The bit in Labour's manifesto about gay smokers is one of the funniest parts of this entire election imo.
Will homosexuals be banned from smoking, or will smokers be banned from homosexuality?
"Labour will implement a Tobacco Control Plan, focussing on issues of mental health and children smokers, along with groups in society, such as BAME and LGBT communities, with high prevalence of the use of tobacco products."
To me it seems sensible to tailor public health programmes to populations at most risk, and if in distinct sub cultures.
The bit in Labour's manifesto about gay smokers is one of the funniest parts of this entire election imo.
Will homosexuals be banned from smoking, or will smokers be banned from homosexuality?
"Labour will implement a Tobacco Control Plan, focussing on issues of mental health and children smokers, along with groups in society, such as BAME and LGBT communities, with high prevalence of the use of tobacco products."
To me it seems sensible to tailor public health programmes to populations at most risk, and if in distinct sub cultures.
Are LGBT people more likely to smoke once we control for other factors? That would be an interesting observation.
I always wonder when foxhunting comes up how popular a ban on fishing would be.
I don't like foxhunting and I don't like fishing as I think they're cruel so not for me. However I do enjoy meat and simply don't like to think about what happened before it reaches me. So I'm not going to judge those who do enjoy their pursuits. But why ban fox hunting and not recreational fishing?
Is sticking a metal spike through an animals cheek for sport very different to setting a dog upon an animal for sport? Why?
Nor do I really understand the rationale behind making it unlawful to use dogs to kill foxes, mink, and hares, while at the same time it is quite lawful to use dogs to kill rabbits, and rats. Are the former somehow, nobler animals than the latter?
Is a further salient point.
People get themselves into a frightful muddle about fox hunting and however much they might protest, it all comes down to not liking the people who do it (any of whom of course they will likely never have met).
Mink are a huge pest in some places, and using dogs to kill them is actually very efficient.
I always wonder when foxhunting comes up how popular a ban on fishing would be.
I don't like foxhunting and I don't like fishing as I think they're cruel so not for me. However I do enjoy meat and simply don't like to think about what happened before it reaches me. So I'm not going to judge those who do enjoy their pursuits. But why ban fox hunting and not recreational fishing?
Is sticking a metal spike through an animals cheek for sport very different to setting a dog upon an animal for sport? Why?
Nor do I really understand the rationale behind making it unlawful to use dogs to kill foxes, mink, and hares, while at the same time it is quite lawful to use dogs to kill rabbits, and rats. Are the former somehow, nobler animals than the latter?
Foxes are cute and particularly anthropomorphic. The kinds of people of who hunt them are caricatured as wealthy, privileged and posh. And, worse, they really enjoy it.
It ticks every British button: animal lovers, class system, snobbery, privilege, rural v. urban, and hypocrisy.
The bit in Labour's manifesto about gay smokers is one of the funniest parts of this entire election imo.
Will homosexuals be banned from smoking, or will smokers be banned from homosexuality?
"Labour will implement a Tobacco Control Plan, focussing on issues of mental health and children smokers, along with groups in society, such as BAME and LGBT communities, with high prevalence of the use of tobacco products."
Tell me that is from the Daily Mash.
That's from the leaked draft of Labour's manifesto.
It struck me as an odd line which seemed to be squeezed into the draft copy for no apparent reason. Is there a higher proportion of smokers amongst the gay and ethnic minority groups that requires this extra attention?
There might well be, but it's still an unnecessary inclusion, as they could mention focussing on the issue and then when in power if those groups deserve particular focus do so then. As it is it just seems bizarrely specific.
1: The MP is standing again and should get a first time incumbency bonus. .
Just a general question on 1st time incumbency bonus, and how it may apply in 2017. As the election was only in 2015, two years ago, is this a long enough time for the incumbency bonus to mature? Will it be bigger, smaller or the same due to the short life of the 2015 parliament?
If the previous MP is standing again, I think he will have a larger "incumbency bonus" than the newcomer, who in general has done nothing but back Mrs May`s harsh government, against the best interests of his constituents.
Fair go. So you will also support lowering the age at which someone can buy alcohol or tobacco, own a firearm, engage in a legally-binding contract, leave school, join HM forces or get married without parental consent. After all if children are old enough to make a mature decision about one thing then surely they are old enough to make mature decisions about all things.
People can do lots of things at 16: work, live on your own, leave school, have sex, get married, claim benefits, join the army, rent accommodation. All those age restrictions are just as arbitrary as those that apply at 18, I am just focusing on one - the age at which you can vote. There is no need to create false equivalences. If you think 18 is a more appropriate, but equally arbitrary, age to be allowed to vote at - then fair enough.
Mr. 43 the trend in recent years is to move the age at which a child can do things off their own bat higher. The age for buying tobacco used to be 16, it is now 18. The school leaving age has been advanced to 18. Just two examples. Why, because those in charge seemed to think that someone of 16 years of age was not sufficiently mature to make those sort of decisions for themselves.
If someone is deemed not sufficiently mature to be allowed to buy themselves a glass of beer, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how they are sufficiently mature to have a say on who should run the country.
P.S. No child is allowed to join HM forces or, England and Wales, get married without their parent's/guardian's consent and I am fairly certain the cannot, on their own, enter into a legally binding contract.
I think it's 7, but it's rather complex up to the age of 18, and it's quite easy to void a contract if you're under 18. Basically, you need to be pretty careful entering into a contract with a minor except for a very simple transaction (selling them a Twix etc) as it's easy for them to walk away from obligations having derived the benefit.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
'Curry house bosses told how they felt “used”, “let down” and may have been given “false hope” by politicians that quitting the EU would allow more workers in from South Asia to address staff shortages.'
Strange they never want to address this issue by increasing the number of women working in Curry houses or training locals.
The bit in Labour's manifesto about gay smokers is one of the funniest parts of this entire election imo.
Will homosexuals be banned from smoking, or will smokers be banned from homosexuality?
"Labour will implement a Tobacco Control Plan, focussing on issues of mental health and children smokers, along with groups in society, such as BAME and LGBT communities, with high prevalence of the use of tobacco products."
To me it seems sensible to tailor public health programmes to populations at most risk, and if in distinct sub cultures.
Are LGBT people more likely to smoke once we control for other factors? That would be an interesting observation.
Younger LGBT people indulge in many risky behaviours, though highest smoking rates are in homeless, prisons, people with mental illness and working class single mothers.
I believe prisons are shortly to go smoke free, but that may just mean more spice and riots.
If Labour is to avoid a total meltdown in June then it will need to keep hold of these loyal supporters. But is it doing so?
The data suggest not and that Labour’s core vote is fracturing. As shown in the chart below, nearly three-quarters of Labour’s 2010 voters went on to vote for Labour again in 2015. But today, fewer than half of these voters say they are planning to back the party in June.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in deal with the vermin.
You can probably divide most people into those who feel a bit queasy at that, and those who get a boner.
The bit in Labour's manifesto about gay smokers is one of the funniest parts of this entire election imo.
Will homosexuals be banned from smoking, or will smokers be banned from homosexuality?
"Labour will implement a Tobacco Control Plan, focussing on issues of mental health and children smokers, along with groups in society, such as BAME and LGBT communities, with high prevalence of the use of tobacco products."
To me it seems sensible to tailor public health programmes to populations at most risk, and if in distinct sub cultures.
Are LGBT people more likely to smoke once we control for other factors? That would be an interesting observation.
I would have thought it was the other factors that make up the majority of the difference. For example, gay people generally spend more time in bars and clubs, settle down later in life, are less likely to live in a household with children etc.
The hypothesis would make a very interesting thesis for someone studying for a Masters in Sociology.
People can do lots of things at 16: work... leave school
Not in England: you have to go into full- or part-time training or take an apprenticeship. However, I'm fully open to having a franchise starting at 21, but which included a proviso that if you were under 21 and had paid income tax in the previous year you get a vote.
All those age restrictions are just as arbitrary as those that apply at 18, I am just focusing on one - the age at which you can vote.
Yes, you are- and therein lies the problem. To make decisions that affect the whole country should be the culmination of being able to make decisions that affect yourself. If you are not responsible enough to buy a pint of beer in a pub, you are not responsible enough to choose people to run the country.
If someone is deemed not sufficiently mature to be allowed to buy themselves a glass of beer, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how they are sufficiently mature to have a say on who should run the country.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in deal with the vermin.
You can probably divide most people into those who feel a bit queasy at that, and those who get a boner.
williamglenn 'Curry house bosses told how they felt “used”, “let down” and may have been given “false hope” by politicians that quitting the EU would allow more workers in from South Asia to address staff shortages.'
Strange they never want to address this issue by increasing the number of women working in Curry houses or training locals.
Quite, but the point of the story isn't about curry house staffing, but about the disingenuous and false arguments used by the lying Vote Leave campaign.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Aside from being blatantly illegal, sounds a bit psychopathic.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in deal with the vermin.
You can probably divide most people into those who feel a bit queasy at that, and those who get a boner.
This is key to understanding Labour’s long-term problem: those who have been drifting away from the party not only since 2010 but also since the early years of New Labour have tended to feel more opposed to mass immigration and less supportive of EU membership. If you looked only at Labour voters today, you would miss this key point.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Fair go. So you will also support lowering the age at which someone can buy alcohol or tobacco, own a firearm, engage in a legally-binding contract, leave school, join HM forces or get married without parental consent. After all if children are old enough to make a mature decision about one thing then surely they are old enough to make mature decisions about all things.
People can do lots of things at 16: work, live on your own, leave school, have sex, get married, claim benefits, join the army, rent accommodation. All those age restrictions are just as arbitrary as those that apply at 18, I am just focusing on one - the age at which you can vote. There is no need to create false equivalences. If you think 18 is a more appropriate, but equally arbitrary, age to be allowed to vote at - then fair enough.
Mr. 43 the trend in recent years is to move the age at which a child can do things off their own bat higher. The age for buying tobacco used to be 16, it is now 18. The school leaving age has been advanced to 18. Just two examples. Why, because those in charge seemed to think that someone of 16 years of age was not sufficiently mature to make those sort of decisions for themselves.
If someone is deemed not sufficiently mature to be allowed to buy themselves a glass of beer, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how they are sufficiently mature to have a say on who should run the country.
P.S. No child is allowed to join HM forces or, England and Wales, get married without their parent's/guardian's consent and I am fairly certain the cannot, on their own, enter into a legally binding contract.
At 16 you are judged old enough to bring up a child. That seems to me to be the clincher.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in deal with the vermin.
You can probably divide most people into those who feel a bit queasy at that, and those who get a boner.
That dichotomy would also predict leave/remain inclinations with 90+% accuracy.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
if only he'd known of a few people with guns they might have been able to help him with the crows.
For many of these voters, however they voted in the referendum, it was important that the Conservatives, and the Prime Minister in particular, seemed to be taking the will of the people seriously – something they were not used to seeing in politics. “Nobody believes politicians full stop, really. But at the end of the day, we’ve seen something we voted for happen… They can say ‘we’ll look after the NHS’, but they never do, you know they’re not going to. But with this, it’s happened.”
“You look at Theresa May, and she voted remain, but she’s accepted the vote like a lot of people haven’t accepted the vote to leave, and she’s saying ‘I’m going to do it because that’s what the majority voted for’. So that’s good to see. The Lib Dems are trying to overturn it, and with Labour you’re not too sure what they’re going to do.” “That is one overarching thing about the Tories, I think – they have demonstrated, those that wanted to stay have accepted the vote. One of the things that is really annoying me is that a lot of the other parties, and particularly the SNP, seem to be saying ‘you didn’t know what you were voting for’, which I find personally offensive, and ‘we’re going to keep voting until you vote right’. And whatever else, the Tories seem to be clear about that.”
People can do lots of things at 16: work... leave school
Not in England: you have to go into full- or part-time training or take an apprenticeship. However, I'm fully open to having a franchise starting at 21, but which included a proviso that if you were under 21 and had paid income tax in the previous year you get a vote.
All those age restrictions are just as arbitrary as those that apply at 18, I am just focusing on one - the age at which you can vote.
Yes, you are- and therein lies the problem. To make decisions that affect the whole country should be the culmination of being able to make decisions that affect yourself. If you are not responsible enough to buy a pint of beer in a pub, you are not responsible enough to choose people to run the country.
If someone is deemed not sufficiently mature to be allowed to buy themselves a glass of beer, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how they are sufficiently mature to have a say on who should run the country.
Yep, simple as that.
Frankly I''d disqualify you from voting for your earlier misuse of "disinterested".
To my mind the franchise should be restricted as follows :
1. The Scottish peers. 2. A minimum of 10,000 PB posts.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Fair go. So you will also support lowering the age at which someone can buy alcohol or tobacco, own a firearm, engage in a legally-binding contract, leave school, join HM forces or get married without parental consent. After all if children are old enough to make a mature decision about one thing then surely they are old enough to make mature decisions about all things.
People can do lots of things at 16: work, live on your own, leave school, have sex, get married, claim benefits, join the army, rent accommodation. All those age restrictions are just as arbitrary as those that apply at 18, I am just focusing on one - the age at which you can vote. There is no need to create false equivalences. If you think 18 is a more appropriate, but equally arbitrary, age to be allowed to vote at - then fair enough.
Mr. 43 the trend in recent years is to move the age at which a child can do things off their own bat higher. The age for buying tobacco used to be 16, it is now 18. The school leaving age has been advanced to 18. Just two examples. Why, because those in charge seemed to think that someone of 16 years of age was not sufficiently mature to make those sort of decisions for themselves.
If someone is deemed not sufficiently mature to be allowed to buy themselves a glass of beer, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how they are sufficiently mature to have a say on who should run the country.
P.S. No child is allowed to join HM forces or, England and Wales, get married without their parent's/guardian's consent and I am fairly certain the cannot, on their own, enter into a legally binding contract.
At 16 you are judged old enough to bring up a child. That seems to me to be the clincher.
No you are not (or, to be more precise, no she is not). It is judged to be the lesser of two evils if she regrettably becomes a mother at that age, which is not the same thing at all.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Is that legal ?
No. It's a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to take, injure or kill wild birds, other than defined game birds (which doesn't cover crows).
Edit: intentionally, obviously, otherwise you'd not be able to risk driving etc!
After thinking that May had given a hostage to fortune with the Fox Hunting comments I am now thinking that the comments will suffice as a signal, but can then be left out of the manifesto for bigger things like a Brexit. That covers both sides off, with no firm commitment.
I am also thinking Team Corbyn have been making some longer term problems for themselves. The messaging over the draft manifesto has been all about we have very popular policies, but if the policies are popular and the campaign is a failure then only the messenger can be blamed.
Also the manifesto whilst popular with a small hard left core, and perhaps much younger people, surely it will not be attractive to over 65 vote who are much more likely to vote, particularly postal vote. They will remember the 70s and were likely those who put Thatcher in power.
I think part of the plan is to try and regulate it, including with regard to strength.
Let's face it, making it illegal hasn't exactly got rid of it has it? Plus it has cost huge amounts of money and resources, while meaning that people who might benefit medicinally can't get it, and giving tons of people criminal records.
Surely failure of current policy means it's time to change it?
Edited: because I completely screwed up the blockquote bit
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Is that legal ?
No. It's a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to take, injure or kill wild birds, other than defined game birds (which doesn't cover crows).
I actually quite like crows. they are the only birds that seem to fly for fun, however windy or stormy it is.
This is a base issue, nothing more. The bar graphs tell you nothing. What you need to measure here is salience. My guess is that 80% do indeed wish to retain the ban on fox hunting, but consider this to be issue 2,378 on their list of concerns. If asked, they want a total ban, but they basically don't care.
On the other side of the ledger are the people who want fox hunting legalised. This is a small number, but for a measurable proportion (maybe 1% of the electorate?), it is a MASSIVE issue. Maybe a game changer. So, it may well be rational for the Tories to seek out this mini-chuck. And it doesn't matter if the major-chunk disagree.
It must have been 20 years since we last discussed salience in the bar in Oxford...but welcome back...
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
if only he'd known of a few people with guns they might have been able to help him with the crows.
No shortage of them in the countryside either. It's what 410 rook rifles are there for. Killing crows in a cage with dogs is purely psychopathic. Probably doesn't do a lot for the dogs either.
OT but I am putting a small wager on Labour regaining Gower. The Green candidate has stood aside and the 1300 or so votes will be more than enough for Labour in the constituency with the smallest Tory majority. Ps UKIP are standing.
It was Labour for 105 years in a row so could reasonably switch back, however a couple of issues.
1: The MP is standing again and should get a first time incumbency bonus. 2: UKIP got 4,773 votes last time, if the Tory gets two-thirds of those as many polls show then that's 3,000 votes - which is more than the Green vote.
However: 3: No Plaid Cymru candidate either. That's another 3k votes in the mix.
The absence of the Green alone would likely not have been sufficient, the absence of PC too might be.
I'm glad you agree that's Gower is one to watch with betting possibilities. If I hear any gossip from there I will pass it on here.
Plaid is standing here - as is UKIP according to SOPN.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in deal with the vermin.
You can probably divide most people into those who feel a bit queasy at that, and those who get a boner.
Crows, like magpies are nasty horrid things.
On the contrary, they are extremely intelligent and playful animals. Albeit a bit messy.
You local gamekeeper sounds a nasty horrid thing, though.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Is that legal ?
No. It's a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to take, injure or kill wild birds, other than defined game birds (which doesn't cover crows).
Edit: intentionally, obviously, otherwise you'd not be able to risk driving etc!
Not quite right, a landowner or occupier, or someone acting with the landowner’s or occupier’s permission, can kill crows in specific circumstances:
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Is that legal ?
No. It's a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to take, injure or kill wild birds, other than defined game birds (which doesn't cover crows).
I actually quite like crows. they are the only birds that seem to fly for fun, however windy or stormy it is.
So do I. It has been said (not accurately, but very nearly so) that they are the only animals other than humans who can MAKE tools (as opposed to using a rock or other found item). So they'll fashion a hook from wire to get inaccessible food etc. I also love the YouTube clip of the crow sledging with a bottle top.
Mrs B, I can see those arguments for it (regulation, taxation etc). What would you say regarding the reported increase in psychosis amongst those who use cannabis?
I think part of the plan is to try and regulate it, including with regard to strength.
Let's face it, making it illegal hasn't exactly got rid of it has it? Plus it has cost huge amounts of money and resources, while meaning that people who might benefit medicinally can't get it, and giving tons of people criminal records.
Surely failure of current policy means it's time to change it?
Edited: because I completely screwed up the blockquote bit
Fair enough. What I'd like to see then is a zero tolerance policy to the black market. So if anyone is caught in possession of unofficial (i.e. very strong) cannabis - then they should get 10 years in prison.
Frankly I''d disqualify you from voting for your earlier misuse of "disinterested".
What the OED permits, let no mere mortal forbid. I would like to see more esoteric suggestions for electoral reform, though. Less 'votes at 16' and 'AV,' more 'revive the university constituencies'.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
Is that legal ?
No. It's a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to take, injure or kill wild birds, other than defined game birds (which doesn't cover crows).
I actually quite like crows. they are the only birds that seem to fly for fun, however windy or stormy it is.
If you're able to forget their sinister associations, crows are quite dramatically beautiful also.
A guy I know was helping a local game keeper deal with crows that used to attack the pheasant pens. They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
At 16 you are judged old enough to bring up a child. That seems to me to be the clincher.
Not for me. The clincher for me is that if you open up participation in elections while people are at school and are being educated on the political process. there is good evidence that that it helps create a habit for voting later on. Voting is an activity that needs to be learnt, like lots of other things. This won't of itself solve the low participation rate of young people in the electoral process but it's helpful to it. Even some more thoughtful Conservatives see the benefit. Giving 16 and 17 Year Olds the Vote – The Tory Case
I love to watch the hunt even though i am scared of horses. Wonderful. Poster report from Forest of Dean/Herefordshire border. A few Green signs and one for the LDs. Nada from anyone else.
At 16 you are judged old enough to bring up a child. That seems to me to be the clincher.
Not for me. The clincher for me is that if you open up participation in elections while people are at school and are being educated on the political process. there is good evidence that that it helps create a habit for voting later on. Voting is an activity that needs to be learnt, like lots of other things. This won't of itself solve the low participation rate of young people in the electoral process but it's helpful to it. Even some more thoughtful Conservatives see the benefit. Giving 16 and 17 Year Olds the Vote – The Tory Case
Would raise interesting questions about the influence teachers may or may not have if 16 year olds were able to vote
Mrs B, I can see those arguments for it (regulation, taxation etc). What would you say regarding the reported increase in psychosis amongst those who use cannabis?
That you are more likely to be able to help those people if they are not put off seeking help because what they are doing is illegal. Also, if you can legally research cannabis and it's effects. Plus, there is evidence to sugges that what is causing the uptick in psychosis is the increasing strength of the cannabis they are using, and one of the reasons for the increasing strength is that it is all being grown illegally and without any regulation. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/02February/Pages/Super-strength-skunk-cannabis-linked-to-psychosis.aspx is one article about it.
At 16 you are judged old enough to bring up a child. That seems to me to be the clincher.
Not for me. The clincher for me is that if you open up participation in elections while people are at school and are being educated on the political process. there is good evidence that that it helps create a habit for voting later on. Voting is an activity that needs to be learnt, like lots of other things.
So why is the highest turnout among pensioners, who left school when the leaving age was 15 and the voting age was 21?
At 16 you are judged old enough to bring up a child. That seems to me to be the clincher.
Not for me. The clincher for me is that if you open up participation in elections while people are at school and are being educated on the political process. there is good evidence that that it helps create a habit for voting later on. Voting is an activity that needs to be learnt, like lots of other things. This won't of itself solve the low participation rate of young people in the electoral process but it's helpful to it. Even some more thoughtful Conservatives see the benefit. Giving 16 and 17 Year Olds the Vote – The Tory Case
A vote is part of being a citizen, with citizen's rights and responsibilities. We do not, as a society, give 16- and 17-year-olds either full rights or full responsibilities. That's why if they commit a crime then they go to juvenile courts and will receive more lenient sentences than an adult committing the same offence. The age of majority is 18. That should be the age of qualification to vote. If we are thinking of changing one then we should change the other.
Are you standing this year, or is it just @Tissue_Price and @Lennon among PBers?
No - this time I have been involved in putting the candidates in place across England.
You'll have had a busy couple of weeks then! Hope it all went well, looks like pretty much a full slate for the LDs bar a couple of tactical stand-downs.
Comments
"Jeremy Corbyn is not a pacifist because he backed the IRA, Labour MPs say "
I had to read that twice!!!
Ouch, ouch, ouch
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/general-election-2017-jeremy-corbyns-labour-manifesto-live/
It ticks every British button: animal lovers, class system, snobbery, privilege, rural v. urban, and hypocrisy.
Perfect storm.
If someone is deemed not sufficiently mature to be allowed to buy themselves a glass of beer, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how they are sufficiently mature to have a say on who should run the country.
P.S. No child is allowed to join HM forces or, England and Wales, get married without their parent's/guardian's consent and I am fairly certain the cannot, on their own, enter into a legally binding contract.
They caught a load of crows in a cage and then sent Jack Russell's in to deal with the vermin.
'Curry house bosses told how they felt “used”, “let down” and may have been given “false hope” by politicians that quitting the EU would allow more workers in from South Asia to address staff shortages.'
Strange they never want to address this issue by increasing the number of women working in Curry houses or training locals.
http://hurryupharry.org/2017/05/07/special-report-a-day-of-anti-israel-hatred-at-the-university-of-warwick/#more-112538
I believe prisons are shortly to go smoke free, but that may just mean more spice and riots.
If Labour is to avoid a total meltdown in June then it will need to keep hold of these loyal supporters. But is it doing so?
The data suggest not and that Labour’s core vote is fracturing. As shown in the chart below, nearly three-quarters of Labour’s 2010 voters went on to vote for Labour again in 2015. But today, fewer than half of these voters say they are planning to back the party in June.
http://www.politico.eu/article/labours-core-support-schism/
The hypothesis would make a very interesting thesis for someone studying for a Masters in Sociology.
"You know who else wasn't a pacifist?"
This is key to understanding Labour’s long-term problem: those who have been drifting away from the party not only since 2010 but also since the early years of New Labour have tended to feel more opposed to mass immigration and less supportive of EU membership. If you looked only at Labour voters today, you would miss this key point.
http://www.politico.eu/article/labours-core-support-schism/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4498972/Corbyn-s-followers-claim-cameraman-arranged-run-over.html
For many of these voters, however they voted in the referendum, it was important that the Conservatives, and the Prime Minister in particular, seemed to be taking the will of the people seriously – something they were not used to seeing in politics. “Nobody believes politicians full stop, really. But at the end of the day, we’ve seen something we voted for happen… They can say ‘we’ll look after the NHS’, but they never do, you know they’re not going to. But with this, it’s happened.”
“You look at Theresa May, and she voted remain, but she’s accepted the vote like a lot of people haven’t accepted the vote to leave, and she’s saying ‘I’m going to do it because that’s what the majority voted for’. So that’s good to see. The Lib Dems are trying to overturn it, and with Labour you’re not too sure what they’re going to do.” “That is one overarching thing about the Tories, I think – they have demonstrated, those that wanted to stay have accepted the vote. One of the things that is really annoying me is that a lot of the other parties, and particularly the SNP, seem to be saying ‘you didn’t know what you were voting for’, which I find personally offensive, and ‘we’re going to keep voting until you vote right’. And whatever else, the Tories seem to be clear about that.”
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/05/lord-ashcroft-in-the-west-midlands-the-heads-of-my-labour-background-focus-group-battle-with-their-hearts.html
To my mind the franchise should be restricted as follows :
1. The Scottish peers.
2. A minimum of 10,000 PB posts.
Edit: intentionally, obviously, otherwise you'd not be able to risk driving etc!
I am also thinking Team Corbyn have been making some longer term problems for themselves. The messaging over the draft manifesto has been all about we have very popular policies, but if the policies are popular and the campaign is a failure then only the messenger can be blamed.
Also the manifesto whilst popular with a small hard left core, and perhaps much younger people, surely it will not be attractive to over 65 vote who are much more likely to vote, particularly postal vote. They will remember the 70s and were likely those who put Thatcher in power.
I think part of the plan is to try and regulate it, including with regard to strength.
Let's face it, making it illegal hasn't exactly got rid of it has it? Plus it has cost huge amounts of money and resources, while meaning that people who might benefit medicinally can't get it, and giving tons of people criminal records.
Surely failure of current policy means it's time to change it?
Edited: because I completely screwed up the blockquote bit
Albeit a bit messy.
You local gamekeeper sounds a nasty horrid thing, though.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/east/archive/2013/04/08/the-legal-status-of-corvids-in-the-uk.aspx
I love to watch the hunt even though i am scared of horses. Wonderful.
Poster report from Forest of Dean/Herefordshire border. A few Green signs and one for the LDs. Nada from anyone else.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/02February/Pages/Super-strength-skunk-cannabis-linked-to-psychosis.aspx is one article about it.
You can also read about why the Lib Dems came to the policy here http://www.libdems.org.uk/liberal_democrats_call_for_a_legalised_cannabis_market
A PEER WRITES FOR THE PB PEASANTRY
I do think there are reasonable arguments either side, although I don't have a dog in the fight.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/12/labour-isis-loon-will-remain-as-candidate-after-apologising/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/a-bit-of-a-kip?utm_term=.km9EbGabP#.qxKj61W6Y