Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
Labour in this Parliament have strongly resembled the Labour party in the 1951-55 Parliament, where they lost narrowly and firmly expected to be back in power in the near future without having to do very much. They were wrong then and the strategy hasn't looked brilliant up to this point, despite all the electoral advantages that Labour currently possess.
Being a tad too young to remember the lead up to 1992 in much detail, I'd be curious to know what the Labour mood was then?
Documentaries seem to portray that they were confident of victory leading up to the '92 election. Is that true or just narrative that's developed since?
From what I remember of the campaign (my first serious one as an activist), apart from it being cold, was that no-one had a good idea of what was likely to happen and that both Tories and Labour were hopeful rather than confident.
My recollection was different - I had Pink Champagne on ice to toast (ironically) the arrival of a brave new Socialist dawn - and after a valedictory night at the opera settled down with some friends to smoked salmon and scrambled egg supper to steel ourselves for the oncoming carnage.....and then the first reports came in - 'hung parliament' - and the night steadily improved after that.....
Labour in this Parliament have strongly resembled the Labour party in the 1951-55 Parliament, where they lost narrowly and firmly expected to be back in power in the near future without having to do very much. They were wrong then and the strategy hasn't looked brilliant up to this point, despite all the electoral advantages that Labour currently possess.
Being a tad too young to remember the lead up to 1992 in much detail, I'd be curious to know what the Labour mood was then?
Documentaries seem to portray that they were confident of victory leading up to the '92 election. Is that true or just narrative that's developed since?
It is true. On the day of the election there was a quietly hopeful sense that the Tory period was at an end. The crushing feeling of disappointment on the day after was very noticeable to me, even as an 11 year old.
The end of Margaret Thatcher and the retreat over the Poll Tax particularly fed the feeling that Labour's time had come.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
I’m replying to a couple of eaerlier comments; sadly to reply direcdtly takes the post over the word limit. Mr Felix’ comment about “millions of new jobs” doesn’t take into account that that headline figure obscures the fact that too many of these jobs are low-wage or zero-hours contracts, or, worse, both. It is to be hoped that the Government will do something about ZHC’s but time is running out before the election.
Mr Financier, that raises an interesting question for our Kipper friends. How are they going to square that circle? Clearly the current policy of insisting that claimants have a good reason for turning down jobs isn’t working, in your locality at least. Why not?
Plato seems to me to be somewhat misanthropic. Last night he declared he liked to blow raspberries in the face of people who don't share his misanthropic humour. Today he says the poor are thick. I can only presume he is rich and employed in a wonderfully well paid job, and deserves every penny. What job do you have Plato?
*she
Yesterdays comment on something like the temptations of Lesbianism may have been a small clue
UKIP 1/12 on betfair to win R&S, if they do hard to see how Cameron can spin his way out of it.
low turn out and 6 months before a GE - it's a free hit.
Mmmmmh after "throwing the kitchen sink at it" to use Cameron's words, his backbenchers won't see it as a "free hit".
In any normal political climate this would be a very easy Labour gain - the fact that they are nowhere in sight certainly sugars the pill. A lot depends if there any remaining potential defectors about to jump ship.
It's amazing how though Labour is in a bad position, pretty much none of the damage has come from the Conservatives.
Bradford West - Galloway Rahman - Tower Hamlets Scotland - SNP South Yorkshire - UKIP European elections - UKIP Heywood & Middleton - UKIP
You can argue that alot of those are isolated incidents and "exceptional circumstances" but they're adding up to a bigger picture of Labour failure.
Favourable electoral geography is the only element keeping Labour in the game right now, and for that Ed Miliband must thank his biggest help and friend in this parliament, Nick Clegg.
Newsnight on Tuesday described Tories rejoicing at Labours downfall as like a man celebrating winning a fight with someone who he had just fallen off a cliff with
The Conservatives have far more reason to believe that their fortunes will improve during the campaign. Obviously that isn't guaranteed and if the result is the same as recent polling then I agree, it would be foolish to think of it as a victory for either prty.
If the turnout is virtually unchanged from last time, then it means that there have not been hordes of new UKIP voters, enraged by occurrences in SY, going to the polls.
This means the winner will depends on votes moving from Labour to UKIP, amongst the sort of people who will turn out to vote whatever the circumstances. I really can not see enough people of that sort doing it: many will be lifelong die-hard Labour voters.
The last time was in November 2012 when the national Labour lead was in the region of ten points and UKIP were level-pegging with the Lib Dems. I think differential turnout has to play a large role at this low level of turnout.
It seems to me that the largest change in vote shares will be due to some Labour voters who voted last time not bothering and more UKIP voters bothering this time.
Labour in this Parliament have strongly resembled the Labour party in the 1951-55 Parliament, where they lost narrowly and firmly expected to be back in power in the near future without having to do very much. They were wrong then and the strategy hasn't looked brilliant up to this point, despite all the electoral advantages that Labour currently possess.
Being a tad too young to remember the lead up to 1992 in much detail, I'd be curious to know what the Labour mood was then?
Documentaries seem to portray that they were confident of victory leading up to the '92 election. Is that true or just narrative that's developed since?
It is true. On the day of the election there was a quietly hopeful sense that the Tory period was at an end. The crushing feeling of disappointment on the day after was very noticeable to me, even as an 11 year old.
The end of Margaret Thatcher and the retreat over the Poll Tax particularly fed the feeling that Labour's time had come.
Yes. That’s why 1997 was such a party!
Empty Champagne bottles littering the corridors at the 'unbiased' BBC.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
If that's a good enough reason to move - toodlepip!
UKIP 1/12 on betfair to win R&S, if they do hard to see how Cameron can spin his way out of it.
low turn out and 6 months before a GE - it's a free hit.
It would be great to see those excuses trotted out for the craic.. but after the talk on here that Tories were the value bet because they wanted it so bad and were really fired up, I don't think even the most shameless spinner would have the nerve
Tories ahead in the unweighted base. Underestimating UKIP still.
And Labour were ahead in Yougov's sample. it's not the weighting ratio that's important, it's whether the wrong assumptions have been made in the process.
Edit: my edit box freezes often when posting, which means although I am typing I cannot see what. So bear with me on the odd typo or autocorrect issue.
I’m replying to a couple of eaerlier comments; sadly to reply direcdtly takes the post over the word limit. Mr Felix’ comment about “millions of new jobs” doesn’t take into account that that headline figure obscures the fact that too many of these jobs are low-wage or zero-hours contracts, or, worse, both. It is to be hoped that the Government will do something about ZHC’s but time is running out before the election.
Mr Financier, that raises an interesting question for our Kipper friends. How are they going to square that circle? Clearly the current policy of insisting that claimants have a good reason for turning down jobs isn’t working, in your locality at least. Why not?
Plato seems to me to be somewhat misanthropic. Last night he declared he liked to blow raspberries in the face of people who don't share his misanthropic humour. Today he says the poor are thick. I can only presume he is rich and employed in a wonderfully well paid job, and deserves every penny. What job do you have Plato?
*she
Yesterdays comment on something like the temptations of Lesbianism may have been a small clue
Would someone pretending not to know, in order to perpetuate a lie that they don't have other identities on here, perplex you for quite so long?
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m2 minutes ago New Survation poll (for Unite) in Rochester & Strood finds local NHS (37%) more imp issue for voters than immigration (25%)
Labour should walk it then ?
They'll have to get there first, from wherever they're hiding in the North, Rochester being a constituency in which they've given up.
They're hiding in Bobajob's back garden.
In the Last Boy Scouts tent.
Did you see that "they" were talking to "each other" last night?
If the turnout is virtually unchanged from last time, then it means that there have not been hordes of new UKIP voters, enraged by occurrences in SY, going to the polls.
This means the winner will depends on votes moving from Labour to UKIP, amongst the sort of people who will turn out to vote whatever the circumstances. I really can not see enough people of that sort doing it: many will be lifelong die-hard Labour voters.
Second round votes complicate matters, but not enough given Labour got 51% in the first round last time.
So at this point I rather dangerously predict a Labour win on a reduced vote share. If UKIP do manage to win on such a low turnout, then it is absolutely brilliant for them, as it means they've attracted hardcore voters away from the other parties, and especially Labour.
But my history of voting predictions on here isn't the best ... :-)
Not 'hoardes', certainly, but an alternative exaplanation may be that some Labour 2012 voters abstained and were replaced by new voters who were keener to protest. In fact, given the circumstances, I'd be amazed if this hadn't happened, in additional to any 'true' swing. Whether it will be big enough to make the difference is another matter.
If the turnout is virtually unchanged from last time, then it means that there have not been hordes of new UKIP voters, enraged by occurrences in SY, going to the polls.
This means the winner will depends on votes moving from Labour to UKIP, amongst the sort of people who will turn out to vote whatever the circumstances. I really can not see enough people of that sort doing it: many will be lifelong die-hard Labour voters.
The last time was in November 2012 when the national Labour lead was in the region of ten points and UKIP were level-pegging with the Lib Dems. I think differential turnout has to play a large role at this low level of turnout.
It seems to me that the largest change in vote shares will be due to some Labour voters who voted last time not bothering and more UKIP voters bothering this time.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 10s11 seconds ago RT @britainelects Confirmed South Yorkshire PCC turnouts: Barnsley: 11.9% Doncaster: 15.2% Rotherham: 18.0% Sheffield: 14.5%
It looks comparable to some inner city by-elections of recent years - the higher turn-out in Rotherham and Doncaster presumably reflects the strong support for the 2 eds:)
1992 anecdote. The accepted wisdom was that Labour would win... so much so that in my newsroom (identity withheld to protect the guilty) the election sweepstake did not even include a Tory majority until I asked for one! In a different newsroom, later in the 90s, one of my sports reporters came up to me and whispered - "N, I hear you're a Tory... don't tell anyone, but so am I." Not much has changed in the intervening years.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Didn't think the police bothered to prosecute that ! Only thought they'd bother if you have lots of cash and lots of dope together.
If the turnout is virtually unchanged from last time, then it means that there have not been hordes of new UKIP voters, enraged by occurrences in SY, going to the polls.
This means the winner will depends on votes moving from Labour to UKIP, amongst the sort of people who will turn out to vote whatever the circumstances. I really can not see enough people of that sort doing it: many will be lifelong die-hard Labour voters.
The last time was in November 2012 when the national Labour lead was in the region of ten points and UKIP were level-pegging with the Lib Dems. I think differential turnout has to play a large role at this low level of turnout.
It seems to me that the largest change in vote shares will be due to some Labour voters who voted last time not bothering and more UKIP voters bothering this time.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
If that's a good enough reason to move - toodlepip!
I don't remember even hinting that it might cause me to move?!
Saying that though, I may move to Portugal in the future; not to take advantage of their drug laws but because my folks have a place out there.
The Tories wont take us out of the EU..It would be the wish of the British people, expressed in a referendum...Labour would deny the same people the right to express their view.
As a foreigner you would not have a vote in any case
If the turnout is virtually unchanged from last time, then it means that there have not been hordes of new UKIP voters, enraged by occurrences in SY, going to the polls.
This means the winner will depends on votes moving from Labour to UKIP, amongst the sort of people who will turn out to vote whatever the circumstances. I really can not see enough people of that sort doing it: many will be lifelong die-hard Labour voters.
The last time was in November 2012 when the national Labour lead was in the region of ten points and UKIP were level-pegging with the Lib Dems. I think differential turnout has to play a large role at this low level of turnout.
It seems to me that the largest change in vote shares will be due to some Labour voters who voted last time not bothering and more UKIP voters bothering this time.
I'd agree (and with DH above), but for the fact that the turnout was so low last time as well. The people who would have voted last time are the ones who are die-hard voters, and fewer of these will stay at home, or be likely to change their voting preference.
But you might be right - we don't have long to wait and see, and for the analysis to begin!
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Oh how long did you do?
Didn't do any time, you don't have to to have a criminal record.
It's amazing how though Labour is in a bad position, pretty much none of the damage has come from the Conservatives.
Bradford West - Galloway Rahman - Tower Hamlets South Yorkshire - UKIP European elections - UKIP Heywood & Middleton - UKIP
You can argue that alot of those are isolated incidents and "exceptional circumstances" but they're adding up to a bigger picture of Labour failure.
Those 5 all have the same underlying issues - immigration/Islam/Muslims.
When Maureen Lipman starts up about Ed Miliband and Palestine, it's the same thing rearing up.
The English Labour Party could either end up taking the Respect route- and alienating the English wwc - or the UKIP route - and alienating it's staunchest ethnic vote.
For the time being it's fumbling along unsuccessfully trying to accommodate two incompatible bedfellows - British identity/law and Islamic identity/belief.
Scotland and Wales have far lower levels of population diversity, and therefore think and behave differently to the English, so the same issues don't surface.
They will though if Salmond ever slings open Scotland's borders at the same time as England shuts them.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 10s11 seconds ago RT @britainelects Confirmed South Yorkshire PCC turnouts: Barnsley: 11.9% Doncaster: 15.2% Rotherham: 18.0% Sheffield: 14.5%
Comparitively huge turnout in Rotherham and Doncaster - Good news for UKIP ?
Could equally be Labour supporters turning out to stop UKIP where their campaign is most prominent.
Don't think so - my understanding is that Labour is thought to have done well in Sheffield and poorly in Rotherham and possibly Doncaster. On those figures, I'd expect a UKIP win.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Oh how long did you do?
Didn't do any time, you don't have to to have a criminal record.
You're not Rodney Trotter are you? He got a caution for Cannabis possession
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Didn't think the police bothered to prosecute that ! Only thought they'd bother if you have lots of cash and lots of dope together.
I had no cash and one small joint i'd forgotten about in my jacket pocket. I went to the police station to report that I'd been pickpocketed. They insisted I'd lost my wallet, so they wouldn't have to record it, I argued with them which they didn't like, and they arrested me and found the joint.
Very pleased with themselves too; they got a solved crime rather than an unsolved one.
BARNSLEY Labour 12,393 (56.19%) English Democrats 2,996 (13.58%) Conservative 2,940 (13.33%) UKIP 2,400 (10.88%) Liberal Democrats 1,325 ( 6.01%)
DONCASTER Labour 17,017 (48.17%) English Democrats 7,321 (20.72%) Conservative 5,433 (15.38%) UKIP 3,232 ( 9.14%) Liberal Democrats 1,694 ( 4.79%)
ROTHERHAM Labour 16,374 (51.14%) English Democrat 5,034 (15.72%) UKIP 4,737 (14.80%) Conservative 4,660 (14.56%) Liberal Democrats 1,211 ( 3.78%)
SHEFFIELD Labour 28,831 (51.00%) Conservative 8,042 (14.23%) English Democrat 7,257 (12.84%) UKIP 6,404 (11.33%) Liberal Democrats 5,993 (10.60%)
SOUTH YORKSHIRE TOTAL Labour 74,615 (51.35%) English Democrats 22,608 (15.56%) Conservatives 21,075 (14.51%) UKIP 16,773 (11.54%) Liberal Democrat 10,223 ( 7.04%)
Isam - the problem must be with the long term sick seeking work is that there is no way back if there is a failure - so naturally people can't afford to try. I would prefer the State to turn a blind eye to a few hours work a week to give people a chance to get started. I remember hearing of a BBC program that outed a woman for working an evening in a fish and chip shop. I can't think of anything more counter productive...
The problem is that in reality there's absolutely no need for the vast majority of people to be in work all the time. Things we actually need are done by a relatively small percentage of the population and this is going to increase as automation gets better, so what's the point of shoving everyone else into work that they don't want to do and doesn't really need doing?
Time for a citizens wage and then let people decide to work after that if they want to top it up.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Didn't think the police bothered to prosecute that ! Only thought they'd bother if you have lots of cash and lots of dope together.
It's completely arbitrary and at the will of the police officer and how much he likes/dislikes the cut of your jib. One reason why these laws are so dangerous is they cause the law to be a matter of arbitrary power of the police over citizens for crimes that don't need to hurt anyone.
If the turnout is virtually unchanged from last time, then it means that there have not been hordes of new UKIP voters, enraged by occurrences in SY, going to the polls.
This means the winner will depends on votes moving from Labour to UKIP, amongst the sort of people who will turn out to vote whatever the circumstances. I really can not see enough people of that sort doing it: many will be lifelong die-hard Labour voters.
Second round votes complicate matters, but not enough given Labour got 51% in the first round last time.
So at this point I rather dangerously predict a Labour win on a reduced vote share. If UKIP do manage to win on such a low turnout, then it is absolutely brilliant for them, as it means they've attracted hardcore voters away from the other parties, and especially Labour.
But my history of voting predictions on here isn't the best ... :-)
Alternatively: Some 2012 voters do not turn out. New voters turn out in 2014. Net effect is no change but the composition of the body does.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Oh how long did you do?
Didn't do any time, you don't have to to have a criminal record.
You're not Rodney Trotter are you? He got a caution for Cannabis possession
I'm not, but he's always been a role model for me.
I’m replying to a couple of eaerlier comments; sadly to reply direcdtly takes the post over the word limit. Mr Felix’ comment about “millions of new jobs” doesn’t take into account that that headline figure obscures the fact that too many of these jobs are low-wage or zero-hours contracts, or, worse, both. It is to be hoped that the Government will do something about ZHC’s but time is running out before the election.
Mr Financier, that raises an interesting question for our Kipper friends. How are they going to square that circle? Clearly the current policy of insisting that claimants have a good reason for turning down jobs isn’t working, in your locality at least. Why not?
Plato seems to me to be somewhat misanthropic. Last night he declared he liked to blow raspberries in the face of people who don't share his misanthropic humour. Today he says the poor are thick. I can only presume he is rich and employed in a wonderfully well paid job, and deserves every penny. What job do you have Plato?
I'm sure you're really gregarious after a few fish fingers :-)
I’m replying to a couple of eaerlier comments; sadly to reply direcdtly takes the post over the word limit. Mr Felix’ comment about “millions of new jobs” doesn’t take into account that that headline figure obscures the fact that too many of these jobs are low-wage or zero-hours contracts, or, worse, both. It is to be hoped that the Government will do something about ZHC’s but time is running out before the election.
Mr Financier, that raises an interesting question for our Kipper friends. How are they going to square that circle? Clearly the current policy of insisting that claimants have a good reason for turning down jobs isn’t working, in your locality at least. Why not?
Plato seems to me to be somewhat misanthropic. Last night he declared he liked to blow raspberries in the face of people who don't share his misanthropic humour. Today he says the poor are thick. I can only presume he is rich and employed in a wonderfully well paid job, and deserves every penny. What job do you have Plato?
*she
Yesterdays comment on something like the temptations of Lesbianism may have been a small clue
Isam - the problem must be with the long term sick seeking work is that there is no way back if there is a failure - so naturally people can't afford to try. I would prefer the State to turn a blind eye to a few hours work a week to give people a chance to get started. I remember hearing of a BBC program that outed a woman for working an evening in a fish and chip shop. I can't think of anything more counter productive...
The problem is that in reality there's absolutely no need for the vast majority of people to be in work all the time. Things we actually need are done by a relatively small percentage of the population and this is going to increase as automation gets better, so what's the point of shoving everyone else into work that they don't want to do and doesn't really need doing?
Time for a citizens wage and then let people decide to work after that if they want to top it up.
That was the expectation in the 60’s. Oh happy days!
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 10s11 seconds ago RT @britainelects Confirmed South Yorkshire PCC turnouts: Barnsley: 11.9% Doncaster: 15.2% Rotherham: 18.0% Sheffield: 14.5%
Comparitively huge turnout in Rotherham and Doncaster - Good news for UKIP ?
Could equally be Labour supporters turning out to stop UKIP where their campaign is most prominent.
Don't think so - my understanding is that Labour is thought to have done well in Sheffield and poorly in Rotherham and possibly Doncaster. On those figures, I'd expect a UKIP win.
The English Democrats could yet hand Labour the seat, if UKIP are eliminated before them on 1st prefs.
If Labour have done badly in Rotherham, then it highlights the fact that Ed really ought to extract digit and sort out the local Labour Party, before the voters do for them there in May.
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
I have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; in Portugal I wouldn't. That's a big difference to me.
Didn't think the police bothered to prosecute that ! Only thought they'd bother if you have lots of cash and lots of dope together.
I had no cash and one small joint i'd forgotten about in my jacket pocket. I went to the police station to report that I'd been pickpocketed. They insisted I'd lost my wallet, so they wouldn't have to record it, I argued with them which they didn't like, and they arrested me and found the joint.
Very pleased with themselves too; they got a solved crime rather than an unsolved one.
This is a great example of victim-less crimes being less of a PITA to prosecute than crimes that actually hurt someone.
If Labour have done badly in Rotherham, then it highlights the fact that Ed really ought to extract digit and sort out the local Labour Party, before the voters do for them there in May.
That might involve Miliband actually visiting his own constituency though, since the problem is on his doorstep. Is that likely?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 10s11 seconds ago RT @britainelects Confirmed South Yorkshire PCC turnouts: Barnsley: 11.9% Doncaster: 15.2% Rotherham: 18.0% Sheffield: 14.5%
Comparitively huge turnout in Rotherham and Doncaster - Good news for UKIP ?
Could equally be Labour supporters turning out to stop UKIP where their campaign is most prominent.
Don't think so - my understanding is that Labour is thought to have done well in Sheffield and poorly in Rotherham and possibly Doncaster. On those figures, I'd expect a UKIP win.
The English Democrats could yet hand Labour the seat, if UKIP are eliminated before them on 1st prefs.
I cannot see any reason at all why the ED should outpoll UKIP.
Isam - the problem must be with the long term sick seeking work is that there is no way back if there is a failure - so naturally people can't afford to try. I would prefer the State to turn a blind eye to a few hours work a week to give people a chance to get started. I remember hearing of a BBC program that outed a woman for working an evening in a fish and chip shop. I can't think of anything more counter productive...
The problem is that in reality there's absolutely no need for the vast majority of people to be in work all the time. Things we actually need are done by a relatively small percentage of the population and this is going to increase as automation gets better, so what's the point of shoving everyone else into work that they don't want to do and doesn't really need doing?
Time for a citizens wage and then let people decide to work after that if they want to top it up.
The declining need for people to make/service/provide things/services is something that has not been publicly recognised and certainly not addressed by a political party in Europe.
Thus in the UK we have a very large number of people who are mainly uneducated and unemployable. As you say, this situation can only get worse. It has been creeping up on us for the last 50 years, but it has accelerated over the last 20-30.
However idleness only leads to ill-health and eventually civil unrest. Unless we revert to a form of authoritarianism that existed in the Middle Ages or a form of Communism, then I do not see how a fewer number working will sustain the civilian wage for the non-workers.
I’m replying to a couple of eaerlier comments; sadly to reply direcdtly takes the post over the word limit. Mr Felix’ comment about “millions of new jobs” doesn’t take into account that that headline figure obscures the fact that too many of these jobs are low-wage or zero-hours contracts, or, worse, both. It is to be hoped that the Government will do something about ZHC’s but time is running out before the election.
Mr Financier, that raises an interesting question for our Kipper friends. How are they going to square that circle? Clearly the current policy of insisting that claimants have a good reason for turning down jobs isn’t working, in your locality at least. Why not?
Plato seems to me to be somewhat misanthropic. Last night he declared he liked to blow raspberries in the face of people who don't share his misanthropic humour. Today he says the poor are thick. I can only presume he is rich and employed in a wonderfully well paid job, and deserves every penny. What job do you have Plato?
I'm sure you're really gregarious after a few fish fingers :-)
Britain Elects @britainelects 51s51 seconds ago Doncaster vote result (South Yorks PCC): LAB - 15310 UKIP - 11380 CON - 4730 EDEM - 2314
Will Tories second choices be withheld, go to Labour or UKIP? That looks awfully like a UKIP win to me, but there are a lot of votes in Sheffield.
I'd expect the 2nd prefs to give UKIP a narrow win in Doncaster (which will be good for the papers making fun of Ed) but unless the vote in Rotherham is massively in favour of UKIP, I'd guess Sheffield will tip the overall result back to Labour. A narrow win for Labour overall probably.
If the turnout is virtually unchanged from last time, then it means that there have not been hordes of new UKIP voters, enraged by occurrences in SY, going to the polls.
This means the winner will depends on votes moving from Labour to UKIP, amongst the sort of people who will turn out to vote whatever the circumstances. I really can not see enough people of that sort doing it: many will be lifelong die-hard Labour voters.
Second round votes complicate matters, but not enough given Labour got 51% in the first round last time.
So at this point I rather dangerously predict a Labour win on a reduced vote share. If UKIP do manage to win on such a low turnout, then it is absolutely brilliant for them, as it means they've attracted hardcore voters away from the other parties, and especially Labour.
But my history of voting predictions on here isn't the best ... :-)
Alternatively: Some 2012 voters do not turn out. New voters turn out in 2014. Net effect is no change but the composition of the body does.
Well, yes.
But the low turnout of 15% last time means that the people who voted were mostly die-hards, and die-hards tend to be set in their ways. They are more likely to vote this time as well, because they could be bothered to vote last time. The "I've always voted, and I'll vote come hell or high water" types.
I don't doubt some churn will have occurred in the manner you say, but I doubt it is enough to overcome Labour's big lead last time. Although as I said before, the second round complicates matters and I might well be wrong.
Anyhow, we don't have long to wait to find out!
As an aside, does anyone have details on what the weather was like in South Yorkshire for the 2012 PCC polling day?
Mr. Herdson, only saw a snippet from each candidate on local news but the English Democrat seemed the sharpest tool in the box. Low turnout and strong local connections (DOncaster had an English Democrat mayor for a couple of terms, I think) could help the EDP.
Isam - the problem must be with the long term sick seeking work is that there is no way back if there is a failure - so naturally people can't afford to try. I would prefer the State to turn a blind eye to a few hours work a week to give people a chance to get started. I remember hearing of a BBC program that outed a woman for working an evening in a fish and chip shop. I can't think of anything more counter productive...
The problem is that in reality there's absolutely no need for the vast majority of people to be in work all the time. Things we actually need are done by a relatively small percentage of the population and this is going to increase as automation gets better, so what's the point of shoving everyone else into work that they don't want to do and doesn't really need doing?
Time for a citizens wage and then let people decide to work after that if they want to top it up.
That was the expectation in the 60’s. Oh happy days!
Yes who would have thought that bankers, rentiers and the government would have stolen all the increases in productivity leaving us poorer than in those days.
Comments
"Background
Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service. The specific penalty to be applied is decided by ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’, which are regional panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals. In reality, the vast majority of those referred to the commissions by the police have their cases ‘suspended’, effectively meaning they receive no penalty.1 People who are dependent on drugs are encouraged to seek treatment, but are rarely sanctioned if they choose not to – the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily; they do not attempt to force them to do so"
RT @britainelects Confirmed South Yorkshire PCC turnouts: Barnsley: 11.9% Doncaster: 15.2% Rotherham: 18.0% Sheffield: 14.5%
It seems to me that the largest change in vote shares will be due to some Labour voters who voted last time not bothering and more UKIP voters bothering this time.
Edit: my edit box freezes often when posting, which means although I am typing I cannot see what. So bear with me on the odd typo or autocorrect issue.
The accepted wisdom was that Labour would win... so much so that in my newsroom (identity withheld to protect the guilty) the election sweepstake did not even include a Tory majority until I asked for one!
In a different newsroom, later in the 90s, one of my sports reporters came up to me and whispered - "N, I hear you're a Tory... don't tell anyone, but so am I."
Not much has changed in the intervening years.
Saying that though, I may move to Portugal in the future; not to take advantage of their drug laws but because my folks have a place out there.
But you might be right - we don't have long to wait and see, and for the analysis to begin!
Doncaster -0.4
Barnsley -0.1
Sheffield -0.1
Rotherham +1.3
Overall -0.04
Not much difference.
Also Ukip will have raised awareness there was even an election.
Have Ukip inspired 2010 DNV will be one of the big questions today. Along with second preferences although these are more equivocal.
So Rotherham yes Doncaster no.
Well, that was what someone from ITV tweeted.
http://www.southyorkshiretimes.co.uk/news/local/breaking-voter-turnout-even-lower-than-2012-in-south-yorkshire-crime-tsar-by-election-1-6927120
Very pleased with themselves too; they got a solved crime rather than an unsolved one.
BARNSLEY
Labour 12,393 (56.19%)
English Democrats 2,996 (13.58%)
Conservative 2,940 (13.33%)
UKIP 2,400 (10.88%)
Liberal Democrats 1,325 ( 6.01%)
DONCASTER
Labour 17,017 (48.17%)
English Democrats 7,321 (20.72%)
Conservative 5,433 (15.38%)
UKIP 3,232 ( 9.14%)
Liberal Democrats 1,694 ( 4.79%)
ROTHERHAM
Labour 16,374 (51.14%)
English Democrat 5,034 (15.72%)
UKIP 4,737 (14.80%)
Conservative 4,660 (14.56%)
Liberal Democrats 1,211 ( 3.78%)
SHEFFIELD
Labour 28,831 (51.00%)
Conservative 8,042 (14.23%)
English Democrat 7,257 (12.84%)
UKIP 6,404 (11.33%)
Liberal Democrats 5,993 (10.60%)
SOUTH YORKSHIRE TOTAL
Labour 74,615 (51.35%)
English Democrats 22,608 (15.56%)
Conservatives 21,075 (14.51%)
UKIP 16,773 (11.54%)
Liberal Democrat 10,223 ( 7.04%)
(Thanks to David on VoteUK forum).
Time for a citizens wage and then let people decide to work after that if they want to top it up.
Alternatively:
Some 2012 voters do not turn out.
New voters turn out in 2014. Net effect is no change but the composition of the body does.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1170783/Did-know-glass-wine-equals-fishfingers-Government-target-middle-class-drinkers-calorie-counting-campaign.html
A most hilarious news item for those wondering WTF we're talking about
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/30/my-kid-private-school-meritocracy-myth-midde-class-parents-cheat-state-system
Rotherham: UKIP win on 2nd prefs
But overall Lab win.
I think you're confecting some argument that I haven't made. Is it because I'm now an Evil Toree?
Or because I voted for Labour - but that was Tony so doesn't count? Or Paddy - well because he's a Toree too?
My point is about realism and markets/employment. If Benny from Crossroads was paid the same as Apple's CEO it'd be dandy, but that's not real-life.
Lab: 74,615
Eng Dem/Con/UKIP: 60,456
Therefore about 7,000 Labour voters have to switch sides for them to lose. (Assuming LD voters don't split either way).
Doncaster vote result (South Yorks PCC):
LAB - 15310
UKIP - 11380
CON - 4730
EDEM - 2314
The declining need for people to make/service/provide things/services is something that has not been publicly recognised and certainly not addressed by a political party in Europe.
Thus in the UK we have a very large number of people who are mainly uneducated and unemployable. As you say, this situation can only get worse. It has been creeping up on us for the last 50 years, but it has accelerated over the last 20-30.
However idleness only leads to ill-health and eventually civil unrest. Unless we revert to a form of authoritarianism that existed in the Middle Ages or a form of Communism, then I do not see how a fewer number working will sustain the civilian wage for the non-workers.
Please can you elaborate on your theory.
UKIP need to persuade Tory voters of the benefits of tactical voting.
It doesn't matter particularly if turnout is higher in Rotherham than elsewhere if it down on 2012, assuming little change in overall turnout.
I'd expect the 2nd prefs to give UKIP a narrow win in Doncaster (which will be good for the papers making fun of Ed) but unless the vote in Rotherham is massively in favour of UKIP, I'd guess Sheffield will tip the overall result back to Labour. A narrow win for Labour overall probably.
But the low turnout of 15% last time means that the people who voted were mostly die-hards, and die-hards tend to be set in their ways. They are more likely to vote this time as well, because they could be bothered to vote last time. The "I've always voted, and I'll vote come hell or high water" types.
I don't doubt some churn will have occurred in the manner you say, but I doubt it is enough to overcome Labour's big lead last time. Although as I said before, the second round complicates matters and I might well be wrong.
Anyhow, we don't have long to wait to find out!
As an aside, does anyone have details on what the weather was like in South Yorkshire for the 2012 PCC polling day?
Carry on talking about me at length ;^ )
"it may well be the good people of Sheffield and Hallam in particular that stops UKIP winning"
Barnsley: 11.9%
Doncaster: 15.2% = 33734
Rotherham: 18.0%
Sheffield: 14.5%
Lab: 32,867 (56%)
UKIP: 14,686