Mr. 43, Labour's policy is the result of tension between the anti-EU leadership tendencies and the pro-EU sentiment of almost everyone else.
However, I do agree with you that it's actually the closest thing to a compromise, unity position that might achieve a lasting resolution (certainly over the short term).
A No Deal departure *might* deliver that, either by concession we're out and that's it or eventually rejoining, but it'd be far bumpier.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
Sort of: lots of my friends and neighbours are saying that. But they're also saying they won't vote Labour or Tory: not directly because of Brexit, but because both parties have become thoroughly unBritish.
Corbyn's illiberality certainly threw away the advantage Labour should have got from the Tories' ideological mess over Europe. But Johnson's mendacity, extraordinary unfitness for any elected office, loutishness, incoherence - and probable mental illness - have thrown away the advantage true Conservatism should have got from a hopeless Trot like Corbyn.
Though a proud LD member, I have to concede that the Tory/Labour determination to make themselves unelectable is doing far more for us than anything Swinson's doing, or that Davey would have done.
And while there's some evidence the Brexit saga might sort itself out soonish, there's no indication at all the Labour or pseudo-Tory parties are doing anything to regain the trust of British voters. Even when they summon up the courage to junk Corbyn and Johnson, it'll be years before the complicity of the rest of their parties is forgotten
Trudeau. Lol. I think by the millennium we knew the black and white minstrels were racist bucko. I wonder if he put on a funny accent too, the naughty little noodle. I love it when these super woke pricks turn out to be full of wind and piss
His apology seems to show that at the time he was in a pre-woke state of unaware ness. A bit like Harry was. Some personal moral growth is a good thing surely?
Apparently he sang Day-O, while in that blackface. Really
Which somewhat puts it over the line.
That was an earlier fox paz
BAN PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND STOP THEIR ALUMNI RUNNING COUNTRIES!!!
Mr. Foremain, prior to the policy shift from referendum to revocation via Parliament, the Lib Dems had pretty much the whole Remain playground to themselves.
Moving away from a referendum to a revocation means they lose soft Remainers and those who think that, just perhaps, a sustainable position is better than one that deepens already entrenched division and bitterness. The principle that a General Election can override a referendum result (itself endorsed by Parliament) is certainly grist to the SNP mill.
The super pro-Remain types are not going to vote twice for the Lib Dems, so they've lost rather than gained potential support. And if their numbers are currently rising that doesn't dispel the fact that they've put a ceiling on that support by deciding a referendum result should be ignored in favour of an electoral result, which could be won by 35% support from the electorate.
On top of that, winning a referendum is likely far easier for Remain than getting a Lib Dem majority. So they've put off soft Remain and uncertain floating voters for a purity policy unlikely to ever be delivered, and done so by abandoning a more sensible approach that was far more achievable. Oh, and they broke their nascent 'Remain alliance'.
It's a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.
A good reasoned argument, though it will not stop me lending my vote to the LDs. Your last statement is also a very good summation of Brexit itself of course!
It also massively increases smuggling and fakes. I believe it is entirely the wrong thing. The massive rises in the cost of tobacco and cigarettes, while not exactly the same thing, has resulted (anecdote alert) in nobody I know where I live buying from shops. All the tobacco people buy is either smuggled or fakes. This, apart from the obvious health issue, funnels more money to gangsters. Education is the only way. Otherwise you are encouraging and empowering criminals.
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.
Has abuse been directed at the father - beyond pointing out his political affiliation?
The fact he is a labour activist or whatever is irrelevant, he was there due to his 7 day old daughter being gravely ill. He was not thinking oh good chance to get one in for labour here when he saw Johnson. He just thought you lying git in here for a photo op with shedloads of cameras and surrounded by toadying medical staff when his daughter had little to no staff for medical care. All the big buffoon could say is where are the press???????? Typical Tories trying to smear the little guy
Or just a storm in several teacups.
Nigel, the country has gone to the dogs, it is full of snowflakes and jessieboys (jessiepersions for the PC brigade ).
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Minimum pricing only raises revenues for the producers and retailers, the effect on tax revenue is negligible.
On the topic of the report. Almost any study into health effects due to changes in environment (eg. price of alcohol) is going to take a long time to show up as you cant do randomised trials. Human biology is very complex
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
Is "pseudonymous" a word? It is quite a clever Portmanteu.
I do research with hospital records, which are pseudonymised - not entirely anonymous as it's important to be able to link e.g. separate hospitalisations for the same person, but with a random set of letters/numbers rather than NHS number or name (for obvious reasons!).
(You also need to convince the data providers that you really need everything you ask for, have the security arrangements for holding the data vetted, verifiably destroy the data once the research is done and obey rules on what detail of results you can publish).
Interesting, thank you, but it is a different usage to the social media pseudonym meant here.
The "pseudonymised" hospital records you are talking about are really just a Unique-ID designed to be difficult for a human to interpret.
Yep, I went off on a bit of a tangent... I meant to show that it is indeed a word and that our use of it in research comes from that word (rather than 'unique ID', which is also a valid way of putting it. Pseudonymous/pseudonymised are just easier ways of saying that.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
So what does a "Diehard Remainer" do in a Con/Lab constituency where the LDs are in a distant 3rd place? There are a lot of such constituencies.
Still vote with you conscience, or for whom as a candidate most reflects your views. If they are both careerist suckups it makes your choice harder
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
I'm not sure people do want resolution, or if they do they are not thinking it through. Resolution comes through consensus being reached. Only Labour are trying to reach consensus and they are not being rewarded for it.
To be fair, the people who "just want to get on with it" think that changing the facts on the ground is a quicker way to reach consensus. Of course the same applies for revoking Article 50. Perhaps after revocation, Brexit will not be a subject anyone wants to talk about.
To me, it's not whether you revoke. It's how you do it. I'm OK with people deciding that Brexit is problematic; no-one has come up with a minimally acceptable way of leaving. So let's delay Brexit indefinitely until we work out how we can do it properly.
Would people go along with this, in order to get some kind of consensus and closure? Right now I suspect not.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
Mr. Foremain, prior to the policy shift from referendum to revocation via Parliament, the Lib Dems had pretty much the whole Remain playground to themselves.
Moving away from a referendum to a revocation means they lose soft Remainers and those who think that, just perhaps, a sustainable position is better than one that deepens already entrenched division and bitterness. The principle that a General Election can override a referendum result (itself endorsed by Parliament) is certainly grist to the SNP mill.
The super pro-Remain types are not going to vote twice for the Lib Dems, so they've lost rather than gained potential support. And if their numbers are currently rising that doesn't dispel the fact that they've put a ceiling on that support by deciding a referendum result should be ignored in favour of an electoral result, which could be won by 35% support from the electorate.
On top of that, winning a referendum is likely far easier for Remain than getting a Lib Dem majority. So they've put off soft Remain and uncertain floating voters for a purity policy unlikely to ever be delivered, and done so by abandoning a more sensible approach that was far more achievable. Oh, and they broke their nascent 'Remain alliance'.
It's a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.
A good reasoned argument, though it will not stop me lending my vote to the LDs. Your last statement is also a very good summation of Brexit itself of course!
To paraphrase Mr Dancer, you would have probably lent the LDs your vote anyway, but you can't vote for them twice in the same election.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.
Yep, I think a lot of people see it as an end point and it's sold that way with 'clean Brexit' and the like. It would be anything but.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Minimum pricing only raises revenues for the producers and retailers, the effect on tax revenue is negligible.
On the topic of the report. Almost any study into health effects due to changes in environment (eg. price of alcohol) is going to take a long time to show up as you cant do randomised trials. Human biology is very complex
Come on Harry is an expert. It happened in Scotland and was by the SNP, therefore it is very very bad and will never work
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.
Yes, this is a dog that has hardly barked so far. If you are so sick of Brexit that you never want to hear the word again, revoke is your only choice. The other options will certainly not 'get it over with'.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
My opinion too. Just truly awful. The sense of entitlement and arrogance is staggering. Mr. Osborne was as bad.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.
Yes, this is a dog that has hardly barked so far. If you are so sick of Brexit that you never want to hear the word again, revoke is your only choice. The other options will certainly not 'get it over with'.
Yes, if we revoke, the like of Farage, Banks, half the Conservative party, and millions of others who voted to Leave will just forget about it I guess, especially seeing as the opposition accepted defeat with such good grace and little fuss when Leave won
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Minimum pricing only raises revenues for the producers and retailers, the effect on tax revenue is negligible.
On the topic of the report. Almost any study into health effects due to changes in environment (eg. price of alcohol) is going to take a long time to show up as you cant do randomised trials. Human biology is very complex
Come on Harry is an expert. It happened in Scotland and was by the SNP, therefore it is very very bad and will never work
Shrugs - spending on drinking hasn’t dropped due to price increase. Ignore if you want.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
we noticed
if only hed called his memoirs STFU
The most idiotic aspect of this is that he now realises he shouldn't have put that in his memoirs. As he said on Today, this morning:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
We agree that decriminalisation is the way forward. I'll push against that fairly open door with the SNP, you do the same with the vastly stiffer hinges of the Cons, SCons, TBP, the Boris party etc. Unfortunately only one tranche of pols has the power to do anything about it.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
On minimum alcohol pricing, isn't it amazing how doctors will say one thing, while a think tank who won't disclose whether they are funded by drinks industry, says another?
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
My opinion too. Just truly awful. The sense of entitlement and arrogance is staggering. Mr. Osborne was as bad.
Yes, I absolutely despise them. I would say I hate them, but they're not worth the energy.
The worst thing about them is that they have the magic combination of arrogance and entitlement (as you say) AND THUNDERING STUPIDITY.
There is no limit to the damage you can do with that mindset.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
You missed out Johnson
Knew someone would say that.
I like to give people a fair crack at the whip and he hasn't been in long enough for me to form a judement either way.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.
Yes, this is a dog that has hardly barked so far. If you are so sick of Brexit that you never want to hear the word again, revoke is your only choice. The other options will certainly not 'get it over with'.
Yes, if we revoke, the like of Farage, Banks, half the Conservative party, and millions of others who voted to Leave will just forget about it I guess, especially seeing as the opposition accepted defeat with such good grace and little fuss when Leave won
Apart from those worried sick about having to declare their off shore investment income the majority I think would be glad it was over and the politicians can get on and do useful things.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
Off topic, just won a decent order that would have gone to our parent co but for the US-China trade war !
& That's why despite the fact that the remain side has turned into an absolubte left wing cringe-fest I'd probably still vote to remain in the EU in another referendum.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Minimum pricing only raises revenues for the producers and retailers, the effect on tax revenue is negligible.
On the topic of the report. Almost any study into health effects due to changes in environment (eg. price of alcohol) is going to take a long time to show up as you cant do randomised trials. Human biology is very complex
That's true, re time to see effects (and even if effects happened within a year, it will take time for good data to be generated and analysed).
On the 'no decline in sales' is there any information on how that was measured? I couldn't find any from a very quick search/look on the IEA website. If value of sales (the normal way of measuring these things, perhaps inflation adjusted?) then it would imply a fall in units of alcohol sold (as unit price increased for some products). If units of alcohol sold then fair enough, but are the data really collected at that level? If number of items sold, has the product mix changed, have any of the formulations changed to alter alcohol content, have the bottle sizes changed?
I've no real opinion either way on minimum alcohol pricing as I don't think there's evidence yet on its effects, but I'm interested to see what, if any, effect it has.
As an aside, I saw the Andrew Neil show yesterday, for the first time.
Thought it rather good to see two politicians savaged through the cruel medium of rational questioning.
Slight shame it's only once a week, but there we are.
I maintain the Lib Dem policy is a huge strategic mistake.
Please explain? There are 48% of people who voted against Brexit. There is a probable higher number who now think it is a mistake. A large number of these would like to give those responsible for promoting it a kicking, or at least withdraw support from them.
The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's). I think it will work well for them. The policy is very unlikely to be implemented. I will vote for them as they are in the "sensible middle"even though I think us remaining in Europe is no longer practicable or desirable
The problem is that the LDs have made themselves a single issue party. If they manage to stop Brexit then they will have outlived their usefulness (see UKIP). If Brexit happens then they can continue as a vehicle for rejoin but this will be a lot harder (particularly if we somehow leave with a deal).
They have also completely alienated Brexit voters (some who previously voted for them in places like Torbay)
I doubt that is true. Remain and Leave are very much part of a much wider culture war - and that will not end post-Brexit. It is likely to intensify. Both the LDs and the Tories have recognised this. Labour is the odd one out and still believes class is the defining factor in how people vote.
That is certainly a possibility but equally things might calm down. The question is what other issue could cause a continuing cultural divide. Things like abortion and gay marriage are generally accepted by the right, while many on the left support at least some form of immigration controls.
I would argue that the continuing cultural divide in the US is partly caused by the plurality of cable TV news e.g. Fox vs. MSNBC
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
So what does a "Diehard Remainer" do in a Con/Lab constituency where the LDs are in a distant 3rd place? There are a lot of such constituencies.
Still vote with you conscience, or for whom as a candidate most reflects your views. If they are both careerist suckups it makes your choice harder
You use the word "You" so I'll explain my case. I will still vote Labour, becase my MP is one of the Labour MPs who voted against Article 50 and has consistently been arguing that Brexit is bad. I definitely do not want a Conservative MP to be returned.
The reason for Remainers to vote Labour in most other Con/Lab constituencies will not be so easy to justify.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
There are three basic approaches to drug law. Legalisation (or variations thereof), criminalisation with attempts at rehab (which we do now). The third approach, which we have never tried, is absolute prohibition on pain of death (the East Asian model)
The only one proven to work is the last. There is virtually no drug abuse in Singapore.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
The secret is legalizing different drugs in different ways. Opioids are like heroin and should be legalized via government sanctioned shoot up galleries, where you have addicts in one place and they can be transitioned to gradually lower doses and targeted with therapy. Portgual has done this and it works very successfully.
The trend is pretty consistent with what the YouGov poll is saying, given that the last IPSOS poll was in July and changes are measured from that point as opposed to last week.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.
Yes, this is a dog that has hardly barked so far. If you are so sick of Brexit that you never want to hear the word again, revoke is your only choice. The other options will certainly not 'get it over with'.
Yes, we are over three years in and nowhere near a conclusion on the Brexit track.
That's what's been grossly understated in the discourse -neither a reheated May deal nor a Johnson No Deal is anywhere near the end of the process on future relationship.
The nearest to Swinson's "Just Don't Do It" as a route to closure is, in fairness, something like the tortured emerging Corbyn position of soft Brexit and referendum, but even that has pitfalls and has several months to run after a General Election.
The trend is pretty consistent with what the YouGov poll is saying, given that the last IPSOS poll was in July and changes are measured from that point as opposed to last week.
If you follow 538 you will hear much discussion against momentum and short term trends. I do think people forget that when GEs turn up people's minds change. Squeezing occurs. And also media coverage is different.
If he had a pseudonymous twitter handle, something like @leftydad, and LauraK had identified him by his legal name, then that would be different.
All she did was share his tweet.
FWIW, I think the abuse directed at both her and the dad/activist is abhorrent.
Has abuse been directed at the father - beyond pointing out his political affiliation?
The fact he is a labour activist or whatever is irrelevant, he was there due to his 7 day old daughter being gravely ill. He was not thinking oh good chance to get one in for labour here when he saw Johnson. He just thought you lying git in here for a photo op with shedloads of cameras and surrounded by toadying medical staff when his daughter had little to no staff for medical care. All the big buffoon could say is where are the press???????? Typical Tories trying to smear the little guy
Tories punch down. Always have done, always will. It's in the nature of the ideology. It's all about hierarchy. The saddest thing of all is that whenever you raise structural issues (which is the core of their ideology, structure above all), they defend it with reference to individuals. Thus the monarchy is too often defended on the grounds that the queen is nice and, say, Tony Blair is not. There are some noble and notable exceptions -- a couple on here to be sure -- who take the structural arguments head on, but they are the good-faith good guys in a stinking tide of partisans who want nothing more than legitimacy for their contempt of people "below" them.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
There are three basic approaches to drug law. Legalisation (or variations thereof), criminalisation with attempts at rehab (which we do now). The third approach, which we have never tried, is absolute prohibition on pain of death (the East Asian model)
The only one proven to work is the last. There is virtually no drug abuse in Singapore.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
we noticed
if only hed called his memoirs STFU
The most idiotic aspect of this is that he now realises he shouldn't have put that in his memoirs. As he said on Today, this morning:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
"We" have anything but total control. Parliament controls that. And against his wishes it decided that we shouldn't have an opportunity to choose whether we wanted Johnson to continue.
Tories punch down. Always have done, always will. It's in the nature of the ideology. It's all about hierarchy. The saddest thing of all is that whenever you raise structural issues (which is the core of their ideology, structure above all), they defend it with reference to individuals. Thus the monarchy is too often defended on the grounds that the queen is nice and, say, Tony Blair is not. There are some noble and notable exceptions -- a couple on here to be sure -- who take the structural arguments head on, but they are the good-faith good guys in a stinking tide of partisans who want nothing more than legitimacy for their contempt of people "below" them.
Surely the most salient point to emerge from Kuenssbergtwittergate is BJ's reaction. His first, instinctive reaction to any emergent situation is just to tell a blatant lie.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
Brexit is just a con job.
Not that bad.
Major was the best of them. Blair was good if you forget Iraq. Brown was terrible but was very good during the banking crisis. Cameron was good if you forget the Referendum. May tried hard.
How much do you want? We voted for these people. If you want better governement, vote for PR.
The trend is pretty consistent with what the YouGov poll is saying, given that the last IPSOS poll was in July and changes are measured from that point as opposed to last week.
Yes, but they're both conference-specific, and we should no more draw strategic conclusions from that than we should if Labour or Tories get a bounce in the next 2 weeks. The fact that so much else is going on as well makes it really hard to separate durable trends from temporary bounces.
The pilot stuck on the power line - how do they get him down ?
I assume they'll have to turn the power lines off then rescue him. Would he still carry charge though ?
Electricity doesn't really work like that. In normal circuits, components don't gain or lose electrons. The energy transfer comes from the flow of electrons. The voltage is a bit like the pressure. Remove the pressure and there's no flow. The person will still have all the same electrons, but can be safely be brought down. He's still got the same number of electrons he had before, but with nothing pushing them to flow through him the only thing he has to worry about is the height.
The trend is pretty consistent with what the YouGov poll is saying, given that the last IPSOS poll was in July and changes are measured from that point as opposed to last week.
If you follow 538 you will hear much discussion against momentum and short term trends. I do think people forget that when GEs turn up people's minds change. Squeezing occurs. And also media coverage is different.
The Lib Dems are much more like a Liz Warren (Though with lesser chance of winning than she has - a GE UK audience is much much less overall swingy than a Dem nomination electorate) than a Kamala Harris though. The betting markets were buying into Harris momentum before she'd had ANY sort of movement upwards. By contrast the Lib Dem swing upward has been steadily going on for a while now, and like Warren they have the ground troops to potentially sustain it. Meanwhile everyone hates the Tories and Biden but they're both definitely ahead in their respective races...
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
There are three basic approaches to drug law. Legalisation (or variations thereof), criminalisation with attempts at rehab (which we do now). The third approach, which we have never tried, is absolute prohibition on pain of death (the East Asian model)
The only one proven to work is the last. There is virtually no drug abuse in Singapore.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
There are three basic approaches to drug law. Legalisation (or variations thereof), criminalisation with attempts at rehab (which we do now). The third approach, which we have never tried, is absolute prohibition on pain of death (the East Asian model)
The only one proven to work is the last. There is virtually no drug abuse in Singapore.
First they came for the drug addicts, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a drug addict.
Mr Byronic, do you ever partake in that drug called alcohol?
A few years ago Warwick University were negotiating to open a branch in Singapore until someone pointed out that they could end up losing a few undergrads on the gallows. The milksop VC backed away....
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Private Eye are saying Brenda was central to the idea to prorogue - the method of doing so cooked up a week earlier in a call between her and Boris. No guarantee brexit ends well for the monarchy.
One thing I'm hearing a LOT is people saying they want Brexit resolved 'one way or the other.' I wonder if that tallies with others on here?
In my view that sets up the General Election as Conservatives & BXP vs LibDems, Green & the Nats.
Labour's dithering, for whatever reasons whether sound or pure politicking is bombing. I'm not sure many people really DO want another referendum. I think they want the country to make a clear choice now: either we leave (preferably with a deal) or we remain in the EU.
True, although much depends on how far the message is got across that the Johnson/Farage line does NOT "resolve Brexit one way or another". No deal is merely the absence of a deal - and it means continuing to negotiate for a deal from the outside and with a backdrop of economic effects and problems in the supply of certain foods and medicines. I think a lot of people wrongly think it's a ticket to move on.
Yes, this is a dog that has hardly barked so far. If you are so sick of Brexit that you never want to hear the word again, revoke is your only choice. The other options will certainly not 'get it over with'.
Yes, if we revoke, the like of Farage, Banks, half the Conservative party, and millions of others who voted to Leave will just forget about it I guess, especially seeing as the opposition accepted defeat with such good grace and little fuss when Leave won
Apart from those worried sick about having to declare offshore investment income
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
we noticed
if only hed called his memoirs STFU
The most idiotic aspect of this is that he now realises he shouldn't have put that in his memoirs. As he said on Today, this morning:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
David Cameron, age six and a half.
All helps sales.
You know he's giving the profits from the book to some charity? So he hasn't even benefited materially from this debacle, and at the same time he has made everyone in Britain hate him, left or right, Leave or Remain. He is also hated by the Royal Family. His reputation is now worse than Blair's, or it will go there.
It was sooooo much better, for him and for us, when he was silent. He should have stayed in his shepherd's hut. Now he has come out and publicly poured an enormous bucket of manure over his own head.
Tories punch down. Always have done, always will. It's in the nature of the ideology. It's all about hierarchy. The saddest thing of all is that whenever you raise structural issues (which is the core of their ideology, structure above all), they defend it with reference to individuals. Thus the monarchy is too often defended on the grounds that the queen is nice and, say, Tony Blair is not. There are some noble and notable exceptions -- a couple on here to be sure -- who take the structural arguments head on, but they are the good-faith good guys in a stinking tide of partisans who want nothing more than legitimacy for their contempt of people "below" them.
Surely the most salient point to emerge from Kuenssbergtwittergate is BJ's reaction. His first, instinctive reaction to any emergent situation is just to tell a blatant lie.
Salience is a point of view. I think that's an important point. But it's not the only one.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
I think Cameron's revelation about the Queen is a colossal breach of trust. Anyone with half a brain can work out she'd instinctively be a strong unionist anyway.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
The smoking Ban in Public spaces sets up an interesting and established precedent for allowing use of socially unacceptable substances in limited places. Thus certain places could be deemed acceptable for drug use.
Banning drugs is a waste of time, as the last 40 years has amply illustrated. Use has grown, quality of drugs is inconsistent, it funds and underclass of users, it generates crime in excess such as criminality through enforced prostitution, gang culture, violence, murder, money laundering. There are no controls, it is a burden to the Police, NHS, Courts, Social Services and benefits system.
Where are the advantages in banning drugs as opposed to the legalised sale combined with regulations controlling the places they can be used?
Reduce crime, health dangers, criminality on many levels, free up Police time make society safer and raise some tax.
The trend is pretty consistent with what the YouGov poll is saying, given that the last IPSOS poll was in July and changes are measured from that point as opposed to last week.
If you follow 538 you will hear much discussion against momentum and short term trends. I do think people forget that when GEs turn up people's minds change. Squeezing occurs. And also media coverage is different.
A trend since late July seems to me to represent a medium term trend, albeit one I think reflecting a recent short term event. I think your point is though that we don't know whether Swinson's recent boost will continue, and indeed I suspect it will dissipate a bit in time. However, I think the readiness of Greens to apparently switch to the Libs as opposed to Labour is interesting, because up to now there had been an assumption from some that only Labour could benefit if their vote was squeezed.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
Brexit is just a con job.
Not that bad.
Major was the best of them. Blair was good if you forget Iraq. Brown was terrible but was very good during the banking crisis. Cameron was good if you forget the Referendum. May tried hard.
How much do you want? We voted for these people. If you want better governement, vote for PR.
No, thought not.
PR is beginning to look good in the current climate. I have to say that, looking back, John Major looks like a political titan.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
we noticed
if only hed called his memoirs STFU
The most idiotic aspect of this is that he now realises he shouldn't have put that in his memoirs. As he said on Today, this morning:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
David Cameron, age six and a half.
All helps sales.
It was sooooo much better, for him and for us, when he was silent.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt” was Denis Thatcher’s motto.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
Hypocrisy is in the UK constitutional DNA. Fair play to Cameron for admitting it, however inadvertently.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
Brexit is just a con job.
Not that bad.
Major was the best of them. Blair was good if you forget Iraq. Brown was terrible but was very good during the banking crisis. Cameron was good if you forget the Referendum. May tried hard.
How much do you want? We voted for these people. If you want better governement, vote for PR.
No, thought not.
Major - was a total waste of time lurching from one disaster after another. Obssesed with tying us to the ERM and throwing millions of home owners to wolves when it went tits up. Finished up taking the Tories down to the worst defeat since 1832.
Blair - self-absorbed and obsessed with messing about with the British constituation in ways we're still dealing with now, loved bombing the total crap out of impovrished nation and lying about the reasons. Lost complete control of our borders and argueably sowed the seeds for Brexit.
Brown - where to start with him?
Cameron - like Blair only even more reckless, self-absorbed and with an even bigger sense of self-entitelement. Seems to enjoy betraying the Queens confidence which none of the other roll call of shame have done as bas as they all are.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Ah! I'd been wondering, in all this talk of HMtQ being a mere figurehead for Mr Johnson and other PMs, and how she never ever ever made any actual intervention, when someone would mention her coded, but by all accounts very real, intervention in the Scottish indyref at a rather shaky time for the Unionists.
Just for the record: I'm still keeping an open mind on the issue of whether HM has any actual role in terms of emergency intervention. Either she does, or she does not, and if not, why do we have her?
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
The trend is pretty consistent with what the YouGov poll is saying, given that the last IPSOS poll was in July and changes are measured from that point as opposed to last week.
Yes, but they're both conference-specific, and we should no more draw strategic conclusions from that than we should if Labour or Tories get a bounce in the next 2 weeks. The fact that so much else is going on as well makes it really hard to separate durable trends from temporary bounces.
Indeed, but see my 12.01 response to the same point from 148grss re the implications of the Green vote squeeze being towards the Libs not Lab.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Minimum pricing only raises revenues for the producers and retailers, the effect on tax revenue is negligible.
On the topic of the report. Almost any study into health effects due to changes in environment (eg. price of alcohol) is going to take a long time to show up as you cant do randomised trials. Human biology is very complex
Come on Harry is an expert. It happened in Scotland and was by the SNP, therefore it is very very bad and will never work
Shrugs - spending on drinking hasn’t dropped due to price increase. Ignore if you want.
Harry, I did not say I agree with it but I could not say it is not working , time will tell on that. I am not convinced it impacts me as I never drink cheap rubbish with high alcohol content just to get drunk. It can surely only be a benefit of some kind if it stops the stuff like Lightning Jack being sold in 3 litre bottles to sad souls.
Another horrendous blunder by Cameron, which has apparently gone unnoticed. The flailing idiot has told everyone he asked the Queen to intervene in Sindyref.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
He'a a complete and utter waste of space.
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.
Brexit is just a con job.
Not that bad.
Major was the best of them. Blair was good if you forget Iraq. Brown was terrible but was very good during the banking crisis. Cameron was good if you forget the Referendum. May tried hard.
How much do you want? We voted for these people. If you want better governement, vote for PR.
No, thought not.
PR is beginning to look good in the current climate. I have to say that, looking back, John Major looks like a political titan.
You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?
Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.
The smoking Ban in Public spaces sets up an interesting and established precedent for allowing use of socially unacceptable substances in limited places. Thus certain places could be deemed acceptable for drug use.
Banning drugs is a waste of time, as the last 40 years has amply illustrated. Use has grown, quality of drugs is inconsistent, it funds and underclass of users, it generates crime in excess such as criminality through enforced prostitution, gang culture, violence, murder, money laundering. There are no controls, it is a burden to the Police, NHS, Courts, Social Services and benefits system.
Where are the advantages in banning drugs as opposed to the legalised sale combined with regulations controlling the places they can be used?
Reduce crime, health dangers, criminality on many levels, free up Police time make society safer and raise some tax.
I agree. It should be noted the troubling opioid epidemic in the USA is largely to do with a misperception on the part of doctors and patients that these drugs were safe. It's a failure of the commercialised approach to healthcare. Were doctors and patients better informed -- as they are now becoming -- they would have been more leery of prescribing and accepting prescriptions of these drugs.
Legalising drugs is not the same as legitimising them. Tobacco is a good case study here, since it's legal but highly regulated, with government information and programs to help wean people off it. That, to me, feels like the sensible approach.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
I've checked. It's not in the memoirs, he makes the appalling revelation in a TV documentary.
He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?
Comments
However, I do agree with you that it's actually the closest thing to a compromise, unity position that might achieve a lasting resolution (certainly over the short term).
A No Deal departure *might* deliver that, either by concession we're out and that's it or eventually rejoining, but it'd be far bumpier.
BAN PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND STOP THEIR ALUMNI RUNNING COUNTRIES!!!
https://twitter.com/cbcpolitics/status/1174536164952432640?s=21
I say so purely speculatively - but it would certainly be opportune timing for a crossover narrative.
I believe it is entirely the wrong thing. The massive rises in the cost of tobacco and cigarettes, while not exactly the same thing, has resulted (anecdote alert) in nobody I know where I live buying from shops. All the tobacco people buy is either smuggled or fakes.
This, apart from the obvious health issue, funnels more money to gangsters.
Education is the only way. Otherwise you are encouraging and empowering criminals.
Trying it again and again is crazy.
On the topic of the report. Almost any study into health effects due to changes in environment (eg. price of alcohol) is going to take a long time to show up as you cant do randomised trials. Human biology is very complex
Would have been more useful to just link to a dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudonymous
It’s getting worse....”Don’t abuse our politeness and don’t abuse Lady Hale’s patience”....
I can’t believe I just said that.
Would people go along with this, in order to get some kind of consensus and closure? Right now I suspect not.
What the F is he thinking? How idiotic is that? Not content with destroying himself, and the country, he now wants to destroy the monarchy.
The worst prime minister ever. The Palace must be incandescent with anger.
But one of the judges says the effects of how the UK leaves the EU are "completely irrelevant to the legal questions" they are faced with in the case.
If only our representatives in parliament were as adroit at seperating out different issues as these fine legal minds.
It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.
if only hed called his memoirs STFU
God knows what we've done to deserve this run of PMs in the past 30 years:
Major > Blair > Brown > Cameron > May
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
David Cameron, age six and a half.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fewer-deaths-after-minimum-alcohol-pricing-glasgow-doctors-say-0p0cjf93l
The worst thing about them is that they have the magic combination of arrogance and entitlement (as you say) AND THUNDERING STUPIDITY.
There is no limit to the damage you can do with that mindset.
I like to give people a fair crack at the whip and he hasn't been in long enough for me to form a judement either way.
Brexit is just a con job.
& That's why despite the fact that the remain side has turned into an absolubte left wing cringe-fest I'd probably still vote to remain in the EU in another referendum.
On the 'no decline in sales' is there any information on how that was measured? I couldn't find any from a very quick search/look on the IEA website. If value of sales (the normal way of measuring these things, perhaps inflation adjusted?) then it would imply a fall in units of alcohol sold (as unit price increased for some products). If units of alcohol sold then fair enough, but are the data really collected at that level? If number of items sold, has the product mix changed, have any of the formulations changed to alter alcohol content, have the bottle sizes changed?
I've no real opinion either way on minimum alcohol pricing as I don't think there's evidence yet on its effects, but I'm interested to see what, if any, effect it has.
I would argue that the continuing cultural divide in the US is partly caused by the plurality of cable TV news e.g. Fox vs. MSNBC
The reason for Remainers to vote Labour in most other Con/Lab constituencies will not be so easy to justify.
The only one proven to work is the last. There is virtually no drug abuse in Singapore.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/singapore-is-winning-the-war-on-drugs-heres-how/2018/03/11/b8c25278-22e9-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html
Bring back the noose?
That's what's been grossly understated in the discourse -neither a reheated May deal nor a Johnson No Deal is anywhere near the end of the process on future relationship.
The nearest to Swinson's "Just Don't Do It" as a route to closure is, in fairness, something like the tortured emerging Corbyn position of soft Brexit and referendum, but even that has pitfalls and has several months to run after a General Election.
I assume they'll have to turn the power lines off then rescue him. Would he still carry charge though ?
The saddest thing of all is that whenever you raise structural issues (which is the core of their ideology, structure above all), they defend it with reference to individuals. Thus the monarchy is too often defended on the grounds that the queen is nice and, say, Tony Blair is not.
There are some noble and notable exceptions -- a couple on here to be sure -- who take the structural arguments head on, but they are the good-faith good guys in a stinking tide of partisans who want nothing more than legitimacy for their contempt of people "below" them.
Mr Byronic, do you ever partake in that drug called alcohol?
PS. The EU was very happy for them to stop us.
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Major was the best of them. Blair was good if you forget Iraq. Brown was terrible but was very good during the banking crisis. Cameron was good if you forget the Referendum. May tried hard.
How much do you want? We voted for these people. If you want better governement, vote for PR.
No, thought not.
Meanwhile everyone hates the Tories and Biden but they're both definitely ahead in their respective races...
It was sooooo much better, for him and for us, when he was silent. He should have stayed in his shepherd's hut. Now he has come out and publicly poured an enormous bucket of manure over his own head.
Banning drugs is a waste of time, as the last 40 years has amply illustrated. Use has grown, quality of drugs is inconsistent, it funds and underclass of users, it generates crime in excess such as criminality through enforced prostitution, gang culture, violence, murder, money laundering. There are no controls, it is a burden to the Police, NHS, Courts, Social Services and benefits system.
Where are the advantages in banning drugs as opposed to the legalised sale combined with regulations controlling the places they can be used?
Reduce crime, health dangers, criminality on many levels, free up Police time make society safer and raise some tax.
Blair - self-absorbed and obsessed with messing about with the British constituation in ways we're still dealing with now, loved bombing the total crap out of impovrished nation and lying about the reasons. Lost complete control of our borders and argueably sowed the seeds for Brexit.
Brown - where to start with him?
Cameron - like Blair only even more reckless, self-absorbed and with an even bigger sense of self-entitelement. Seems to enjoy betraying the Queens confidence which none of the other roll call of shame have done as bas as they all are.
May - same as Brown where to start with her?
Just for the record: I'm still keeping an open mind on the issue of whether HM has any actual role in terms of emergency intervention. Either she does, or she does not, and if not, why do we have her?
ate his own childrten - obviously a Tory
It should be noted the troubling opioid epidemic in the USA is largely to do with a misperception on the part of doctors and patients that these drugs were safe. It's a failure of the commercialised approach to healthcare. Were doctors and patients better informed -- as they are now becoming -- they would have been more leery of prescribing and accepting prescriptions of these drugs.
Legalising drugs is not the same as legitimising them. Tobacco is a good case study here, since it's legal but highly regulated, with government information and programs to help wean people off it. That, to me, feels like the sensible approach.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/sep/19/david-cameron-asked-queen-to-raise-eyebrow-during-scottish-independence-referendum-video
He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?
Stupid Man.