What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
Ah, fair enough. Then I should say believe in it at all. From what I remember, it is a pretty high proportion who think it'll help national finances in the long term, but I'm not convinced it'll outweigh the amount it'll piss off remainers
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
The trouble is you can't reverse thirty or more years of conditioning with a single gesture. The Labour line, throughout my lifetime, has been one of Tories bad, want to dismantle the NHS. A single gesture looks tokenistic and will be unlikely to to break the widely held perception, particularly if it becomes a bidding war - what's to stop Labour pledging to spend even more?
The Tories' USP is that of a low tax party, by stealing Labour's clothes on the NHS they also open themselves to their own attack line that public services have to be paid for somehow. Most people recognise there's no such thing as a free lunch, even if it's written on the side of a bus.
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately the unelected Lords can only delay not block
Delay for 12 months!
As I have already pointed out the Commons could even amend the Parliament Act to reduce that time if it really wanted as in 1911 it forced the Lords to become a delaying not a blocking body.
May could even appoint 200 Leaver peers if she wanted as well even if the Lords then became standing room only I doubt she would care
How likely is the Lords to agree to that? As for flooding the Lords with Tory Peers, George V only agreed to Asquith's request for such peers - should they have proved necessary - after the holding of a second General Election in December 1910.
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
There. Is. No. Brexit. Dividend.
Of course there will be. Explain how between 2025 and 2030 we will still be paying into the EU as now
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
Ah, fair enough. Then I should say believe in it at all. From what I remember, it is a pretty high proportion who think it'll help national finances in the long term, but I'm not convinced it'll outweigh the amount it'll piss off remainers
Remainers are in full attack at present as they cannot allow even the slightest idea that some of the money we stop sending the EU in time may just justify the bus.
Smart chap is Sajid Javid (its being from Rochdale...). He can see that the ZombieMay head might get lopped off any week now. He has an issue that has mass appeal inside the party and out. And knew that May would be unable to do human and respond at a suitable pace - the Hunt car crash interview with Humphreys this morning didn't do him any good either.
So he sets out his stall so that should the boss fall over he has momentum to launch straight into a leadership bid. And if she doesn't he still scores points ready for when it does happen. As it will.
And the best news of all. A Sajid Javid premiership would force the MoFuckingMentum to respond. The Tories have had two female leaders and now a BAME leader. Which means there is only one obvious candidate to allow the party to catch up with the 21st Century. Step forward Diane Abbot. At which point Mr Eagles can donate 5% of his mahoosive winnings off my Abbot tip to a charity of my choosing...
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
There. Is. No. Brexit. Dividend.
Of course there will be. Explain how between 2025 and 2030 we will still be paying into the EU as now
We'll be still paying in substantial sums for access to the CU and SM and our economy, and therefore the government's tax take, will be substantially lower than if we had stayed in the EU.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
There. Is. No. Brexit. Dividend.
Of course there will be. Explain how between 2025 and 2030 we will still be paying into the EU as now
We'll be still paying in substantial sums for access to the CU and SM and our economy, and therefore the government's tax take, will be substantially lower than if we had stayed in the EU.
There is no Brexit dividend. It is negative.
You are following the dodgy forecasts on economic activity post Brexit which are guesswork and to date have been very, very wrong
Smart chap is Sajid Javid (its being from Rochdale...). He can see that the ZombieMay head might get lopped off any week now. He has an issue that has mass appeal inside the party and out. And knew that May would be unable to do human and respond at a suitable pace - the Hunt car crash interview with Humphreys this morning didn't do him any good either.
So he sets out his stall so that should the boss fall over he has momentum to launch straight into a leadership bid. And if she doesn't he still scores points ready for when it does happen. As it will.
And the best news of all. A Sajid Javid premiership would force the MoFuckingMentum to respond. The Tories have had two female leaders and now a BAME leader. Which means there is only one obvious candidate to allow the party to catch up with the 21st Century. Step forward Diane Abbot. At which point Mr Eagles can donate 5% of his mahoosive winnings off my Abbot tip to a charity of my choosing...
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.
A staunch No voter of my acquaintance just had a conversion moment post Wednesday and now believes, with regret, that Independence may be the only answer.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea....
Why does legalisation imply selling cannabis to the young ? A similar regulatory regime to tobacco (perhaps more stringent) ought to deal with that objection.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
Not that we should just do what other countries are doing, but an increasing number are moving that way, it clearly isn't regarded as as horrendous as it once was, and the problem for those who are against legalisation is they still overdo the shock claims like we're living in the world of Reefer Madness.
And if it is a question of it being dangerous for the young, prohibit them from buying it until they are 21 or something. Sure they'll get hold of it anyway to some extent, but if anyone thinks a 21 year cannot get hold of weed right now they are kidding themselves.
Gove on the environment, Hunt on Health, and Javid now on migration and law & order.
Theresa May is providing no leadership whatsoever.
I'm certainly no fan of this government but it seems to me that cabinet ministers leading on the policies and issues of their respective departments is a pretty good thing - regardless of whether or not I agree with the actual policies. And cabinet level is hardly "bottom up".
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
We try to rationalise it with arguments about reducing harm or reducing crime, the medicinal benefits or the old "prohibition doesn't work" line when what it all comes down to is one simple thing: my body, my choice.
If tomorrow I decided to commit suicide, take heroin, etc, so be it. It's when I decide to off myself by driving my car in front of a train, or snatch an old lady's purse to buy heroin that it becomes society's problem. It should never be the government's role to police what we can and can't do with our own bodies.
Gove on the environment, Hunt on Health, and Javid now on migration and law & order.
Theresa May is providing no leadership whatsoever.
I'm certainly no fan of this government but it seems to me that cabinet ministers leading on the policies and issues of their respective departments is a pretty good thing - regardless of whether or not I agree with the actual policies. And cabinet level is hardly "bottom up".
I would be delighted if TM let her cabinet members lead on issues generally
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
There are quite a few things that Americans say / spell that we mock, but aren't as wrong as most people think. Often it comes back to the what were the norms when many left the British Isles to emigrate there.
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
There are quite a few things that Americans say / spell that we mock, but aren't as wrong as most people think. Often it comes back to the what were the norms when many left the British Isles to emigrate there.
Many of them aren’t wrong at all - particularly as US English is more widely taught and spoken in the world than English English...
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
There are quite a few things that Americans say / spell that we mock, but aren't as wrong as most people think. Often it comes back to the what were the norms when many left the British Isles to emigrate there.
Many of them aren’t wrong at all - particularly as US English is more widely taught and spoken in the world than real English...
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
There are quite a few things that Americans say / spell that we mock, but aren't as wrong as most people think. Often it comes back to the what were the norms when many left the British Isles to emigrate there.
Many of them aren’t wrong at all - particularly as US English is more widely taught and spoken in the world than real English...
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
I was thinking more of this.
'THE WORD "soccer" is simply a diminutive of association, as in As-soc-iation Football, with "er" added. It was, apparently, all the rage among public schoolboys in the mid to late nineteenth century to bung "er" on the end of a butchered word. '
I would be delighted if TM let her cabinet members lead on issues generally
Indeed, I think that would be healthier for the whole country and should be the norm whoever is Prime Minister. Prime Ministers need to choose the right people to think and lead their respective departments not try to be across everything themselves.
At the last GE the only two Conservatives who had any reasonable level of public profile were Theresa May and Amber Rudd - and we only saw Rudd because of May's refusal to debate.
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
I was thinking more of this.
'THE WORD "soccer" is simply a diminutive of association, as in As-soc-iation Football, with "er" added. It was, apparently, all the rage among public schoolboys in the mid to late nineteenth century to bung "er" on the end of a butchered word. '
I didn't realise that it was posh boys who came up with this and, presumably, rugger.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
I was thinking more of this.
'THE WORD "soccer" is simply a diminutive of association, as in As-soc-iation Football, with "er" added. It was, apparently, all the rage among public schoolboys in the mid to late nineteenth century to bung "er" on the end of a butchered word. '
I didn't realise that it was posh boys who came up with this and, presumably, rugger.
C.f. “rugger” (for rugby), “Twickers” (Twickenham), “Singers” (Singapore), the naval game of “uckers“. In fact quite a lot of naval slang does the -er or -ers thing: icers [cold, superlative "harry icers"], redders [hot], roughers, shippers, four [or nine] O’clockers, sippers, gulpers, homeward bounders, limers, snorkers.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
So you'd support making alcohol illegal?
Or cheeseburgers or fizzy drinks, for that matter. Once you accept it's OK to police what people do or don't do with their bodies, it's just a matter of where you draw the arbitrary line.
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.
A staunch No voter of my acquaintance just had a conversion moment post Wednesday and now believes, with regret, that Independence may be the only answer.
It'd create a big majority for a hardish Brexit too which is clearly what most of England wants. Keep Corbyn out too.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
So you'd support making alcohol illegal?
Or cheeseburgers or fizzy drinks, for that matter. Once you accept it's OK to police what people do or don't do with their bodies, it's just a matter of where you draw the arbitrary line.
We could definitely ban pineapple on pizza to advantage.
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
I was thinking more of this.
'THE WORD "soccer" is simply a diminutive of association, as in As-soc-iation Football, with "er" added. It was, apparently, all the rage among public schoolboys in the mid to late nineteenth century to bung "er" on the end of a butchered word. '
I didn't realise that it was posh boys who came up with this and, presumably, rugger.
Footer for the real poshos, eg JRM and Seumas Milne.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
So you'd support making alcohol illegal?
Or cheeseburgers or fizzy drinks, for that matter. Once you accept it's OK to police what people do or don't do with their bodies, it's just a matter of where you draw the arbitrary line.
Well I am in favour of drawing that line somewhere. But I'd at least try to make it a straight line rather than one that has to go through the contortions required to make alcohol and tobacco legal and cannabis, ecstacy and LSD illegal
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
I was thinking more of this.
'THE WORD "soccer" is simply a diminutive of association, as in As-soc-iation Football, with "er" added. It was, apparently, all the rage among public schoolboys in the mid to late nineteenth century to bung "er" on the end of a butchered word. '
I didn't realise that it was posh boys who came up with this and, presumably, rugger.
C.f. “rugger” (for rugby), “Twickers” (Twickenham), “Singers” (Singapore), the naval game of “uckers“. In fact quite a lot of naval slang does the -er or -ers thing: icers [cold, superlative "harry icers"], redders [hot], roughers, shippers, four [or nine] O’clockers, sippers, gulpers, homeward bounders, limers, snorkers.
Gove on the environment, Hunt on Health, and Javid now on migration and law & order.
Theresa May is providing no leadership whatsoever.
I'm certainly no fan of this government but it seems to me that cabinet ministers leading on the policies and issues of their respective departments is a pretty good thing - regardless of whether or not I agree with the actual policies. And cabinet level is hardly "bottom up".
I have no problem with cabinet ministers taking the initiative and implementing/developing policy in their own departments, that’s what happened under Cameron too, but I do expect it to be done within an overarching framework with strong leadership on the Government’s political priorities.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
We try to rationalise it with arguments about reducing harm or reducing crime, the medicinal benefits or the old "prohibition doesn't work" line when what it all comes down to is one simple thing: my body, my choice.
If tomorrow I decided to commit suicide, take heroin, etc, so be it. It's when I decide to off myself by driving my car in front of a train, or snatch an old lady's purse to buy heroin that it becomes society's problem. It should never be the government's role to police what we can and can't do with our own bodies.
Given the concern there rightly is about mental health problems in the young I am not as sanguine as you about legalising a substance where there is credible evidence linking it to very serious - and lifelong - mental illnesses when it is consumed by the young.
Saying that the government should not police what we do with our own bodies is a slogan. Not an argument. We strongly discourage smoking because of its long term harm. Why then introduce another substance which causes just as much harm?
The drug laws are a mess and inconsistent. A proper study is needed. But the effect of drugs on the young brain are pretty harmful - not just some youth being a bit spaced out at a party. And that harm needs to be taken pretty seriously, not dismissed or minimised just because decriminalisation is now the coming fashionable option.
May will fall if she loses a parliamentary vote. But the new leader is likely to be a Brexiteer. Good. Grieve is "unprintable" words.
One of Tory rebels is my MP. Lot of phone calls to Chairman about de-selecting him. Remainer MPs will be sacrificed on Tory and Labour side.
May will only fall if the letters go in and she loses the confidence vote. If there's one thing she's been most consistent on, it's her willingness to sacrifice anything and everything to stay in number 10 for one more day
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
So you'd support making alcohol illegal?
No. As my post made clear.
Did it? I thought you were saying we shouldn't double up on the mistake of making alcohol legal? So why -do- you think one should be legal and not the other?
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.
A staunch No voter of my acquaintance just had a conversion moment post Wednesday and now believes, with regret, that Independence may be the only answer.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
If tomorrow I decided to commit suicide, take heroin, etc, so be it. It's when I decide to off myself by driving my car in front of a train, or snatch an old lady's purse to buy heroin that it becomes society's problem. It should never be the government's role to police what we can and can't do with our own bodies.
Given the concern there rightly is about mental health problems in the young I am not as sanguine as you about legalising a substance where there is credible evidence linking it to very serious - and lifelong - mental illnesses when it is consumed by the young.
The drug laws are a mess and inconsistent. A proper study is needed. But the effect of drugs on the young brain are pretty harmful - not just some youth being a bit spaced out at a party. And that harm needs to be taken pretty seriously, not dismissed or minimised just because decriminalisation is now the coming fashionable option.
"Research over the last 10 years has suggested that it can have serious consequences for people, such as the development of an enduring psychotic illness, particularly in those who are genetically vulnerable."
Comments
The Tories' USP is that of a low tax party, by stealing Labour's clothes on the NHS they also open themselves to their own attack line that public services have to be paid for somehow. Most people recognise there's no such thing as a free lunch, even if it's written on the side of a bus.
So he sets out his stall so that should the boss fall over he has momentum to launch straight into a leadership bid. And if she doesn't he still scores points ready for when it does happen. As it will.
And the best news of all. A Sajid Javid premiership would force the MoFuckingMentum to respond. The Tories have had two female leaders and now a BAME leader. Which means there is only one obvious candidate to allow the party to catch up with the 21st Century. Step forward Diane Abbot. At which point Mr Eagles can donate 5% of his mahoosive winnings off my Abbot tip to a charity of my choosing...
There is no Brexit dividend. It is negative.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
Bloody tosser.
A similar regulatory regime to tobacco (perhaps more stringent) ought to deal with that objection.
And if it is a question of it being dangerous for the young, prohibit them from buying it until they are 21 or something. Sure they'll get hold of it anyway to some extent, but if anyone thinks a 21 year cannot get hold of weed right now they are kidding themselves.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1008759999688998917
If tomorrow I decided to commit suicide, take heroin, etc, so be it. It's when I decide to off myself by driving my car in front of a train, or snatch an old lady's purse to buy heroin that it becomes society's problem. It should never be the government's role to police what we can and can't do with our own bodies.
Deffo not a cock up by Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/1008770019705094144
At least Jez/the posh boys didn't call it soccer.
Aposite!
'THE WORD "soccer" is simply a diminutive of association, as in As-soc-iation Football, with "er" added. It was, apparently, all the rage among public schoolboys in the mid to late nineteenth century to bung "er" on the end of a butchered word. '
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.137597359
At the last GE the only two Conservatives who had any reasonable level of public profile were Theresa May and Amber Rudd - and we only saw Rudd because of May's refusal to debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpSo1aciPqU
Keep Corbyn out too.
One of Tory rebels is my MP. Lot of phone calls to Chairman about de-selecting him. Remainer MPs will be sacrificed on Tory and Labour side.
Theresa May may as well be a fly on the wall.
I suspect it’s being pushed out publicly for some anchoring and to shape the negotiating agenda.
Saying that the government should not police what we do with our own bodies is a slogan. Not an argument. We strongly discourage smoking because of its long term harm. Why then introduce another substance which causes just as much harm?
The drug laws are a mess and inconsistent. A proper study is needed. But the effect of drugs on the young brain are pretty harmful - not just some youth being a bit spaced out at a party. And that harm needs to be taken pretty seriously, not dismissed or minimised just because decriminalisation is now the coming fashionable option.
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx