purchase sex.
Well thanks for the information - it isn't a part of life that I have any first hand knowledge, but any laws should be written in a way that protects the service provider(s) and eliminates the opportunities for criminal gangs to become involved for profit or through exploitation.
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never (and never been drunk either) - I don't want to mess with my mind: it might have its odd qualities, but it's mine, and I don't want a booze merchant or a dealer fiddling with it. Yeah, it's a limited view, but hey.
Embarrassingly, my mum was more cool than me - nonchalantly said she'd been given marijuana as a prank at a party in the 30s and smoked it thinking it was a regular fag. The prankster leered and asked how she felt now - she said it hadn't done anything for her, sorry...
Well I have never tried drugs and ,although have been drunk on occasion , do not like the idea as well. As you say ,its your mind and why deliberately reduce the ability of it by trying to get drunk. I like most alcohol but for the taste (is there anything better than a cool lager on a hot day or a pint of ale in a pub after an Autumn walk?) . I also hate to get drunk
It will be interesting to see where Ukip goes from here.
It will change because it's hoovering up a variety of groups. The old-fashioned blazer brigade were just the seed corn. The NOTAs came along and then Farage correctly saw the potential in the wwc - more socially conservative than the middle class but still left wing economically - and the NHS traditionalists.
Which is why Labout desperately tried to shore up their vote by banging on about the NHS.
For that reason, the NHS should be safe with Ukip.
Now? Respectability in the form of social acceptance. That will be a slow and gradual ask but it could be done.
Then again, they could just implode, but don't bank on it. Especially if the political class keep giving them open goals.
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never (and never been drunk either) - I don't want to mess with my mind: it might have its odd qualities, but it's mine, and I don't want a booze merchant or a dealer fiddling with it. Yeah, it's a limited view, but hey.
Embarrassingly, my mum was more cool than me - nonchalantly said she'd been given marijuana as a prank at a party in the 30s and smoked it thinking it was a regular fag. The prankster leered and asked how she felt now - she said it hadn't done anything for her, sorry...
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never (and never been drunk either) - I don't want to mess with my mind: it might have its odd qualities, but it's mine, and I don't want a booze merchant or a dealer fiddling with it. Yeah, it's a limited view, but hey.
Embarrassingly, my mum was more cool than me - nonchalantly said she'd been given marijuana as a prank at a party in the 30s and smoked it thinking it was a regular fag. The prankster leered and asked how she felt now - she said it hadn't done anything for her, sorry...
Well I have never tried drugs and ,although have been drunk on occasion , do not like the idea as well. As you say ,its your mind and why deliberately reduce the ability of it by trying to get drunk. I like most alcohol but for the taste (is there anything better than a cool lager on a hot day or a pint of ale in a pub after an Autumn walk?) . I also hate to get drunk
I can understand the appeal of heroin. I had a morphine injection in hospital and felt on top of the world.
A few people have said they don't get the jbriskin joke... Passes me by also, but a few people seemingly do get the bobajob/Bobafett/lastboyscout 'gag'
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
Which puts the Red Liberal swing vote in context. Yes, it is huge (c. 7-8% of the electorate) but its importance is markedly reduced when offset against the 3.5% each that represent Blue Liberals, Purple Liberals and Green Liberals.
A few years ago I heard a Nottingham policeman say that the general decrease in reported crime was mirrored by the increase in drug trafficking, as career criminals moved to the easier work. If drugs become free I expect this trend would reverse.
A turnout anecdote for the S Yorks by-election: I voted at around 9:15. There was only one other voter there when I arrived, but another arrived just as I was leaving. From memory, this seems a bit lower than typical council election turnouts, but a few minutes isn't a long enough period to draw firm conclusions from.
There were also four adults stood on the pavement outside, with polling cards in their hand, talking loudly about poor experiences with the police. They didn't appear to be affiliated with any political party, so that suggests some level of popular involvement in the election.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. If it's illegal, you need an income of around £100,000 a year to finance it, and you have to buy it from criminals, who will encourage you to increase the dose and suggest criminal ways to finance it. If it's legal, you get it free from your GP, who advises you to cut back and offers help when you're ready to do it. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
As I understand it, this used to be the case in the UK.
The change was not due to media pressure, but because the UK signed up to an international anti-drug treaty/agreement (the name of which I forget), and this (pressure from the USA) is what prevents a change in UK policy.
Channel 4 ran a series on this back in 2004-ish.
Yes; I remember the discussions when the changes were introduced. We had a policy of registering addicts and every month or so a list came to all pharmacies saying that such and such a doctor was no longer allowed to prescribe controlled drugs or some such. It was supposed to keep things under control. However, a pharmacist friend who worked in a pharmacy in a fashionable area of London once said publically that there were supposed to be 30 cocaine addicts in his area and he’d seen 36 of them!
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never (and never been drunk either) - I don't want to mess with my mind: it might have its odd qualities, but it's mine, and I don't want a booze merchant or a dealer fiddling with it. Yeah, it's a limited view, but hey.
Embarrassingly, my mum was more cool than me - nonchalantly said she'd been given marijuana as a prank at a party in the 30s and smoked it thinking it was a regular fag. The prankster leered and asked how she felt now - she said it hadn't done anything for her, sorry...
Well I have never tried drugs and ,although have been drunk on occasion , do not like the idea as well. As you say ,its your mind and why deliberately reduce the ability of it by trying to get drunk. I like most alcohol but for the taste (is there anything better than a cool lager on a hot day or a pint of ale in a pub after an Autumn walk?) . I also hate to get drunk
I can understand the appeal of heroin. I had a morphine injection in hospital and felt on top of the world.
Whilst I hate to deliberately reduce the ability or injure my mind through any kind of substance I have no compulsions this way about injuring or knackering my physical body though . Many a time I have kept on running ,orienteering or biking when I know I should stop due to feeling twinges. I am forever limping on Monday after physical weekends!!
As I said to Richard, do not confuse me with a defender of the last Labour government. Its failure to address the issues you raise was one of its greatest failings.
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
But you are acting as if there are easy answers: as I pointed out, the governments of the 1980s and 1990s did many of the things you wanted, often against massive protest.
You keep on calling for infrastructure, and I show a heck of a lot was done. But the problem was incredibly deep and hard to solve, which is why it has not been solved to this day.
Could they have done more? Yes. Hindsight is like that. But doing more might have damaged other parts of the economy. You cannot spend money twice.
Did they do more than you imply? Hell, yes.
Did they do more than Labour: yes. But as you say, that's a very low baseline.
Imagine London without Heseltine, the LDDC and Docklands. Labour were against that as well, Bob Mellish aside.
That would have been London now, if Labour had had the oil money.
Labour had oil money and like the Tories frittered it away.
I am afraid I do not agree with you that there was a high level of infrastructure investment in the 80s and 90s. This from an IFS report in 2001:
Total gross public investment (measured by gross capital formation – a concept we will outline in Box 2) as a percentage of GDP has fallen almost continuously since the mid-1970s (Figure 2.1). It comprised 8.9% of GDP in 1975 and fell to 1.7% in 2000. The decline was therefore 7.2 percentage points of GDP, which in 2000 represented around £67 billion. Net public investment, for which a longer data series is available, has been declining for a longer period. It shows a similar collapse (Figure 2.2), from 5.3% in 1975 to 0.5% in 2000. The net investment data show that the 1960s and 1970s were periods of exceptionally high public investment by post-war standards but that the current investment level compares unfavourably even with that in 1948 (1.3%). The gross and net series are broadly similar; hereafter, we will concentrate mainly on gross data.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. If it's illegal, you need an income of around £100,000 a year to finance it, and you have to buy it from criminals, who will encourage you to increase the dose and suggest criminal ways to finance it. If it's legal, you get it free from your GP, who advises you to cut back and offers help when you're ready to do it. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
Clearly a change in the law is necessary to cut the level of criminal behaviour.
However NP doesn't go far enough, ask yourself why people are drug addicts? Its not because they have an addictive personality but is due to them having significant trauma in childhood. As such, taking drugs gives them (in the words of one addict) a great big hug that they never had in childhood.
Consider this, in Vietnam almost all front line troops took drugs but when they got home 95% stopped for good.
The only problem with drugs is the illegality.
Also, why have the state through GPs dishing out drugs, why not leave it entirely to the free market?
Lester Holloway (@brolezholloway) 29/10/2014 00:29 I am resigning from the @LibDems over the toleration by some members of appalling racism towards Africans.
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.
A pretty good chance within a couple of elections if they get enough of a vote share in the next one.
The key words there are "in power"
How likely do you think it is that they will be in power?
Personally I have never been tempted as have never needed that supposed stimulus, and whilst enjoy the odd glass of wine or beer have never been drunk (also have inherited my father''s "hollow legs").
However I have seen Rastas high on marijuana in Spanish Town Jamaica, and been told that few of them live beyond 40 as their brains have been 'fried' by incessant smoking of that drug.
Also have seen much of Mexico ripped apart by the hard drug trade with the breakdown of civil society and the rule of law in many areas.
What makes me so angry is the public awareness of the blatant use of illegal drugs by so many 'celebrities' and Hollywood actors and actresses when a better example is required.
Even locally in the UK, the police fail to crack down on the pubs and clubs where drug dealing is rife - again too hard for them to carry out the law?
If we implemented this enlightened policy on drugs, would we become even more of a magnet for immigration..?
I'm glad I am not in a position of power. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to indulge in harmful, addictive, expensive and illegal substances, especially when it seems many of the people who make this choice already seem to not be living great lives. How can anyone conclude anything other than taking drugs is a terrible idea?
I fall at the very first hurdle of having a clue what to do about it, the practice is so outside of my experience and understanding I wouldn't have a clue where to start.
If the evidence is that decriminalisation would be of benefit, then we should seriously consider it, even though my gut reaction is that this is appalling! Some days I am profoundly grateful for my sheltered life...
A lot has been said about providing jobs to the areas that were hit by the closure of a mono-industry.
However, at the same time as these industries became globally uneconomic, the centre of gravity of industrial development (except for N America) has shifted away from Western Europe to Asia (if you include Russia in Asia).
So the UK is situated at the outer edge and far away from the centre of this circle of development. So any new investment has to have a mighty good economic reason to set up a new business on the edge of this circumference. In the past generous grants were given to overseas companies to set up businesses, but in the end many of these have closed as they in turn have become economically uncompetitive.
In so many cases we allowed our industries to close - taking all of the technical innovation and expertise with them - because allegedly the free market dictated that the cheaper foreign option was more economically viable. That the foreign industry received state subsidy and ours did not thus rigging the market seemed to pass market enthusiasts by.
So the "cost" has to include the social costs of closing down the "mono-industry" and the financial costs of years of subsidy and incentives to get lower-skilled lower-employing businesses to fill the void.
But we are where we are. And quite simply we need to invest - massively - for the future. Our national infrastructure (housing, transport, fibre broadband, energy generation etc etc) is barely fit for the present never mind the future. The private sector was supposed to provide and hasn't, we need things like houses and power stations and they all generate a long term return on investment, so we should build them ourselves. That no party likely to form a government has the vision to do so is indicative of the damage done to the nation's brain during 30 years of "the market".
"We can't afford them" will be the retort. Can we as a nation afford NOT to have sufficient power generating facilities? Or homes people can afford to live in? Or transport infrastructure thats not clogged and crumbling?
There's a basic premise in business called return on investment. Why have we managed to convince ourselves that any investment is actually subsidy or bailout?
"Even locally in the UK, the police fail to crack down on the pubs and clubs where drug dealing is rife - again too hard for them to carry out the law? ". Erle Stanley Gardner said where you have visible crime the police are on the take...
"Sir John Nott, the former Conservative MP who served as defence secretary during the 1982 Falklands War, told The Huffington Post on Tuesday he voted for Nigel Farage's eurosceptic party in May."
What do you do for a pit village when there's no more coal extractable down its pit ?
I think we should make it easier for people to move to where the jobs are, and have a managed process of returning areas of surplus housing to nature/farmland.
The big stumbling block for people moving to where the jobs are is housing and in particular the shortage of council housing means it is very hard/risky for council tenants to move to a different part of the country to find employment.
There's two ways you can solve this problem. You could build more council houses in areas where there are many jobs and a growing economy, such as London, Cambridge, etc, or you could sell off** all the remaining council houses to buy-to-let investors.
People can probably guess which approach I'd favour, but either way you remove the effect of concil housing tenure acting as an anchor keeping people in areas where there has not been enough work for decades, and where the policies of successive governments has entirely failed to bring enough work to those areas.
** This might seem attractive superficially to Osborne and company, as the remaining ~2 million council houses might sell for as much as £100 billion if sold sensibly - but the Treasury would probably end up spending a lot more on housing benefit, and you wouldn't be able to stop housing associations from offering people secure tenure at low rents in areas of low housing demand - thus not improving labour mobility as much as desired.
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.
There's solid evidence for that. Switzerland allows GPs to prescribe heroin (not just methadone) to addicts. After the law was introduced, most types of crime plunged, especially burglary. If you're an addict, you do need the stuff. The supplies are obtained from the UN, who seize it from illegal traders.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain... There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
Clearly a change in the law is necessary to cut the level of criminal behaviour.
However NP doesn't go far enough, ask yourself why people are drug addicts? Its not because they have an addictive personality but is due to them having significant trauma in childhood. As such, taking drugs gives them (in the words of one addict) a great big hug that they never had in childhood.
Consider this, in Vietnam almost all front line troops took drugs but when they got home 95% stopped for good.
The only problem with drugs is the illegality.
Also, why have the state through GPs dishing out drugs, why not leave it entirely to the free market?
What the report notes, and it is difficult to deny, is that general trends in falling crime and drug use across Western Europe have obscured any effect particular drugs policies. If you follow the UK from the time Switzerland or Portugal implemented their poliiivies you actually see similar outcomes here.
It seems the stronger position the fore not to create a new smoking crisis by legitimise g consumption of a substance only to find out later we're really rather we hadn't.
We have an emergin problem with legal highs, but you can't relax policy there.
The last thing that falls to be considered is whether as Messrs Browne and others here think, decriminalisation in order to lower consumption is really compatible with what others propose, namely decriminalisation because certain drugs aren't harmful / it's a matter of liberty.
All of my friends took drugs growing up, none were ever prosecuted for possession, none were ever 'criminalised', many had parts of their lives ruined by panic and anxiety attacks, and resorted to alcohol to steady their nerves, which in turn led to alcohol dependency.
Now most of those affected are in AA and wouldn't touch any drug for pleasure at any cost
Surely the most important thing we could do regarding drugs is to constantly hammer home the point to young children that drugs increase the chances of the lifelong prison of mental illness and anxiety... Anything to stop them getting started on drugs is worthwhile
I see the innocent happy faces of my friends young children and it scares the life out if me that I might one day see then in the paranoid edgy states I saw people get in...
And people that have never taken drugs are now saying they should be legal...
Old fashioned maybe, but prevention is better than cure is as true as ever
UKIP shouldn't get hung up about mockumentaries about them. They should take it first as a compliment that they're important enough to worth a mockumentary and second remember that for them any publicity is good publicity.
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
Which puts the Red Liberal swing vote in context. Yes, it is huge (c. 7-8% of the electorate) but its importance is markedly reduced when offset against the 3.5% each that represent Blue Liberals, Purple Liberals and Green Liberals.
Have the number of red Liberal supporters that shifted to Lab dropped markedly? Or is the Labour drop in support mainly due to losing 2010 Lab voters? If Lab have lost a substantial % of its 2010 voters then it is not inconceiveable that at the GE Lab may fall below GE2010 as some of these red Liberals may not bother.
If we implemented this enlightened policy on drugs, would we become even more of a magnet for immigration..?
Yes, the policy would reduce crime and free up money for tax cuts and public spending, which would certainly make it more attractive to move to the country and less attractive to leave.
Do the statistics show the working classes leaving Labour? My sense is a large majority of the working class still vote Labour, but I would be keen to read more if you have the data
I feel rather sorry for the LDs - but it's their own silly fault.
Rather than trumpet what they've done with their first crack at power in 80+yrs, they've acted like moody teenagers pulling away from their parents and slamming doors.
I can barely recall the things they've talked up successfully - my mind is full of their complaining/We've Stopped The Tories blah blah. That I voted for Paddy and a 1p rise on income tax for something - education? seems like a very distant memory.
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.
"Consider this, in Vietnam almost all front line troops took drugs but when they got home 95% stopped for good." - because the drugs were illegal?
Dont be daft, anybody wanting drugs can always be able to find a supply.
The troops stopped because the reason they took drugs went away ie because back home in America they were not wandering around the jungle aimlessly wanting for people to take pot shots at them.
Quite frankly, because of small minded dim thickos like you we continue to have all the problems that prohibition causes.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Having dealt with the fuckwit, consider this, prohibition only ended in America because the state ran out of money. A lot of states are a lot closer than most people think of running out of money, so I remain an optimist.
"Consider this, in Vietnam almost all front line troops took drugs but when they got home 95% stopped for good." - because the drugs were illegal?
Dont be daft, anybody wanting drugs can always be able to find a supply.
The troops stopped because the reason they took drugs went away ie because back home in America they were not wandering around the jungle aimlessly wanting for people to take pot shots at them.
Quite frankly, because of small minded dim thickos like you we continue to have all the problems that prohibition causes.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Having dealt with the fuckwit, consider this, prohibition only ended in America because the state ran out of money. A lot of states are a lot closer than most people think of running out of money, so I remain an optimist.
Not sure you advance your argument by being overly rude or emotional
"Through a snowball effect of misinformation, trolling, and ideological/emotional bias on both sides, the issue is quickly descending into a quagmire attracting trolls, extremists, and opportunists needlessly stirring the pot of controversy,"
New 5% strategy for LDs? Ignoring my personal views on drugs. Is the Lib Dems latest political act of staking out their position in all voters minds as the "party for liberalising drugs", just going to drive down voter support to 5% or less, when voters learn about what the LDs really believe in? Just as Clegg drove down LD support through communicating how europhile his party was through the Farage debates? The NOTA party built support through hiding the policies that voters did not want. Communicating them was a massive mistake!
Comments
Mr. StClare, the problem is the Lib Dems appear to be differentiating themselves from voters.
Compare the miles of roads built between 1980 and 1997 compared with 1997 and 2010
Compare the miles of railways electrified between 1980 and 1997 compared with 1997 and 2010
Compare house building.
etc, etc.
They also spent vast amounts on regeneration (e.g. Docklands, garden festivals), and attracted other industry in (Nissan, Honda, Toyota et al). Compare that with Labour: e.g. closure of Rover and my beloved Butterley.
IME the main problem in the area where pits and other heavy industry closed was one of skills, which reflects poorly on the schools from the 1950s onwards. Many children were educated just to go into those industries. Reskilling is difficult, and harder the older people are, as is instilling a sense of self-worth.
I'd agree with you if Labour had done anything to improve matters in, say, Merthyr Tyfdil, in their 13 years in power. But they did not. Why? Because it is difficult, and there is no magic wand to be waved, and money spent can, if unwisely spent, disappear down a black hole.
I think it's pretty obvious that if you legalise drugs you will shift the demand curve to the right. Any proponent of legalisation would have to accept that. I am one such proponent.
The question therefore becomes: would the criminality avoided by having a legal trade in drugs compensate for the increased harm of wider usage?
I think registration, a huge education programme, perhaps even licensing (to start with) would be required for the harder drugs. It is not at all a given that because you take soft drugs you will inevitably graduate onto harder ones.
As you say, for those people determined to hit the hardest drugs, legality is not the issue. I think rather, that if "safe" drugs are available, with full transparency and education, then most people would opt for remaining within those "safe" boundaries.
And yes, agree with your Bill Hicks quote - to criminalise people for sitting in front of Strictly smoking a joint seems bizarre.
Every corrupt State needs a "whipping boy" to keep the rest assured that once that problem is dealt with, it will be a land of milk and honey.
Each party has it's own favourites.
The boundaries haven't changed, so this aids your point.
However, the rise of UKIP has changed what constituencies are marginal - just see Heywood and Middleton as an example.
If only Ed had made an effort over AV referendum.
The lefties flailed around to find someone to vote for in 2010 and alighted on the LDs.
They are now flailing around to find someone to vote for next year and have alighted on the Greens.
They seem to be oblivious to the fact that those wild la-la crazy lefty policies are simple unworkable in real life for a sensible political party.
I mean you would think Brighton would have taught them this lesson but no.
Read this by Maureen Lipman
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5798/full?page=1
She is a complete waste of oxygen."
The irony is that if Israel found itself at war with the UK she'd be with Israel from day one yet when Muslims find themselves drawn into fighting for what they see as Muslim causes they are beyond the pale
The issue with democracy is that to have a functioning democracy you need a demos. In otherwords the overwhelming majority of the electorate needs to have a common set of values that they all broadly agree on. This was the case in the UK until major immigration resulted in people with cultures that conflicted with the then UK culture arrived, and worse, were discouraged from integrating. As a result the electorate starts splitting on ethnic identity.
A second problem, and perhaps the more major problem, given the exponentially increasing national debt and no government willing to tackle it properly standing a chance of being elected, was stated eloquently by Alexander Fraser Tytler:
"It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
The bottom line is that the 1980s left us with countless hollowed out communities that remain today - the result is heightened welfare dependence, countless broken homes and myriad other social problems. We also enjoyed one of the great tax windfalls in our history. A lot more could have been done to address infrastructure and housing. That would have provided employment and laid the foundations for new industries to emerge from the old, at a time when communities were still cohesive and a culture of worklessness had not been ingrained. But other choices were made.
Funny we don't hear that any more from Lefties.
If there was no welfare they would have all been forced to abandon those communities and go elsewhere - or starve, just as the stanney communities in the nineteenth century were abandoned when tin mining declined.
Thats why there are countless wholly abandoned stannery communites in west Devon & Cornwall comprising ruined buildings and countless poverty stricken workless communities in South Wales.
Cruel but true.
A right-wing group organised a referendum to reverse the policy, and were heavily defeated. The Swiss are quite conservative, but they like policies that actually work.
It's been suggested in Britain, but always runs into press assaults (I rmember a Sun piece called the National HEROIN Service) and politicians shy off it. There is an obvious risk that it encourages addiction (become an addict and you get it free), but experience seems to show that people who want to be addicts are addicts and people who don't will not opt for it just because it's free.
It's impractical for crack, by the way - crack addicts need fixes more than once a day, not feasible for GPs.
With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past.
I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96.
After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit.
I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11196900/QE-central-bankers-deserve-a-medal-for-saving-society.html
Support the Welfare State? Vote UKIP!
I don't know if there are reliable figures, but I suspect the housing shortage has increased exponentially in recent years with a combination of single parents, split marriages, young people settling later so having individual housing needs as opposed to joint requirements and the old canard immigration.
If it wasn't seen or predicted to be the massive issue it is now, then it is understandable that more action wasn't taken.
That home ownership rose from 10% to 70% over the 20th century is a good indicator of the growing economic equality achieved.
Something which has gone into rapid reverse during the 21st century.
Soft drugs in with alcohol and tobacco. Over 18s only, restrictions on sellers to make sure they obey.
Hard drugs such as Heroin for sale to registered users only for use in specified locations, fron Chemist or GP.
Tax them destroy (or make them find a new income stream) the criminal suppliers, reduce the crime by desperate addicts.
While you are doing it, can you legalise prostitution too? I'm sure the sellers of services (male and female) could be far better protected within a legal framework.
(a) Labour would be barely up on its vote share in the last election,
(b) the Lib Dems would lose 75% of their vote
(c) but, the Conservatives would also be down 4%
(d) UKIP would be up 14%
(e) the Greens would be up 5%
(f) the SNP would lead Labour in Scotland?
That would have been thought the stuff of fantasy.
You keep on calling for infrastructure, and I show a heck of a lot was done. But the problem was incredibly deep and hard to solve, which is why it has not been solved to this day.
Could they have done more? Yes. Hindsight is like that. But doing more might have damaged other parts of the economy. You cannot spend money twice.
Did they do more than you imply? Hell, yes.
Did they do more than Labour: yes. But as you say, that's a very low baseline.
Imagine London without Heseltine, the LDDC and Docklands. Labour were against that as well, Bob Mellish aside.
That would have been London now, if Labour had had the oil money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Qiciv2of0
Then you have the issue of location - building council houses and roads in the South-East might have been a good idea but it doesn't help a former miner in Wales of the North-East. There was certainly no shortage of very cheap housing in pit villages during the 1980s.
And there's the skillset issue as well - there was increasingly little requirement for former miners in their 50s or for that matter poorly educated, unskilled teenagers. Traditional heavy industry had provided a source of employment for such people but by the 1980s even that required employees with higher skills.
The change was not due to media pressure, but because the UK signed up to an international anti-drug treaty/agreement (the name of which I forget), and this (pressure from the USA) is what prevents a change in UK policy.
Channel 4 ran a series on this back in 2004-ish.
As somebody who does not like the state or any institution (including corporates) being overly bossy or demanding of individuals (hence my name!) I had a bit of sympathy for the old Greens who seemed more anarchic (liked the fact they did not have a leader for a while!) than socialist . I even voted for them once in the Euro elections in the 90's.
However nowadays they seem to be stuffed full of hard line statists who seem more interested in red issues than green or liberal ones. I follow all political parties twitter accounts (mainly to see if there are any betting angles) but the stuff from the Greens is always the tedious stuff about evil corporates . They don't seem to realise that corporates are usually a big pool of individuals trying to make a living . They need to grow up and become positive again imo
Many thanks. I hope you have been well
Tories accuse Labour accuse Tories of various policy failings where both are identical:
1. PFI. A Tory idea exploded by Brown to avoid Tory accusations of overspending. Criticised by Tories in opposition then exploded again by Osborne. Both sides criticise it bitterly in opposition, both sides sign vast contracts in government.
2. Regulation. Lawson had the big bang to kick off laisse-faire, Brown made the BofE independent and had light-touch regulation which Osborne and Cameron bitterly criticised as tying the city up in red tape (Cameron even calling Brown "the great regulator" in speeches). Tories now allegedly regulating banks who keep landing multi-billion pound fines for illegal cartel behaviour, with Labour saying that instead of regulating the banks they would regulate them.....
3. Welfare. Tories dumped the unemployed onto Invalidity Benefit under Major to reduce dole figures (as bitterly complained about by GPs at the time in the press). Labour renamed the benefit to let them do the same, then got tough and hired ATOS to weed out the "fakers". Tories criticise ATOS then broaden their contract leading to ATOS "doctors" curing the terminally ill. Labour introduce sanctions on job seekers, Tories toughen sanctions, Labour object. Labour's proposed policy? Sanctions.
4. The NHS. Tories introduce the internal market. Labour scrap it. Then reinstate in in different form. Then restructure it along with the bodies running hospitals - twice. Then the Tories pledge no top-down reorganisation like the three done by Labour and do the biggest reorganisation yet. Labour introduce the private sector to cut 18 month waiting lists, then start contracting things out to the private sector on a bigger scale. Tories decide to contract everything out, Labour object, have a policy to oppose the Tories' top-down reorganisation with a top-down reorganisation to undue the top-down reorganisation.
Is it any wonder UKIP are doing so well?
However, at the same time as these industries became globally uneconomic, the centre of gravity of industrial development (except for N America) has shifted away from Western Europe to Asia (if you include Russia in Asia).
So the UK is situated at the outer edge and far away from the centre of this circle of development. So any new investment has to have a mighty good economic reason to set up a new business on the edge of this circumference. In the past generous grants were given to overseas companies to set up businesses, but in the end many of these have closed as they in turn have become economically uncompetitive.
At the moment the UK's car industry has bucked this trend, but we have seen closures of much of the Van industry in the last year. Our microbiology and nano-technology could lead as well.
We have to recognise that unless we vastly and rapidly improve both our education and skills sets, the UK will fall further behind in innovation which with our cost structure could be the only way of being competitive. Even James Dyson had to shift his manufacturing to Asia for cost and competition reasons.
In order to do this the whole culture and aspiration of our education has to change. Schools should have longer hours (8.30-4.30) and we need teachers who are both knowledgeable and good communicators. We need to start languages and solid learning from the age of 5 and raise the bar of expectations. Those who are not suited to the academic path need early training in other skill sets.
The rest of the world does not owe any of us a living and we have to do things more efficiently and at a lower cost to survive. Unfortunately many of our politicians (at all levels), trade unionists and educators are mentally still in the 1970s and those solutions are no longer valid.
I see that the Welsh Government will get £2bn in EU grants over the next 5 years. If that goes the same way as previous EU money, most of it will be wasted on useless bureaucracy and administration, where you have helpers, aiding enablers, who are helping leaders, who are helping diversity specialists and are advising equality specialists who are pushing an employment adviser in an area where there are very few jobs. And you think I am joking?
Embarrassingly, my mum was more cool than me - nonchalantly said she'd been given marijuana as a prank at a party in the 30s and smoked it thinking it was a regular fag. The prankster leered and asked how she felt now - she said it hadn't done anything for her, sorry...
How likely do you think it is that they will be in power?
I am afraid I do not agree with you that there was a high level of infrastructure investment in the 80s and 90s. This from an IFS report in 2001:
Total gross public investment (measured by gross capital formation – a concept we will outline in Box 2) as a percentage of GDP has fallen almost continuously since the mid-1970s (Figure 2.1). It comprised 8.9% of GDP in 1975 and fell to 1.7% in 2000. The decline was therefore 7.2 percentage points of GDP, which in 2000 represented around £67 billion.
Net public investment, for which a longer data series is available, has been declining for a longer period. It shows a similar collapse (Figure 2.2), from 5.3% in 1975 to 0.5% in 2000. The net investment data show that the 1960s and 1970s were periods of exceptionally high public investment by post-war standards but that the current investment level compares unfavourably even with that in 1948 (1.3%). The gross and net series are broadly similar; hereafter, we will concentrate mainly on gross data.
It will be interesting to see where Ukip goes from here.
It will change because it's hoovering up a variety of groups. The old-fashioned blazer brigade were just the seed corn. The NOTAs came along and then Farage correctly saw the potential in the wwc - more socially conservative than the middle class but still left wing economically - and the NHS traditionalists.
Which is why Labout desperately tried to shore up their vote by banging on about the NHS.
For that reason, the NHS should be safe with Ukip.
Now? Respectability in the form of social acceptance. That will be a slow and gradual ask but it could be done.
Then again, they could just implode, but don't bank on it. Especially if the political class keep giving them open goals.
What's funny about it?
There were also four adults stood on the pavement outside, with polling cards in their hand, talking loudly about poor experiences with the police. They didn't appear to be affiliated with any political party, so that suggests some level of popular involvement in the election.
It was supposed to keep things under control. However, a pharmacist friend who worked in a pharmacy in a fashionable area of London once said publically that there were supposed to be 30 cocaine addicts in his area and he’d seen 36 of them!
Would take someone with a heart of stone not to laugh.
Same people who did 'Tony Blair on Trial'
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/30/nigel-farage-ukip-documentary-spoof-channel-4?CMP=twt_gu
Alcohol is my drug of choice. The pleasures of morphine are my main recollections of an emergency appendicitis operation.
However NP doesn't go far enough, ask yourself why people are drug addicts? Its not because they have an addictive personality but is due to them having significant trauma in childhood. As such, taking drugs gives them (in the words of one addict) a great big hug that they never had in childhood.
Consider this, in Vietnam almost all front line troops took drugs but when they got home 95% stopped for good.
The only problem with drugs is the illegality.
Also, why have the state through GPs dishing out drugs, why not leave it entirely to the free market?
Lester Holloway (@brolezholloway)
29/10/2014 00:29
I am resigning from the @LibDems over the toleration by some members of appalling racism towards Africans.
Personally I have never been tempted as have never needed that supposed stimulus, and whilst enjoy the odd glass of wine or beer have never been drunk (also have inherited my father''s "hollow legs").
However I have seen Rastas high on marijuana in Spanish Town Jamaica, and been told that few of them live beyond 40 as their brains have been 'fried' by incessant smoking of that drug.
Also have seen much of Mexico ripped apart by the hard drug trade with the breakdown of civil society and the rule of law in many areas.
What makes me so angry is the public awareness of the blatant use of illegal drugs by so many 'celebrities' and Hollywood actors and actresses when a better example is required.
Even locally in the UK, the police fail to crack down on the pubs and clubs where drug dealing is rife - again too hard for them to carry out the law?
I'm glad I am not in a position of power. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to indulge in harmful, addictive, expensive and illegal substances, especially when it seems many of the people who make this choice already seem to not be living great lives. How can anyone conclude anything other than taking drugs is a terrible idea?
I fall at the very first hurdle of having a clue what to do about it, the practice is so outside of my experience and understanding I wouldn't have a clue where to start.
If the evidence is that decriminalisation would be of benefit, then we should seriously consider it, even though my gut reaction is that this is appalling! Some days I am profoundly grateful for my sheltered life...
So the "cost" has to include the social costs of closing down the "mono-industry" and the financial costs of years of subsidy and incentives to get lower-skilled lower-employing businesses to fill the void.
But we are where we are. And quite simply we need to invest - massively - for the future. Our national infrastructure (housing, transport, fibre broadband, energy generation etc etc) is barely fit for the present never mind the future. The private sector was supposed to provide and hasn't, we need things like houses and power stations and they all generate a long term return on investment, so we should build them ourselves. That no party likely to form a government has the vision to do so is indicative of the damage done to the nation's brain during 30 years of "the market".
"We can't afford them" will be the retort. Can we as a nation afford NOT to have sufficient power generating facilities? Or homes people can afford to live in? Or transport infrastructure thats not clogged and crumbling?
There's a basic premise in business called return on investment. Why have we managed to convince ourselves that any investment is actually subsidy or bailout?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/29/ukip-sir-john-nott-rochester-by-election_n_6067692.html
Yougov 19 February 2013: 30 October 2014
Lab 44, Con 29, LD 11, UKIP 11, Nats 2, Grn 1
Lab 34, Con 31, UKIP 17, Grn 7, LD 6, Nats 4
Vote Retention - Labour
2013: Lab 92, UKIP 4, Con 1, LD 1, Grn 0, Nats 0
2014: Lab 78, UKIP 7, Con 5, Grn 5, LD 2, Nats 2
Vote Retention - Tory
2013: Con 72, UKIP 16, Lab 9, LD 2, BNP 1, Grn 0, Nats 0
2014: Con 74, UKIP 20, Lab 4, LD 1, Grn 1, Nats 1, BNP 0
Vote Retention - Lib Dems
2013: LD 39, Lab 38, Con 9, UKIP 7, Grn 4, Nats 1, BNP 1
2014: Lab 32, LD 22, Con 15, UKIP 15, Grn 14, Nats 2, Other 1
The big stumbling block for people moving to where the jobs are is housing and in particular the shortage of council housing means it is very hard/risky for council tenants to move to a different part of the country to find employment.
There's two ways you can solve this problem. You could build more council houses in areas where there are many jobs and a growing economy, such as London, Cambridge, etc, or you could sell off** all the remaining council houses to buy-to-let investors.
People can probably guess which approach I'd favour, but either way you remove the effect of concil housing tenure acting as an anchor keeping people in areas where there has not been enough work for decades, and where the policies of successive governments has entirely failed to bring enough work to those areas.
** This might seem attractive superficially to Osborne and company, as the remaining ~2 million council houses might sell for as much as £100 billion if sold sensibly - but the Treasury would probably end up spending a lot more on housing benefit, and you wouldn't be able to stop housing associations from offering people secure tenure at low rents in areas of low housing demand - thus not improving labour mobility as much as desired.
It seems the stronger position the fore not to create a new smoking crisis by legitimise g consumption of a substance only to find out later we're really rather we hadn't.
We have an emergin problem with legal highs, but you can't relax policy there.
The last thing that falls to be considered is whether as Messrs Browne and others here think, decriminalisation in order to lower consumption is really compatible with what others propose, namely decriminalisation because certain drugs aren't harmful / it's a matter of liberty.
Now most of those affected are in AA and wouldn't touch any drug for pleasure at any cost
Surely the most important thing we could do regarding drugs is to constantly hammer home the point to young children that drugs increase the chances of the lifelong prison of mental illness and anxiety... Anything to stop them getting started on drugs is worthwhile
I see the innocent happy faces of my friends young children and it scares the life out if me that I might one day see then in the paranoid edgy states I saw people get in...
And people that have never taken drugs are now saying they should be legal...
Old fashioned maybe, but prevention is better than cure is as true as ever
Do the statistics show the working classes leaving Labour? My sense is a large majority of the working class still vote Labour, but I would be keen to read more if you have the data
Rather than trumpet what they've done with their first crack at power in 80+yrs, they've acted like moody teenagers pulling away from their parents and slamming doors.
I can barely recall the things they've talked up successfully - my mind is full of their complaining/We've Stopped The Tories blah blah. That I voted for Paddy and a 1p rise on income tax for something - education? seems like a very distant memory.
The troops stopped because the reason they took drugs went away ie because back home in America they were not wandering around the jungle aimlessly wanting for people to take pot shots at them.
Quite frankly, because of small minded dim thickos like you we continue to have all the problems that prohibition causes.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Having dealt with the fuckwit, consider this, prohibition only ended in America because the state ran out of money. A lot of states are a lot closer than most people think of running out of money, so I remain an optimist.
That was a seminal post on PB.