But had Leave lost, the issue would not have gone away unless Remain could turn round hearts as well as heads. Leave would have latched on to 'lies' told either in scaremongering or - worse - reassurance, and used them as the basis of a narrative that the referendum was 'stolen' from them. The reason the false assurances would have been worse for Remain is because they could be proved demonstrably wrong.
Yes, once the referendum was called there were only two only good outcomes for democracy: a win for Leave, or a very emphatic win for Remain. A narrow win for Remain would have been the worst possible result.
Agree. For me what is interesting is the counterfactual re what state the Conservative party would now be in, if 52:48 had instead been 48:52.
That's actually a perfectly valid argument. A lot of these jihadis are doped up to the eyeballs on skunk, or worse. It makes them paranoid and disinhibited at the same time, a bad mix. It also catalyses and accentuates any underlying mental issues.
Amsterdam and California being renowned for hoardes of pot-smoking Islamic terrorists compared to those being supplied by criminals here.
Just do some bloody reading. This took me 0.002 seconds of Googling. And relates to an attack last Monday. In Manchester. You may have heard about it.
"Salman Abedi’s journey from cannabis-smoking university dropout to Isis suicide bomber is being gradually pieced together by investigators"
Reading cannot make up for not thinking. These people are getting their drugs here, where it is already illegal.
You of all people should know that our current regime does not stop people getting hold of drugs, if they want them.
It's illegal in name only. I smell weed regularly as I walk around Camden and Regent's Park. People now smoke it pretty openly. In public spaces.
Dealing is a little more clandestine, but walk thirty yards through Camden market and several dealers will make you an offer.
As I said downthread Prohibition is not necessarily the answer. Indeed full legalisation might be the answer, as has been suggested, so we can stamp out these mad brands of skunk with stupid THC levels.
What is daft is denying a link between drugs, esp cannabis, and terror. There is a link, often.
This site is a cannabis of sorts. It's oddly addictive, like the opinion polls.
Judging by some posts, it can also make you paranoid!
4: Sean Thomas, Tom Knox, S K Tremayne, and ONE I AM NOT ALLOWED TO TELL YOU
Is it Dianne Abbot?
No. He is Dianne Abbot and I claim my £5.20
(It used to be £5.00 but with Brexit-induced inflation....)
If it was really Diane Abbot it would £5,200,000,000. Or - no, sorry (sound of rustling papers in the background) it would be...er...er...um...52p. No - hang on....
Diane Abbot struggled far more in an interview on Channel Four yesterday when confronted with her and Corbyn's voting record on anti terrorism measures.
Well, the penalties for drink driving seem to have reduced the numbers - why not target the drug customer with £1000 pound fines and loss of driving licence?
Penalties for drink-driving were a small part of the answer. Far more important was to make drink-driving socially unacceptable.
Asking whether JC will resign after a defeat seems a perfectly reasonable. Thousands if not millions of former Labour voters are going to look elsewhere because they fear him soldiering on.
I'm in that position myself. Unless I got word from Jeremy saying he would resign in the event of defeat I would vote elsewhere. Previously such an assurance hasn't been necessary. It's always been the convention. With Jeremy the evidence suggests that support from his clique is all the excuse he needs.
Of course it's reasonable. Most opposition leaders do resign when they lose elections. If the Tories win but with a smaller majority, Corbyn probably won't resign right away. May "should" then resign and it's possible she will, but it's also possible that the media will "forget" why she said she called the election. There is a threshold for the size of Tory majority that will make Corbyn resign. Somewhere between 10 and 30 I reckon.
The last opposition leader to fail to resign after losing a general election and losing both voteshare and seats was Edward Heath in 1966 when Harold Wilson won a majority of 96. Like the 2017 general election that election came 2 years after the last won as Wilson, like May, tried to increase a small majority. If Corbyn keeps May's majority under 100 as Heath did, just, or increases the Labour voteshare I think he will try and stay on
If Corbyn cuts the Tory majority he will definitely stay on as Kinnock did in 1987, especially if he increases the Labour voteshare by a few percent, Kinnock increased the Labour UK vote from 27% in 1983 to 30% in 1987
But had Leave lost, the issue would not have gone away unless Remain could turn round hearts as well as heads. Leave would have latched on to 'lies' told either in scaremongering or - worse - reassurance, and used them as the basis of a narrative that the referendum was 'stolen' from them. The reason the false assurances would have been worse for Remain is because they could be proved demonstrably wrong.
Yes, once the referendum was called there were only two only good outcomes for democracy: a win for Leave, or a very emphatic win for Remain. A narrow win for Remain would have been the worst possible result.
Agree. For me what is interesting is the counterfactual re what state the Conservative party would now be in, if 52:48 had instead been 48:52.
One of abject meltdown I would guess.
I think Nigel Farage would be doing better than Tim Farron on the hardcore remain/leaver counterfactual to put it bluntly.
Ceredigion Labour candidate leaflet - we will abolish zero hours contracts. But then yu read she is a single parent and works guess what a zero hours contract She lives in th ehouse I was born in and lives next door to my sister in law and the two are not on speaking terms!
I think the PM can close down this debate about police numbers before Labour really get going, by just saying there is going to be a "review" after the election.
I am not sure the PM should close it down.
It looks like a huge mistake by Labour to me, tantamount to trying to “blame” Theresa for the attack.
Labour need to get the focus off police & security asap, and onto anything else.
Disagree. I'm with Karl Rove (G W Bush's election guru) on this one. Labour needs to attack Tories' and specifically Theresa May's perceived strengths, and particularly here as May's roles as Prime Minister and Home Secretary are directly relevant. This means the cuts to police numbers, the failure to stop Abedi after multiple warnings from different sources, failure to monitor travel to and return from terrorist hotspots, threats to stop sharing intelligence as part of Brexit, and yes, failure to control non-EU immigration.
In short, Labour needs to attack and destroy any impression that Theresa May and a Conservative government make Britain safe.
If Labour were led by Attlee, Gaitskell, Wilson or Callaghan, that might be a profitable line of attack.
But, when they're led by people like Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot, it certainly isn't.
Given Conservative anxiety this week to pin Corbyn as a danger to security, I'd reckon CCHQ think I'm right and that the government is vulnerable to attack on its record and on this issue.
They've been pushing that line for years, clearly they think he is more vulnerable to the issue than they are.
Hoping it all goes badly for the UK now, as some on here seem to, is really, really, really crap.
This is the other insidious meme some Leavers cling to.
Pointing out imminent disaster is not "hoping" for it.
My turn for a crap analogy.
We are passengers on a bus that Brexit has steered off a cliff. Leavers are simultaneously asking why remain voters are not cheering the drop, while at the same time asking why remain voters are apparently cheering for the ground.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Asking whether JC will resign after a defeat seems a perfectly reasonable. Thousands if not millions of former Labour voters are going to look elsewhere because they fear him soldiering on.
I'm in that position myself. Unless I got word from Jeremy saying he would resign in the event of defeat I would vote elsewhere. Previously such an assurance hasn't been necessary. It's always been the convention. With Jeremy the evidence suggests that support from his clique is all the excuse he needs.
Of course it's reasonable. Most opposition leaders do resign when they lose elections. If the Tories win but with a smaller majority, Corbyn probably won't resign right away. May "should" then resign and it's possible she will, but it's also possible that the media will "forget" why she said she called the election. There is a threshold for the size of Tory majority that will make Corbyn resign. Somewhere between 10 and 30 I reckon.
A majority of somewhere between 100 and 300 and Corbyn might start thinking about resigning.
I think it'll be tied to vote share as much as the seats as to whether he'll resign or not. If he makes progress on that but loses lots of seats, he will point to the first and suggest, perhaps not without some credence, that disunity undermined them in many places they might have otherwise held. So long as the seat loss is not catastrophic, I think he would and could stay on in that situation.
But if they go closer to 160 than 200, which would probably mean getting fewer votes than Ed M too, then I think he would, despite talk now, go, since he doesn't want Labour to split and have half his remaining MPs leave, which if they reach 160 and he sticks around is surely a possibility, even with that gutless lot.
They have so many advantages in this election - polling advantage, leadership advantage, united party advantage, cash advantage - that I find it amazing Labour are seemingly increasing support and worried for Lab and the country that they will someone defy all these factors that seem to indicate Corbyn should be smashed, leaving him in place.
But had Leave lost, the issue would not have gone away unless Remain could turn round hearts as well as heads. Leave would have latched on to 'lies' told either in scaremongering or - worse - reassurance, and used them as the basis of a narrative that the referendum was 'stolen' from them. The reason the false assurances would have been worse for Remain is because they could be proved demonstrably wrong.
Yes, once the referendum was called there were only two only good outcomes for democracy: a win for Leave, or a very emphatic win for Remain. A narrow win for Remain would have been the worst possible result.
Agree. For me what is interesting is the counterfactual re what state the Conservative party would now be in, if 52:48 had instead been 48:52.
One of abject meltdown I would guess.
That is an alternate history I am writing.
And yes, it would not look pretty for the Tories.
That said, the 'how' you get to a 52% Remain matters. In this case, I have Labour Leave declaring UDI (in actions rather than announcement) from Corbyn and hence stopping him from stopping them. There are obviously knock-on effects for how matters pan out within the Labour Party followng that.
It wouldn't entirely kill the illegal drugs market any more than ending prohibition killed off moonshine but it'd make a pretty big dent in not only that but other organised and associated criminal activity - plus the usual benefits of having a properly regulated market in dangerous goods.
Not to mention the reduction in costs to the NHS. The worst effect of criminalisation is the drastic increase in health consequence for users - for example, Portugal's decriminalisation in 2001 has seen drugs deaths plummet by a factor of 6.
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
Oh please. I do get fed up with the lazy attempts to equate drug use with alcohol.
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
I think the PM can close down this debate about police numbers before Labour really get going, by just saying there is going to be a "review" after the election.
I am not sure the PM should close it down.
It looks like a huge mistake by Labour to me, tantamount to trying to “blame” Theresa for the attack.
Labour need to get the focus off police & security asap, and onto anything else.
Disagree. I'm with Karl Rove (G W Bush's election guru) on this one. Labour needs to attack Tories' and specifically Theresa May's perceived strengths, and particularly here as May's roles as Prime Minister and Home Secretary are directly relevant. This means the cuts to police numbers, the failure to stop Abedi after multiple warnings from different sources, failure to monitor travel to and return from terrorist hotspots, threats to stop sharing intelligence as part of Brexit, and yes, failure to control non-EU immigration.
In short, Labour needs to attack and destroy any impression that Theresa May and a Conservative government make Britain safe.
If Labour were led by Attlee, Gaitskell, Wilson or Callaghan, that might be a profitable line of attack.
But, when they're led by people like Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot, it certainly isn't.
Given Conservative anxiety this week to pin Corbyn as a danger to security, I'd reckon CCHQ think I'm right and that the government is vulnerable to attack on its record and on this issue.
They've been pushing that line for years, clearly they think he is more vulnerable to the issue than they are.
Corbyn's interview with Andrew Neil will enable Corbyn to repeat the views he put forward in his recent Chatham House speech .
"The best defence for Britain is a government actively engaged in seeking peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. But I am not a pacifist. I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary."
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.
Yes, it can only be for marketing and brand awareness. Let's hope their other customers don't pay too much attention to the negative publicity.
Talking of polls, did I hear you say that we are gonna get the mega exit poll from the pooled media on 8th?
Heads up to Lewisham council and Correos - they got our postal ballots a day ahead of forecast to our obscure corner of SE Spain today. So we can vote - it won't prevent a Labour win in Lewisham E. but adds to the blue vote share!
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.
I think the PM can close down this debate about police numbers before Labour really get going, by just saying there is going to be a "review" after the election.
I am not sure the PM should close it down.
It looks like a huge mistake by Labour to me, tantamount to trying to “blame” Theresa for the attack.
Labour need to get the focus off police & security asap, and onto anything else.
Disagree. I'm with Karl Rove (G W Bush's election guru) on this one. Labour needs to attack Tories' and specifically Theresa May's perceived strengths, and particularly here as May's roles as Prime Minister and Home Secretary are directly relevant. This means the cuts to police numbers, the failure to stop Abedi after multiple warnings from different sources, failure to monitor travel to and return from terrorist hotspots, threats to stop sharing intelligence as part of Brexit, and yes, failure to control non-EU immigration.
In short, Labour needs to attack and destroy any impression that Theresa May and a Conservative government make Britain safe.
If Labour were led by Attlee, Gaitskell, Wilson or Callaghan, that might be a profitable line of attack.
But, when they're led by people like Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot, it certainly isn't.
Given Conservative anxiety this week to pin Corbyn as a danger to security, I'd reckon CCHQ think I'm right and that the government is vulnerable to attack on its record and on this issue.
They've been pushing that line for years, clearly they think he is more vulnerable to the issue than they are.
Corbyn's interview with Andrew Neil will enable Corbyn to repeat the views he put forward in his recent Chatham House speech .
"The best defence for Britain is a government actively engaged in seeking peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. But I am not a pacifist. I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary."
Worth reading if you want to understand Corbyn's position is his own words rather than those of the Daily Mail and his political opponents.
I want to understand his position not just as presented by his opponents, or by him, since neither will be entirely correct. People can say many things, or accuse many things, but longstanding words and deeds reveal more, and I'll go by that, not just what people claim about him, or what he claims about himself.
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.
Yes, it can only be for marketing and brand awareness. Let's hope their other customers don't pay too much attention to the negative publicity.
Talking of polls, did I hear you say that we are gonna get the mega exit poll from the pooled media on 8th?
Yup, Ipsos MORI and GfK will be bringing us the exit poll for the BBC, Sky, and ITV, like they have for the last few general elections.
Hoping it all goes badly for the UK now, as some on here seem to, is really, really, really crap.
This is the other insidious meme some Leavers cling to.
Pointing out imminent disaster is not "hoping" for it.
My turn for a crap analogy.
We are passengers on a bus that Brexit has steered off a cliff. Leavers are simultaneously asking why remain voters are not cheering the drop, while at the same time asking why remain voters are apparently cheering for the ground.
I suggest we stop wasting each other's time and agree to disagree :-)
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
No it was Ted Heath in 1966 when Labour increased its majority from 4 to 96
Will read the whole thing later, but I see UKIP going big and bold when it comes to Parliament.
Scrap postal voting on demand Proportional voting system Abolish the HoL English Parliament under Additional member system Half the UK parliament to 325 Binding referenda every 2 years on petition issue with highest signatures
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeat it was not just Major, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.
Most, in fact. The exceptions I know of are Nevada and New Jersey (recently liberated!)
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.
Maybe more will be revealed, but with the benefit of hindsight allowing the dots to be connected backwards does not necessarily mean they connected forwards in real time.
Will read the whole thing later, but I see UKIP going big and bold when it comes to Parliament.
Scrap postal voting on demand Proportional voting system Abolish the HoL English Parliament under Additional member system Half the UK parliament to 325 Binding referenda every 2 years on petition issue with highest signatures
It's a long time since I have seen a list of UKIP proposals with which I have some sympathy. Better than compulsory naturism to maintain our home-grown Vitamin D levels.
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.
Most, in fact. The exceptions I know of are Nevada and New Jersey (recently liberated!)
Nevada, Nevada... if only there was somewhere to gamble there?
Love Europe, not the EU. No a hard concept. imagine a football fan who may - shock, horror, despite their love of the beautiful game, not have a high opinion of FIFA. It was a bit like that.
So your solution is that England should withdraw from FIFA and not participate in the World Cup?
Oh, wait, maybe that analogy is really, really, really crap...
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeats, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974
Callaghan and Home both waited before resigning: neither were immediate (as per Brown, Miliband, Major, Hague etc), nor announced but deferred (as with Howard).
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.
Yes, it can only be for marketing and brand awareness. Let's hope their other customers don't pay too much attention to the negative publicity.
Talking of polls, did I hear you say that we are gonna get the mega exit poll from the pooled media on 8th?
Yup, Ipsos MORI and GfK will be bringing us the exit poll for the BBC, Sky, and ITV, like they have for the last few general elections.
Good news
I know that one costs an absolute fortune to do, with hundreds of people involved well beforehand and on the day. It's also been pretty accurate for the last couple of elections.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
Heath in 1966 too.
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
Free advertising? Helps them to private clients if they have a famous "win".
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.
Dementia tax still killing theTories, Manchester not having a polling impact?
Doesn't sound Martin actually knows, does it?
Sounds almost like a sales pitch - someone please commission a poll, please someone.....
He's already got two public clients, and did you know political polling constitutes less 1% of the polling industry's revenue.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
Given that it's a tiny part of their business, doesn't really make them any money from it, and the majority of the feedback in recent years has been negative, one wonders why they bother with political opinion polling at all?
It gets them name recognition and visibility for other clients.
Yes, it can only be for marketing and brand awareness. Let's hope their other customers don't pay too much attention to the negative publicity.
Talking of polls, did I hear you say that we are gonna get the mega exit poll from the pooled media on 8th?
Yup, Ipsos MORI and GfK will be bringing us the exit poll for the BBC, Sky, and ITV, like they have for the last few general elections.
And after their performance at the last two elections, so they should.
Maybe more will be revealed, but with the benefit of hindsight allowing the dots to be connected backwards does not necessarily mean they connected forwards in real time.
Perhaps they could have had better security around the arena. What you're talking about is more the should it have been possible for the security services to stop him getting anywhere near the arena in the first place. What I was getting at is that saying it could have been prevented isn't really saying much at all.
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.
I thought the most interesting part of having the exit poll last time was when it was put to Harriet Harman, whose reaction gave the game away - very little surprise in her voice.
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.
Most, in fact. The exceptions I know of are Nevada and New Jersey (recently liberated!)
There was a famous American property developer who was involved with casinos in both Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Went on to host The Apprentice from what I remember.
This gets close to being evil. Maybe it's fake, but if not WTF was the Mail thinking? ttps://twitter.com/ejbrand/status/867680146765094916
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.
What a fraud you are, SO. You get a fit of the vapours when the gruesome reality upsets your agenda but fall over yourself to publicize atrocity hoaxes that you wish were true.
How can the Mail justify this story? All it can do is cause even more pain and suffering to that poor girl's family.
The point has been made is that any different to the pictures of the syrian toddler dead on the beach?
As I recall, that child died because his father "fled" from a safe holiday resort frequented by Westerners seeking "asylum" in a country that would pay for his dental treatment.
For the exit poll, they'll have to think carefully about where they focus their resources. Presumably not Nuneaton.
On the contrary, I think they keep the polling stations they use the same each year. They are aiming for stations that exemplify different parts of Britain's electoral geography, rather than just marginals.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me...
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
For the exit poll, they'll have to think carefully about where they focus their resources. Presumably not Nuneaton.
I believe they use the same polling stations for every election to ensure consistency and so that they can measure particular demographics. When I saw them explain it I was surprised at how few constituencies they have a presence in.
For the exit poll, they'll have to think carefully about where they focus their resources. Presumably not Nuneaton.
On the contrary, I think they keep the polling stations they use the same each year. They are aiming for stations that exemplify different parts of Britain's electoral geography, rather than just marginals.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me...
It the same ones because exit polls focus on changes in the vote (they are like economists in this regard).
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.
Most, in fact. The exceptions I know of are Nevada and New Jersey (recently liberated!)
Nevada, Nevada... if only there was somewhere to gamble there?
I think PtP's information is out of date. (I wonder how old he is if he thinks of 1977 - the year NJ allowed gambling - as recently ).
Betting on horses and the professional sports is also widespread.
The legal situation with online betting is, as I understand it, not clear as the courts have not yet decided if the 1961 Wire Act applies to the Internet.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeat it was not just Major, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974
Heath was toppled by Thatcher in February 1975 - just four months after the October 1974 election. Callaghan remained Labour leader for 18 months after losing in May 1979.
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
I think the last time a leader of the opposition stayed put after a government increased its majority in a general election was Gaitskell in 1959. When was the last time they did that and stayed leader until the following election? Before WW2 I think.
Heath in 1966 too.
Heath in October 1974 as well - though both of those followed very short parliaments.
For the exit poll, they'll have to think carefully about where they focus their resources. Presumably not Nuneaton.
On the contrary, I think they keep the polling stations they use the same each year. They are aiming for stations that exemplify different parts of Britain's electoral geography, rather than just marginals.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me...
It the same ones because exit polls focus on changes in the vote (they are like economists in this regard).
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. So the old adage of believing the exit poll - even if it looks wrong - should be adhered to.
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
I won't pursue the personal debate further as I can't imagine it's of general interest, but it's certainly true that lots of Labour members who are not always left-wing will not vote to replace Corbyn after a possible election defeat unless someone offers an attractive alternative. To write all of us off as deluded zealots misses the point and is self-defeating for centrists. Anyway, we have an election to fight now: time to worry about what happens next thereafter.
In the meantime, there's an interesting discussion here of the challenges faced by voters and MPs in our electronic age:
At first skim, I think they're right about the problem, but I don't instantly see that their dashboards etc. solve it. But perhaps I've not studied it enough?
It certainly is of general interest, Nick. Can you explain to me why Jezza should remain in post if - as is likely - he presides over a defeat and a reduction in Labour seats? Is there even a precedent for such behaviour?
The closest comparison would be Callaghan who stayed on to reform the way the leader was elected before resigning. Corbyn would probably like to do that to assist the hard left.
There are many examples of Labour leaders remaining in post following election defeats - Kinnock in 1987 - Wilson in 1970 - Gaitskell in 1959 - Attlee in 1951. Ditto for Tory leaders.
Was it John Major who started the recent trend for immediate post-election resignations?
Kinnock in 1992, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after 6 months), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and before them Foot in 1983, Callaghan in 1979, Home in 1964 all resigned following election defeats, Heath was eventually toppled by Thatcher in 1975 a year after losing in October 1974
Callaghan and Home both waited before resigning: neither were immediate (as per Brown, Miliband, Major, Hague etc), nor announced but deferred (as with Howard).
Both were gone by the end of the following year though and it was their decision to go
For the last time: I said he had a valid hypothesis - (my precise line was "that's actually a perfectly valid argument"). Because there is, all-too-often, a provable link between drug use and later radicalisation. Cannabis is particularly implicated.
The proposed solution: Prohibition, is certainly one possible approach. It is arguable. So the Daily Mail article was not bat-shit crazy as was being implied. Which, again, was the point I was making.
However, I think there are some other, possibly better solutions we should also consider. There. That's MY thesis. Now go and argue with some other shadow on the wall. I'm off for a long country walk. In the glorious sun.
Prohibition is the existing state of affairs and it is not proposed as a solution to a problem that it has clearly not solved.
As someone who values clear thought not just in myself but in others, I would like to see a much tougher clampdown on recreational drugs. That might be a solution.
Including alcohol ?
. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
They moved onto gambling - which is prohibited in many US states IIRC.
Most, in fact. The exceptions I know of are Nevada and New Jersey (recently liberated!)
Nevada, Nevada... if only there was somewhere to gamble there?
I think PtP's information is out of date. (I wonder how old he is if he thinks of 1977 - the year NJ allowed gambling - as recently ).
Betting on horses and the professional sports is also widespread.
The legal situation with online betting is, as I understand it, not clear as the courts have not yet decided if the 1961 Wire Act applies to the Internet.
Thank you. I knew somebody would correct me, and I'm glad you should do so. I was in fact thinking principally of internet betting, and also the general prevalence Tote betting rather than through bookmakers.
Surpised it's as many as 36 though, but am sure you are right.
For the exit poll, they'll have to think carefully about where they focus their resources. Presumably not Nuneaton.
On the contrary, I think they keep the polling stations they use the same each year. They are aiming for stations that exemplify different parts of Britain's electoral geography, rather than just marginals.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me...
It the same ones because exit polls focus on changes in the vote (they are like economists in this regard).
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. So the old adage of believing the exit poll - even if it looks wrong - should be adhered to.
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
The same jihadist rhetoric.
But least he was a kind and loving child murderer.
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
Comments
One of abject meltdown I would guess.
If Corbyn cuts the Tory majority he will definitely stay on as Kinnock did in 1987, especially if he increases the Labour voteshare by a few percent, Kinnock increased the Labour UK vote from 27% in 1983 to 30% in 1987
She lives in th ehouse I was born in and lives next door to my sister in law and the two are not on speaking terms!
Pointing out imminent disaster is not "hoping" for it.
My turn for a crap analogy.
We are passengers on a bus that Brexit has steered off a cliff. Leavers are simultaneously asking why remain voters are not cheering the drop, while at the same time asking why remain voters are apparently cheering for the ground.
But if they go closer to 160 than 200, which would probably mean getting fewer votes than Ed M too, then I think he would, despite talk now, go, since he doesn't want Labour to split and have half his remaining MPs leave, which if they reach 160 and he sticks around is surely a possibility, even with that gutless lot.
It is a very bizarre that polling companies are judged on less than 1% of their products.
https://twitter.com/ejbrand/status/867680146765094916
I seem to remember the last accounts had a massive donation from Unite to Labour, so maybe this one is all their smaller donations for the campaign.
And yes, it would not look pretty for the Tories.
That said, the 'how' you get to a 52% Remain matters. In this case, I have Labour Leave declaring UDI (in actions rather than announcement) from Corbyn and hence stopping him from stopping them. There are obviously knock-on effects for how matters pan out within the Labour Party followng that.
Portugal's decriminalisation in 2001 has seen drugs deaths plummet by a factor of 6.
As the joke goes round here, 'I love summer, it's my favourite day of the year'
@AllieHBNews: Police: Initial searches in terror investigation have discovered significant items #manchesterattacks
The key difference is intoxication. It is not the sole objective of alcohol consumption to get intoxicated. Intoxication is in fact a consequence of immoderate drinking. In moderate use, alcohol with food improve one another mutually. Alcohol has a pleasant and complex taste. There can be very few people who crunch pills because they like the taste of the powder.
Alcohol unlike any illegal drug is a recognised food group and some of its allotropes contain a number of beneficial ingredients, notably anti-oxidants. As a result, very few nutritionists will tell you to avoid all alcohol. Mine says to avoid the hard stuff (for your liver), beer (only because calories), and cider (calories and sugar), but red wine is fine.
Alcohol's adverse effects do not persist beyond when you stop drinking, i.e. you don't consider strangers your best mate when you sober up, and your liver will repair itself if you stop altogether. Neither appears to be true of weed.
Alcohol has been a thing in every human culture ever and its drawbacks and risks are well understood. The same is not true of drugs. There is AFAIK no culture in which psychoactive substances have been important that is successful or still around. In Yemen booze is illegal and stuff called qhat isn't, they're all catatonic on it and look what a great happy place Yemen is.
There may well be reasons to legalise it, eg to obtain control over who is using it, to secure the tax revenue, libertarian arguments, or whatever, but IMHO the two dumbest arguments are that it's the same as booze, and that it would put criminals out of business. The end of Prohibition didn't exactly put the Mafia out of business.
"The best defence for Britain is a government actively engaged in seeking peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. But I am not a pacifist. I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary."
Full text here: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/jeremy-corbyns-chatham-house-speech-full-text/#
Worth reading if you want to understand Corbyn's position is his own words rather than those of the Daily Mail and his political opponents.
Talking of polls, did I hear you say that we are gonna get the mega exit poll from the pooled media on 8th?
"The polls this weekend will be dull beyond anything written by Milton".
Something has changed-effects of Syria returnees ??
Would we rather MI5 said this guy had slipped their radar, they knew nothing about him, his connections methodology or capability? I suspect not.
Scrap postal voting on demand
Proportional voting system
Abolish the HoL
English Parliament under Additional member system
Half the UK parliament to 325
Binding referenda every 2 years on petition issue with highest signatures
Oh, wait, never mind.
Maybe more will be revealed, but with the benefit of hindsight allowing the dots to be connected backwards does not necessarily mean they connected forwards in real time.
Actually not a bad idea.
I know that one costs an absolute fortune to do, with hundreds of people involved well beforehand and on the day. It's also been pretty accurate for the last couple of elections.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-salman-abedi-grew-to-hate-us/19866
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me...
"The sister of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi believes her brother carried out the attack because he wanted revenge for US air strikes on Syria.
Jomana Abedi said in an interview her brother was kind and loving and that she was surprised by what he did on Monday.
At least 22 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when 22-year-old Abedi detonated a device as fans left an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Ms Abedi said she thought he was driven by America's military attacks in the Middle East.
“I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge," she told the Wall Street Journal."
Casino gambling exists in 36 States: https://www.casino.org/us/guide/
Betting on horses and the professional sports is also widespread.
The legal situation with online betting is, as I understand it, not clear as the courts have not yet decided if the 1961 Wire Act applies to the Internet.
https://www.legalgamblingandthelaw.com/us/legal-us-online-betting-sites
F1: P2 begins shortly.
Thank you. I knew somebody would correct me, and I'm glad you should do so. I was in fact thinking principally of internet betting, and also the general prevalence Tote betting rather than through bookmakers.
Surpised it's as many as 36 though, but am sure you are right.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/statistics/staff/academic-research/firth/exit-poll-explainer/