Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse, which whilst not a single malt is a step above the bottom end of Bells and supermarket own brand
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
I dont believe that it will have the effect intended, but will wait for the results.
We shouldn't encourage undermining of devolved governments policy though.
Why
Because England should be a good neighbour.
I would never suggest the good doctor is naive but in real politics it is unlikely to be a consideration in English policy
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
The price of more expensive brands will rise precisely because they will need to differentiate their product, otherwise people will think it's "only as good" as the cheap stuff. Unfortunately that's how psychology works.
So ... a bonanza for the alcohol industry, starting with higher profits from fixing the minimum price. Price fixing is supposed to be illegal.
I note that per capita alcohol consumption in Spain is lower than it is in Scotland. Is there *any* duty on wine and beer in Spain?
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
The price of more expensive brands will rise precisely because they will need to differentiate their product, otherwise people will think it's "only as good" as the cheap stuff. Unfortunately that's how psychology works.
So ... a bonanza for the alcohol industry, starting with higher profits from fixing the minimum price. Price fixing is supposed to be illegal.
I note that per capita alcohol consumption in Spain is lower than it is in Scotland. Is there *any* duty on wine and beer in Spain?
The prime minister interestingly referred to Mr Elphicke as “my honourable friend” - a term used when referencing members of the same party - when she issued a response, in which she pledged continual investment ahead of ‘Brexit Day’ in March 2019.
A slip by the PM, or does she not agree with Elphicke's suspension?
Can't quite believe Mugabe is under house arrest. It looked like it would never happen until very recently.
Astonishing that something has actually gone right in the world, given the last few years...
I am not sure the bloke the army are trying to replace him with is exactly an angel.
He's got a horrible record. But sometimes people with horrible records turn out to be pragmatic leaders.
What are the chances he will allow free elections?
I'm no expert. But my hunch is that the army want some form of civilian government, incorporating elements of the opposition, which agrees to let their leaders retain their wealth and status, similar to Burma. I think too, they want better relations with the UK and other Western countries.
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
What makes a change is that this won't remotely affect pubs. There's no way of getting a pint for less than the minimum anywhere.
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
The price of fuel will surely mean it is not worthwhile to drive over the border?
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
The price of fuel will surely mean it is not worthwhile to drive over the border?
Depends whether friends and groups get together. In our area a lot of people also work over or near to the border
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
What makes a change is that this won't remotely affect pubs. There's no way of getting a pint for less than the minimum anywhere.
SNP drink drive limit of 50 mg is putting paid to those I think
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
The price of fuel will surely mean it is not worthwhile to drive over the border?
Probably not for one case of beer. But the week before Christmas, or if buying by the van load? Are the Scottish police going to be looking for vans full of bootleg booze heading north from Carlisle and Berwick up the M74 and A1?
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
What makes a change is that this won't remotely affect pubs. There's no way of getting a pint for less than the minimum anywhere.
SNP drink drive limit of 50 mg is putting paid to those I think
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
What makes a change is that this won't remotely affect pubs. There's no way of getting a pint for less than the minimum anywhere.
SNP drink drive limit of 50 mg is putting paid to those I think
An excellent policy but bad news for pubs
Pubs make way more profit on a pint of lemonade than they do on a pint of beer! Whatever happened to car sharing, that’s what my friends all used to do a couple of decades ago. Remember the “I’ll Be Des” campaign?
Breaking News - Labour's Ivan Lewis MP under formal investigation following an allegation of sexual harassment
At the general election there was only a tiny swing to Labour in his seat, while neighbouring Bury North was a Labour gain from the Tories on a fairly big swing.
Pubs make way more profit on a pint of lemonade than they do on a pint of beer! Whatever happened to car sharing, that’s what my friends all used to do a couple of decades ago. Remember the “I’ll Be Des” campaign?
There used to be ten pubs in the (rather large) village I grew up in, all within walking distance (20 mins tops). Now down to six.
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
The price of more expensive brands will rise precisely because they will need to differentiate their product, otherwise people will think it's "only as good" as the cheap stuff. Unfortunately that's how psychology works.
So ... a bonanza for the alcohol industry, starting with higher profits from fixing the minimum price. Price fixing is supposed to be illegal.
I note that per capita alcohol consumption in Spain is lower than it is in Scotland. Is there *any* duty on wine and beer in Spain?
Not to mention the substitution problem. Aeons ago, when I was a skint student, until I realised how badly the stuff messes with your head, I used to smoke weed because it was a damn sight cheaper than the sauce...
If the aim is to punish problem drinkers, i.e. the poor, with their cans of white lightning and tennant's super, it's not like there are other drugs the Scots poor are known to be fond of...
Or the damn stupid stuff you do when you're broke, like taking painkillers before drinking to get you messed up faster, which is what I believe the youth do in the nordic countries, where the price of alcohol is sky high.
However you look at it it's a regressive move that hits the poor the most, especially the alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it.
Meanwhile the morally superior middle classes who drink a bottle of wine or three every night will carry on without noticing...
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading a lot of tyrants deliberately have weak, underfunded armies precisely to avoid potential coups - have a core presidential guard unit which is well trained, equipped and is loyal personally to the tyrant, and the army leaders are too chaotic and weak to do anything. Have a relatively stable army, and you run the risk that they really can just cycle in leaders as and when they choose if the tyrant goes too far.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading a lot of tyrants deliberately have weak, underfunded armies precisely to avoid potential coups - have a core presidential guard unit which is well trained, equipped and is loyal personally to the tyrant, and the army leaders are too chaotic and weak to do anything. Have a relatively stable army, and you run the risk that they really can just cycle in leaders as and when they choose if the tyrant goes too far.
Stalin always dreaded being overthrown by the army, hence his purges and resentment of Zhukov. OTOH, he needed them to be strong enough to beat external enemies. To stay in power, the tyrant has to give power to some subordinates, and make it worth their while to continue to support him, using both sticks and carrots.
Not to mention the substitution problem. Aeons ago, when I was a skint student, until I realised how badly the stuff messes with your head, I used to smoke weed because it was a damn sight cheaper than the sauce...
If the aim is to punish problem drinkers, i.e. the poor, with their cans of white lightning and tennant's super, it's not like there are other drugs the Scots poor are known to be fond of...
Or the damn stupid stuff you do when you're broke, like taking painkillers before drinking to get you messed up faster, which is what I believe the youth do in the nordic countries, where the price of alcohol is sky high.
However you look at it it's a regressive move that hits the poor the most, especially the alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it.
Meanwhile the morally superior middle classes who drink a bottle of wine or three every night will carry on without noticing...
The Great PB Quantum Fallacy, which always rears it lovely head when this subject arises. People come in continuous spectra, not quantised leaps, all the way from those who drink a case of Bacardi before breakfast to those who drink nothing stronger than tea, and from the impoverished to the super rich. If there are people who are "alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it" there are also going to be people at the low end of alcohol dependency and the high end on price-sensitivity whose behaviour will be altered in the manner intended.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading a lot of tyrants deliberately have weak, underfunded armies precisely to avoid potential coups - have a core presidential guard unit which is well trained, equipped and is loyal personally to the tyrant, and the army leaders are too chaotic and weak to do anything. Have a relatively stable army, and you run the risk that they really can just cycle in leaders as and when they choose if the tyrant goes too far.
The Byzantines followed that strategy I believe (although Morris Dancer would know more about it than me).
But actually I would have said most dictatorships have fairly strong armies they keep under tight control simply because they may need them to keep order. That is of course particularly true of military dictatorships but China, North Korea (current) Italy, Germany and even Romania (historic) all spring to mind as other examples.
That said, Stalin would be a good example in favour of your point - killing off 90% of the command structure of the Red Army because he feared for no discernible reason that it was disloyal (and then sacking Zhukov after the war). Even Khrushchev might come into play, removing Zhukov again for - ironically - stopping the Anti-Party conspiracy by threatening to use the army!.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading se if the tyrant goes too far.
The Byzantines followed that strategy I believe (although Morris Dancer would know more about it than me).
But actually I would have said most dictatorships have fairly strong armies they keep under tight control simply because they may need them to keep order. That is of course particularly true of military dictatorships but China, North Korea (current) Italy, Germany and even Romania (historic) all spring to mind as other examples.
That said, Stalin would be a good example in favour of your point - killing off 90% of the command structure of the Red Army because he feared for no discernible reason that it was disloyal (and then sacking Zhukov after the war). Even Khrushchev might come into play, removing Zhukov again for - ironically - stopping the Anti-Party conspiracy by threatening to use the army!.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'weak military' strategy is generally used by fairly minor nations, relatively safe from external opponents and not needing too many soldiers to keep order, but it is just conjecture (it's also possible several have gone down that route, but they are not the successful ones who last!)
China will be an interesting one, given they seemed to have gone down a route of routine transfers of power to identikit men in grey suits, but the current President is so much more dominant than recent ones.
It is the job of the HOL to ask for rewrites of course, if they feel it warranted. But of course it's a delicate dance if the Commons repeatedly approves things and the HOL send it back over and over - how much ping-pong is too much?
SNP drink drive limit of 50 mg is putting paid to those I think
An excellent policy but bad news for pubs
I thought that was a minimum alcohol requirement.
Just finished off a bottle of 500 ml (just under a pint) of 5.9% abv., 3 alcohol units, Sainsbury's own brand (Burton's) IPA at £1.50, full flavoured, using Fuggles, Goldings and Cascade hops and yeast from the Burton Union System, served lightly chilled and I'm looking forward to the next.....
Not to mention the substitution problem. Aeons ago, when I was a skint student, until I realised how badly the stuff messes with your head, I used to smoke weed because it was a damn sight cheaper than the sauce...
If the aim is to punish problem drinkers, i.e. the poor, with their cans of white lightning and tennant's super, it's not like there are other drugs the Scots poor are known to be fond of...
Or the damn stupid stuff you do when you're broke, like taking painkillers before drinking to get you messed up faster, which is what I believe the youth do in the nordic countries, where the price of alcohol is sky high.
However you look at it it's a regressive move that hits the poor the most, especially the alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it.
Meanwhile the morally superior middle classes who drink a bottle of wine or three every night will carry on without noticing...
The Great PB Quantum Fallacy, which always rears it lovely head when this subject arises. People come in continuous spectra, not quantised leaps, all the way from those who drink a case of Bacardi before breakfast to those who drink nothing stronger than tea, and from the impoverished to the super rich. If there are people who are "alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it" there are also going to be people at the low end of alcohol dependency and the high end on price-sensitivity whose behaviour will be altered in the manner intended.
It is, as I think most people know () rare for me to agree with Corbyn.
But I genuinely cannot understand why there is so much resistance to putting sprinkler systems and effective fire alarms in tower blocks. Given their size, materials, internal layout and the sheer number of hazards, even allowing for the practical difficulties it seems to me to be a no-brainer.
True, they may not always work as intended. There is no guarantee they would have saved everyone in Grenfell given the way the fire spread. But they can't even hope to save anyone if they're not there in the first place, and they can potentially deliver water to areas firefighters may be unable to reach. Also psychologically I think it would be worth doing - it would reassure he residents mightily, which is not something to be neglected in light of these fires.
He's right on this, and those opposing him including his own borough council are wrong. It's extraordinary but it's true. I hope he keeps pushing the issue.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading a lot of tyrants deliberately have weak, underfunded armies precisely to avoid potential coups - have a core presidential guard unit which is well trained, equipped and is loyal personally to the tyrant, and the army leaders are too chaotic and weak to do anything. Have a relatively stable army, and you run the risk that they really can just cycle in leaders as and when they choose if the tyrant goes too far.
The Byzantines followed that strategy I believe (although Morris Dancer would know more about it than me).
But actually I would have said most dictatorships have fairly strong armies they keep under tight control simply because they may need them to keep order. That is of course particularly true of military dictatorships but China, North Korea (current) Italy, Germany and even Romania (historic) all spring to mind as other examples.
That said, Stalin would be a good example in favour of your point - killing off 90% of the command structure of the Red Army because he feared for no discernible reason that it was disloyal (and then sacking Zhukov after the war). Even Khrushchev might come into play, removing Zhukov again for - ironically - stopping the Anti-Party conspiracy by threatening to use the army!.
A well-funded gendarmerie and secret police force should be sufficient to maintain order. If dictators have strong armies, it's because they have territorial ambitions, or fear the ambitions of others. But, there's always the risk that the army develops an independent mind-set.
Manfred Webber from the European Parliament had a meeting with TM at No 10 today following her personal invitation and emerged with a much more positive attitude. So much so that Faisal Islam, yes Faisal no less, ventured to suggest something changed today (more money) for the better.
Also reports from France that they are becoming more concilatory as they are very worried about the effect on France.
Maybe something is going on to break the log jam. Let's hope so
Not to mention the substitution problem. Aeons ago, when I was a skint student, until I realised how badly the stuff messes with your head, I used to smoke weed because it was a damn sight cheaper than the sauce...
If the aim is to punish problem drinkers, i.e. the poor, with their cans of white lightning and tennant's super, it's not like there are other drugs the Scots poor are known to be fond of...
Or the damn stupid stuff you do when you're broke, like taking painkillers before drinking to get you messed up faster, which is what I believe the youth do in the nordic countries, where the price of alcohol is sky high.
However you look at it it's a regressive move that hits the poor the most, especially the alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it.
Meanwhile the morally superior middle classes who drink a bottle of wine or three every night will carry on without noticing...
The Great PB Quantum Fallacy, which always rears it lovely head when this subject arises. People come in continuous spectra, not quantised leaps, all the way from those who drink a case of Bacardi before breakfast to those who drink nothing stronger than tea, and from the impoverished to the super rich. If there are people who are "alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it" there are also going to be people at the low end of alcohol dependency and the high end on price-sensitivity whose behaviour will be altered in the manner intended.
Not true.
This is a chart for the US, sadly there isn't one for Scotland, but it's quite revealing.
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
The guy sounds like a right charmer, but I do worry, 6+ years ago he said this stuff.
Edit...
How long ago is the cut off time before somebodies previous behaviour is forgiven? 6-7 years is longer than a lot of people get for genuine serious crimes.
I really worry some kid tweets some crap when they are 17 and 20 years later they lose their job because they were a knob back then.
Not to mention the substitution problem. Aeons ago, when I was a skint student, until I realised how badly the stuff messes with your head, I used to smoke weed because it was a damn sight cheaper than the sauce...
If the aim is to punish problem drinkers, i.e. the poor, with their cans of white lightning and tennant's super, it's not like there are other drugs the Scots poor are known to be fond of...
Or the damn stupid stuff you do when you're broke, like taking painkillers before drinking to get you messed up faster, which is what I believe the youth do in the nordic countries, where the price of alcohol is sky high.
However you look at it it's a regressive move that hits the poor the most, especially the alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it.
Meanwhile the morally superior middle classes who drink a bottle of wine or three every night will carry on without noticing...
The Great PB Quantum Fallacy, which always rears it lovely head when this subject arises. People come in continuous spectra, not quantised leaps, all the way from those who drink a case of Bacardi before breakfast to those who drink nothing stronger than tea, and from the impoverished to the super rich. If there are people who are "alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it" there are also going to be people at the low end of alcohol dependency and the high end on price-sensitivity whose behaviour will be altered in the manner intended.
Not true.
This is a chart for the US, sadly there isn't one for Scotland, but it's quite revealing.
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
A pint of whisky every day? How the hell can anyone drink that much for any length of time and still be alive?
I'm seriously concerned about the health of a family member drinking barely a third of that.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading a lot of tyrants deliberately have weak, underfunded armies precisely to avoid potential coups - have a core presidential guard unit which is well trained, equipped and is loyal personally to the tyrant, and the army leaders are too chaotic and weak to do anything. Have a relatively stable army, and you run the risk that they really can just cycle in leaders as and when they choose if the tyrant goes too far.
The Byzantines followed that strategy I believe (although Morris Dancer would know more about it than me).
But actually I would have said most dictatorships have fairly strong armies they keep under tight control simply because they may need them to keep order. That is of course particularly true of military dictatorships but China, North Korea (current) Italy, Germany and even Romania (historic) all spring to mind as other examples.
That said, Stalin would be a good example in favour of your point - killing off 90% of the command structure of the Red Army because he feared for no discernible reason that it was disloyal (and then sacking Zhukov after the war). Even Khrushchev might come into play, removing Zhukov again for - ironically - stopping the Anti-Party conspiracy by threatening to use the army!.
I think that not quite true of the Great Terror. While the higher levels of the army were heavily purged, most were fired or exiled rather than executed. Many were reinstated even before the war.
Labour MP Ivan Lewis Is Under Investigation By The Party Over A Sexual Harassment Complaint
One woman told BuzzFeed News that she had been discouraged from formally complaining about unwanted attention from Lewis by members of then-leader Ed Miliband's team.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a lot more efficient than Grant Shapps.
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading a lot of tyrants deliberately have weak, underfunded armies precisely to avoid potential coups - have a core presidential guard unit which is well trained, equipped and is loyal personally to the tyrant, and the army leaders are too chaotic and weak to do anything. Have a relatively stable army, and you run the risk that they really can just cycle in leaders as and when they choose if the tyrant goes too far.
The Byzantines followed that strategy I believe (although Morris Dancer would know more about it than me).
But actually I would have said most dictatorships have fairly strong armies they keep under tight control simply because they may need them to keep order. That is of course particularly true of military dictatorships but China, North Korea (current) Italy, Germany and even Romania (historic) all spring to mind as other examples.
That said, Stalin would be a good example in favour of your point - killing off 90% of the command structure of the Red Army because he feared for no discernible reason that it was disloyal (and then sacking Zhukov after the war). Even Khrushchev might come into play, removing Zhukov again for - ironically - stopping the Anti-Party conspiracy by threatening to use the army!.
I think that not quite true of the Great Terror. While the higher levels of the army were heavily purged, most were fired or exiled rather than executed. Many were reinstated even before the war.
Figures from Simon Sebag Montefiore, for executions:
3 of the 5 Marshals 15 of 17 Major Generals 60 of 67 corps commanders The entirety of the commissars.
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
I remember when my sister rented her first house in 2002, her rent was £15 a month more than the equivalent mortgage. I thought this was really silly.
Now the equivalent rent on a house like mine is almost exactly double my mortgage - £720 compared to £366.
How do I know this? Because before I bought this house I rented the identical one two doors down!
It is brutal. I am lucky that I was able to buy quickly and cheaply, but in London that clearly isn't an option. It's understandable that people believe Corbyn may help, the only snag is that he won't and may conceivably make things far worse (cf Trump, Brexit, Tsipras).
Anyway, I have some work to do before turning in. Have a good evening everyone.
The guy sounds like a right charmer, but I do worry, 6+ years ago he said this stuff.
Edit...
How long ago is the cut off time before somebodies previous behaviour is forgiven? 6-7 years is longer than a lot of people get for genuine serious crimes.
I really worry some kid tweets some crap when they are 17 and 20 years later they lose their job because they were a knob back then.
In part, it depends on the job. If you're going for some right-on PC job, like Editor of Gay Times, these comments will destroy you.
If you're an openly gay fascist, running a fashion magazine in France, Italy, or Austria, such comments will enhance your standing.
If someone says or writes something they don't like, why not simply ignore it? Taking offence at every opportunity is childish. 99% of people used to agree with that way of thinking until a few years ago, I don't know why people have changed their attitude since then.
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
I'd vote for a moderate Labour Party (anything right of Miliband) over the current Tories. And I'm sure there are nominal Labour supporters who would vote for an unashamedly Cameroon Tory Party over current Labour.
The electorate is frozen by the current polarisation* of the main parties, with moderates/floaters on both sides afraid to vote for a minor party for fear of it letting their particular bête noire get into power**.
*frozen, polarisation, geddit? **or into meaningful power in the Tory case.
I don’t see there being that much of Labour’s coalition that would vote for a Cameroon Tory party. Nor do I see Labour electing a leader to the right of Ed Miliband. I think those days are over.
While polls like Survation and YouGov should be taken seriously, it’s very sad that after the last GE and 2015 PBers are still taking ICM seriously, especially after they deluded us all that the Tories had a double digit lead.
It is, as I think most people know () rare for me to agree with Corbyn.
But I genuinely cannot understand why there is so much resistance to putting sprinkler systems and effective fire alarms in tower blocks. Given their size, materials, internal layout and the sheer number of hazards, even allowing for the practical difficulties it seems to me to be a no-brainer.
True, they may not always work as intended. There is no guarantee they would have saved everyone in Grenfell given the way the fire spread. But they can't even hope to save anyone if they're not there in the first place, and they can potentially deliver water to areas firefighters may be unable to reach. Also psychologically I think it would be worth doing - it would reassure he residents mightily, which is not something to be neglected in light of these fires.
He's right on this, and those opposing him including his own borough council are wrong. It's extraordinary but it's true. I hope he keeps pushing the issue.
I don’t think there’s a problem with putting in sprinkler systems. It’s paying for them. The Government said they would, in principle, assis, but every time, it seems, a local authority ups and asks for help in funding them, government says ‘sorry chaps, you’ve got to pay’.
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Alcohol is very easy and cheap to produce, beer, from a brewery will be costing around 10p a pint to produce, another 20p bottling, print and promotion, while tax will be around 80p (very rough figures, but gives some idea) so why does it cost around £4.00 in pubs? Then spirits, the profit and tax margins are massive. So why the high prices and taxes? There has to be a balance between what people are prepared to pay and when they start to make it themselves. If you make a mistake in brewing and more importantly in distilling, you will kill, blind or make disabled, mentally or otherwise, many people, which is why governments are very (or should be) careful in setting taxes on booze.
I'd vote for a moderate Labour Party (anything right of Miliband) over the current Tories. And I'm sure there are nominal Labour supporters who would vote for an unashamedly Cameroon Tory Party over current Labour.
The electorate is frozen by the current polarisation* of the main parties, with moderates/floaters on both sides afraid to vote for a minor party for fear of it letting their particular bête noire get into power**.
*frozen, polarisation, geddit? **or into meaningful power in the Tory case.
I don’t see there being that much of Labour’s coalition that would vote for a Cameroon Tory party.
The very fact somebody says they would vote moderate Labour rather than present Tories would seem to suggest there will people who would do the reverse, vote for a more liberal seeming Tory party than the present Labour party. Why would that be a surprise? Even if we accept the public prefer the parties to be more extreme, we know floaters exist, which mean there will be people who are currently voting one way but would happily switch if the other way altered a bit.
If someone says or writes something they don't like, why not simply ignore it? Taking offence at every opportunity is childish. 99% of people used to agree with that way of thinking until a few years ago, I don't know why people have changed their attitude since then.
Don’t think it’s about taking ‘offence’ but rather refuting certain narratives. I don’t think that people all agreed with the above way of thinking you mention, but rather before social media it was harder to challenge certain dominant narratives. Now with the power of twitter many groups on the left can challenge the messages of older, Right-leaning boomers for example. I think it’s a good thing.
Looks as if Chester is in for a bonus booze bonanza as Wales follows Scotland with minimum alcohol pricing
And lucky old Bristol.
Just as the tolls are going from the Severn crossings
If I remember correctly there are a number of massive supermarkets and Cash n Carry type operators on the stretch of the M5 west of Bristol. They are going to be in for a bumper old time.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Alcohol is very easy and cheap to produce, beer, from a brewery will be costing around 10p a pint to produce, another 20p bottling, print and promotion, while tax will be around 80p (very rough figures, but gives some idea) so why does it cost around £4.00 in pubs? Then spirits, the profit and tax margins are massive. So why the high prices and taxes? There has to be a balance between what people are prepared to pay and when they start to make it themselves. If you make a mistake in brewing and more importantly in distilling, you will kill, blind or make disabled, mentally or otherwise, many people, which is why governments are very (or should be) careful in setting taxes on booze.
I did not write the above - problem with blockquote maybe
If someone says or writes something they don't like, why not simply ignore it? Taking offence at every opportunity is childish. 99% of people used to agree with that way of thinking until a few years ago, I don't know why people have changed their attitude since then.
Don’t think it’s about taking ‘offence’ but rather refuting certain narratives. I don’t think that people all agreed with the above way of thinking you mention, but rather before social media it was harder to challenge certain dominant narratives. Now with the power of twitter many groups on the left can challenge the messages of older, Right-leaning boomers for example. I think it’s a good thing.
I'm all for challenging the boomers, although I'm wary of the dial turning too far the other way to overcompensate - it feels like there's been a lot more whinging millennial talk this year, which can be good in challenging things that need challenging (no shortage of that, in total fairness), but also bad if it becomes just, well, whinging. On anything relating to housing and renting, I'm very much inclined to give millennials (of which I am technically one) the benefit of the doubt.
If someone says or writes something they don't like, why not simply ignore it? Taking offence at every opportunity is childish. 99% of people used to agree with that way of thinking until a few years ago, I don't know why people have changed their attitude since then.
Don’t think it’s about taking ‘offence’ but rather refuting certain narratives. I don’t think that people all agreed with the above way of thinking you mention, but rather before social media it was harder to challenge certain dominant narratives. Now with the power of twitter many groups on the left can challenge the messages of older, Right-leaning boomers for example. I think it’s a good thing.
This particular challenge is being done through the medium of a hundred year old magazine...
I'd vote for a moderate Labour Party (anything right of Miliband) over the current Tories. And I'm sure there are nominal Labour supporters who would vote for an unashamedly Cameroon Tory Party over current Labour.
The electorate is frozen by the current polarisation* of the main parties, with moderates/floaters on both sides afraid to vote for a minor party for fear of it letting their particular bête noire get into power**.
*frozen, polarisation, geddit? **or into meaningful power in the Tory case.
I don’t see there being that much of Labour’s coalition that would vote for a Cameroon Tory party.
The very fact somebody says they would vote moderate Labour rather than present Tories would seem to suggest there will people who would do the reverse, vote for a more liberal seeming Tory party than the present Labour party. Why would that be a surprise? Even if we accept the public prefer the parties to be more extreme, we know floaters exist, which mean there will be people who are currently voting one way but would happily switch if the other way altered a bit.
I don’t see how one person being willingly to vote for a moderate Labour Party means that there must be many other Labour supporters who’d vote for a Cameroon style party. I get the feeling that there’s a small but significant minority of Tory supporters unhappy with the Conservative party at the moment. I don’t get the impression that is the case for Labour, with Labour supporters seemingly much more enthusiastic about Corbyn than Conservatives are about May.
Re floaters - well that’s a different matter from Labour supporters.
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
Well, speaking as a reasonably well-heeled ex-drunk, I'd say that "rich" and "addicted" are spectra like everything else (and that price-sensitivity is a third spectrum in its own right, not an inverse proxy for rich). Somewhere, for someone, this works as intended, although it may be the case that unintended consequences elsewhere mean that it is not net beneficial.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-41971478
299 - 311. Even closer!
Today = Day 2.
Votes are in two blocks each day - approx 7pm and 11pm.
No more votes in first block today. Next votes approx 11pm.
So far there have been 7 votes - 5 yesterday and 2 today.
'Mugabe' presidency has had a coup de grace - Zimbabwe has suffered a coup de Grace.'
"Generals tell Mugabe to stop purge or face coup".
I note that per capita alcohol consumption in Spain is lower than it is in Scotland. Is there *any* duty on wine and beer in Spain?
The Army will charge opposition supporters later.
The prime minister interestingly referred to Mr Elphicke as “my honourable friend” - a term used when referencing members of the same party - when she issued a response, in which she pledged continual investment ahead of ‘Brexit Day’ in March 2019.
A slip by the PM, or does she not agree with Elphicke's suspension?
Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Did Mugabe think the choice was a coup de glace?
It's an interesting example of how a powerful tyrant can see his power evaporate in 24 hours.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
If the aim is to punish problem drinkers, i.e. the poor, with their cans of white lightning and tennant's super, it's not like there are other drugs the Scots poor are known to be fond of...
Or the damn stupid stuff you do when you're broke, like taking painkillers before drinking to get you messed up faster, which is what I believe the youth do in the nordic countries, where the price of alcohol is sky high.
However you look at it it's a regressive move that hits the poor the most, especially the alcohol dependent, who will carry on spending on booze and will go without other things to get it.
Meanwhile the morally superior middle classes who drink a bottle of wine or three every night will carry on without noticing...
Mugabe pissed off the wrong subordinates.
ICM:
Con 41%
Lab 41%
LD 7%
UKIP 4%
Greens 2%
www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/15/pmqs-may-corbyn-eu-withdrawal-bill-will-be-massacred-in-lords-unless-parts-are-rewritten-lewin-warns-may-politics-live
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/huge-fire-breaks-out-dunmurry-11527961
But actually I would have said most dictatorships have fairly strong armies they keep under tight control simply because they may need them to keep order. That is of course particularly true of military dictatorships but China, North Korea (current) Italy, Germany and even Romania (historic) all spring to mind as other examples.
That said, Stalin would be a good example in favour of your point - killing off 90% of the command structure of the Red Army because he feared for no discernible reason that it was disloyal (and then sacking Zhukov after the war). Even Khrushchev might come into play, removing Zhukov again for - ironically - stopping the Anti-Party conspiracy by threatening to use the army!.
China will be an interesting one, given they seemed to have gone down a route of routine transfers of power to identikit men in grey suits, but the current President is so much more dominant than recent ones.
The tweets, some of which have now been deleted, have been described as racist, transphobic, homophobic and anti-Semitic.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42000700
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/the-editor-of-gay-times-posted-dozens-of-offensive-tweets
The guy sounds like a right charmer, but I do worry, 6+ years ago he said this stuff.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067361060058X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673613624174
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03763.x/full
But I genuinely cannot understand why there is so much resistance to putting sprinkler systems and effective fire alarms in tower blocks. Given their size, materials, internal layout and the sheer number of hazards, even allowing for the practical difficulties it seems to me to be a no-brainer.
True, they may not always work as intended. There is no guarantee they would have saved everyone in Grenfell given the way the fire spread. But they can't even hope to save anyone if they're not there in the first place, and they can potentially deliver water to areas firefighters may be unable to reach. Also psychologically I think it would be worth doing - it would reassure he residents mightily, which is not something to be neglected in light of these fires.
He's right on this, and those opposing him including his own borough council are wrong. It's extraordinary but it's true. I hope he keeps pushing the issue.
Also reports from France that they are becoming more concilatory as they are very worried about the effect on France.
Maybe something is going on to break the log jam. Let's hope so
This is a chart for the US, sadly there isn't one for Scotland, but it's quite revealing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think-you-drink-a-lot-this-chart-will-tell-you/
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
How long ago is the cut off time before somebodies previous behaviour is forgiven? 6-7 years is longer than a lot of people get for genuine serious crimes.
I really worry some kid tweets some crap when they are 17 and 20 years later they lose their job because they were a knob back then.
I'm seriously concerned about the health of a family member drinking barely a third of that.
One woman told BuzzFeed News that she had been discouraged from formally complaining about unwanted attention from Lewis by members of then-leader Ed Miliband's team.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman/labour-mp-ivan-lewis-is-under-investigation-by-the-party
3 of the 5 Marshals
15 of 17 Major Generals
60 of 67 corps commanders
The entirety of the commissars.
Six weeks is ludicrous.
https://twitter.com/abiwilks/status/930858280284512256
Now the equivalent rent on a house like mine is almost exactly double my mortgage - £720 compared to £366.
How do I know this? Because before I bought this house I rented the identical one two doors down!
It is brutal. I am lucky that I was able to buy quickly and cheaply, but in London that clearly isn't an option. It's understandable that people believe Corbyn may help, the only snag is that he won't and may conceivably make things far worse (cf Trump, Brexit, Tsipras).
Anyway, I have some work to do before turning in. Have a good evening everyone.
If you're an openly gay fascist, running a fashion magazine in France, Italy, or Austria, such comments will enhance your standing.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
While polls like Survation and YouGov should be taken seriously, it’s very sad that after the last GE and 2015 PBers are still taking ICM seriously, especially after they deluded us all that the Tories had a double digit lead.
Re floaters - well that’s a different matter from Labour supporters.
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
You could build more houses.
You could reverse an open door immigration policy that lets in 250,000 people per year while simultaneously depressing wages.
Just to give two examples that don't include nicking money off someone else...