Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.
That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies. My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?
Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling
I don't think Blair lied that much about anything. Maybe the Ecclestone thing? I believe that he genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq (even though personally I was sceptical at the time and opposed the Iraq war). I would actually say that in terms of confronting the electorate with uncomfortable facts Blair was more straightforward than a lot of politicians.
Well you would say that wouldn't you....
On the question of Blair lying, you have to go with the Hutton Report which is the most detailed and reliable account. It absolved him from lying but indicated that he did everything but. It also confirmed what I think most had figured anyway - his motivation was a sycophantic desire to oblige the White House.
The Ecclestone thing was a huge disappointment to his supporters, a severe reality check in those heady early days. Not sure I would call it a lie, but certainly dishonest and much less than was expected of him.
With the benefit of hindsight it is amazing he didn't fight harder to keep the Ecclestone money.
Blair reportedly expected he would have to resign at the time of Ecclestone. Only his honeymoon with the press that kept him in the job.
Labour manifesto: “We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to pay a little more income tax, while freezing National Insurance and income tax rates for everyone else”.
Fiscal drag. There’s the attack line for the Tories.
Labour Party to Brexit Party swing by those who will never vote Tory. Had BXP stood down I bet those BXP voters will have gone Labour.
Seems to be the implication from the numbers. Wonder whether this chart will start appearing on Labour leaflets to try and squeeze the BXP vote?
Be interesting to know how many don't-knows there were too. But UKIP vote was squeezed already in 2017 (4.6% from 25% in 2015) so looks like this BXP vote is largely coming from Labour.
Labour manifesto: “We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to pay a little more income tax, while freezing National Insurance and income tax rates for everyone else”.
Fiscal drag. There’s the attack line for the Tories.
No, they just need to find a head teacher and/or a GP who's on >£80k.
Or point out that an MP's salary is conveniently just a couple of grand below the limit.
Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.
14 sexual charges altogether
In sex cases prosecutors talk of the power of 3. If you have 3 complainers alleging similar conduct then even if one of them proves to be a bit suspect juries convict. 10 ? Jeez.
10 is also a lot of women to put through the ordeal of giving evidence against a powerful man with expensive lawyers. If Salmond knows he is guilty of at least some of these charges, pleading not guilty to them is a despicable thing to inflict.
Pointless of me to point out, I suppose, that he is innocent until proved guilty and is entitled to put the prosecution to proof. If, say, “Not Guilty” turns out to be the verdict, it is also pretty despicable - though I would not use the term - for him to have been put through this ordeal.
He has been charged. There will be a trial. It will be an ordeal for all involved because that is the nature of trials, however well prepared or well conducted they are. Let the prosecution put their case. And let him use all lawful means to defend himself.
Not sure what your complaint is. If you are saying posters here are making it up as they go along - well, I certainly am, but we all have to get through life making decisions "on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge" because we can't all be experts at everything. This includes people like governments and MPs and judges. If you are saying there is insufficient research into cannabis out there, I am not sure what would satisfy you. There's tons. Governments are there to formulate and enact policies, not to set up Royal Commissions.
Exactly. It's quite clear many asking for more info will never have enough, it's a very common delaying tactic. Theres been research and some places have legalised, if that research is wrong or the legalisation bad people need to say why, not hypocritically accuse others of leaping forward with little to no reasoning. Oh we need more info, no not that info.
It goes both ways and theres a lot of gut feeling thinking on it, which is fine for us all as you note, but the hypocritical presentation is one side is about science of it and others are not. Thats bollocks.
Please point to the evidence about the effect (short and long-term) of the powerful skunk being sold now on the brains of young teenagers and young adults, in particular in relation to the possible links with serious mental illness. I am unaware of it. Maybe there is some. But don’t you think it should be obtained and understood when deciding on whether to allow the legal sale of such a product.
Such evidence usually takes time to obtain and understand. Saying it should be obtained is not a delaying tactic but, IMO, a necessary step any responsible government should take before making such a change.
It seems to me that there is a lot of cherry-picking of studies and claims which support people’s preconceived opinions but a reluctance to look at stuff which might suggest that the answers are not quite as simple as some want to make out.
Clearly our current drugs laws are not fit for purpose. So change is needed. What that change should be needs careful thought based on expert advice, facts and evidence, unfashionable as such a concept might be these days.
Powerful Skunk vs Traditional Dope Vodka vs A pint of Bitter If it is legal you can alter behaviour with pricing. You can measure and regulate the strength so that the dose is known to the user. The damage is already existing. One of the objects of legalisation is damage limitation to users
So Brexit Party standing there takes 18 points straight from Labour, which lets the Tories through the middle.
How many more Northern seats are like that?
and people said Nigel doesnt know what hes doing!
But Grimsby is not atypical of Northern seats IMO. Labour more likely to struggle here IMO. But still...
Scunthorpe likely to show similar results I'd reckon. But will it cross the Humber to the Hull seats? Always thought they would be impregnable for Labour, but....
I hope if the Tories are short Brexit gets cancelled/2nd reffed (There won't be the votes for it) and they do a deal with the Lib Dems on that basis. The Lib Dem and Labour manifestoes seem to be continents apart.
Exactly. It's quite clear many asking for more info will never have enough, it's a very common delaying tactic. Theres been research and some places have legalised, if that research is wrong or the legalisation bad people need to say why, not hypocritically accuse others of leaping forward with little to no reasoning. Oh we need more info, no not that info.
It goes both ways and theres a lot of gut feeling thinking on it, which is fine for us all as you note, but the hypocritical presentation is one side is about science of it and others are not. Thats bollocks.
Please point to the evidence about the effect (short and long-term) of the powerful skunk being sold now on the brains of young teenagers and young adults, in particular in relation to the possible links with serious mental illness. I am unaware of it. Maybe there is some. But don’t you think it should be obtained and understood when deciding on whether to allow the legal sale of such a product.
Such evidence usually takes time to obtain and understand. Saying it should be obtained is not a delaying tactic but, IMO, a necessary step any responsible government should take before making such a change.
It seems to me that there is a lot of cherry-picking of studies and claims which support people’s preconceived opinions but a reluctance to look at stuff which might suggest that the answers are not quite as simple as some want to make out.
Clearly our current drugs laws are not fit for purpose. So change is needed. What that change should be needs careful thought based on expert advice, facts and evidence, unfashionable as such a concept might be these days.
No one is suggesting legalising powerful skunk for young teenagers. But teenagers can buy it now easily precisely because it is illegal. If you legalise the softer stuff, put an age restriction on it, youth smoking goes down, as the current research suggests.
Also, hasn't expert opinion been legalisation since the Blair era?
So bizarre Corbyn's policy of taking questions in 3 rather than just answering the question and moving to the next one.
iirc Corbyn nicked the idea from Boris. It means that he can skip over or misinterpret any awkward question and move straight onto the next one, and also that there can be no follow-up.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Good luck with that particular line of whatabouterry, Roger! I'd say attempted rape would generally be seen as the worse offence, yes.
I'm surprised that no one sees anything odd about choosing yet another self obsessed Old Etonian ex Bullingdon Boy to be our PM. Doessn't it tell you anything about this country? Maybe we can work our way through the whole lot of them......
Exactly. It's quite clear many asking for more info will never have enough, it's a very common delaying tactic. Theres been research and some places have legalised, if that research is wrong or the legalisation bad people need to say why, not hypocritically accuse others of leaping forward with little to no reasoning. Oh we need more info, no not that info.
It goes both ways and theres a lot of gut feeling thinking on it, which is fine for us all as you note, but the hypocritical presentation is one side is about science of it and others are not. Thats bollocks.
Please point to the evidence about the effect (short and long-term) of the powerful skunk being sold now on the brains of young teenagers and young adults, in particular in relation to the possible links with serious mental illness. I am unaware of it. Maybe there is some. But don’t you think it should be obtained and understood when deciding on whether to allow the legal sale of such a product.
Such evidence usually takes time to obtain and understand. Saying it should be obtained is not a delaying tactic but, IMO, a necessary step any responsible government should take before making such a change.
It seems to me that there is a lot of cherry-picking of studies and claims which support people’s preconceived opinions but a reluctance to look at stuff which might suggest that the answers are not quite as simple as some want to make out.
Clearly our current drugs laws are not fit for purpose. So change is needed. What that change should be needs careful thought based on expert advice, facts and evidence, unfashionable as such a concept might be these days.
No one is suggesting legalising powerful skunk for young teenagers. But teenagers can buy it now easily precisely because it is illegal. If you legalise the softer stuff, put an age restriction on it, youth smoking goes down, as the current research suggests.
Also, hasn't expert opinion been legalisation since the Blair era?
I'd legalise skunk but for adults with Challenge 25. And yes the evidence is that legal sales through shops lead to youth rates going down, because drug dealers don't ask for ID when doing sales.
I hope if the Tories are short Brexit gets cancelled/2nd reffed (There won't be the votes for it) and they do a deal with the Lib Dems on that basis. The Lib Dem and Labour manifestoes seem to be continents apart.
This is quite a plausible outcome. Although SuperJo and Boris won't say anything until 13 Dec!
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Good luck with that particular line of whatabouterry, Roger! I'd say attempted rape would generally be seen as the worse offence, yes.
I'm surprised that no one sees anything odd about choosing yet another self obsessed Old Etonian ex Bullingdon Boy to be our PM. Doessn't it tell you anything about this country? Maybe we can work our way through the whole lot of them......
So Brexit Party standing there takes 18 points straight from Labour, which lets the Tories through the middle.
How many more Northern seats are like that?
and people said Nigel doesnt know what hes doing!
But Grimsby is not atypical of Northern seats IMO. Labour more likely to struggle here IMO. But still...
Scunthorpe likely to show similar results I'd reckon. But will it cross the Humber to the Hull seats? Always thought they would be impregnable for Labour, but....
The Stoke seats are other ones I think Labour lose; Newcastle Under Lyme and Stoke North, maybe even Stoke Central if it keeps looking this bad...
So Brexit Party standing there takes 18 points straight from Labour, which lets the Tories through the middle.
How many more Northern seats are like that?
and people said Nigel doesnt know what hes doing!
But Grimsby is not atypical of Northern seats IMO. Labour more likely to struggle here IMO. But still...
Scunthorpe likely to show similar results I'd reckon. But will it cross the Humber to the Hull seats? Always thought they would be impregnable for Labour, but....
Is the fishing industry a factor? If so, then not all North East towns are equal.
Let me begin by saying that I simply do not believe Alex Salmond is guilty of the criminal offences he has been charged with. This is based on my personal experience of the man and knowing the strong bond he has with his wife. I have met him many times and had dinner with him on several occasions. Time will tell whether I have misjudged him or not. I think he was an infinitely better First Minister than Nicola Sturgeon will ever be!
I do however think it is hugely dangerous for the SNP, though not as much as had the case gone to trial BEFORE the General Election. I expect that if the case goes to trial, some rather unpleasant details about the internal workings of the SNP and the backstabbing which led to his downfall, may all come out. Beyond that I will say nothing about the specific allegations as the matter is sub-judice and the law in Scotland on "pre trial publicity" is much more strictly applied than in England from my experience. It will however take over from the Earl of Inverness as the main headline in the Scottish press. Don't write off the SCons who are the most likely main beneficiaries in any drop in SNP support in key battlegrounds.
I hope if the Tories are short Brexit gets cancelled/2nd reffed (There won't be the votes for it) and they do a deal with the Lib Dems on that basis. The Lib Dem and Labour manifestoes seem to be continents apart.
This is quite a plausible outcome. Although SuperJo and Boris won't say anything until 13 Dec!
I know it would be thoroughly unsatisfying (Like leaving a half finished game of monopoly) to not "get Brexit done" but keeping the Marxists out has to be the priority
Reading it rightly the allowance goes back to 325,000 per person . Not the drastic change some thought might happen and I can’t see anything about gift tax .
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Good luck with that particular line of whatabouterry, Roger! I'd say attempted rape would generally be seen as the worse offence, yes.
I'm surprised that no one sees anything odd about choosing yet another self obsessed Old Etonian ex Bullingdon Boy to be our PM. Doessn't it tell you anything about this country? Maybe we can work our way through the whole lot of them......
Accurately describing the failure of a current policy is not in itself - without more - a good argument for doing the opposite.
At the risk of repeating myself, let’s get some evidence about the harm involved and then work out how best to minimise it in the most effective way. That may result in the policies you advocate but I marvel at the ability of people - and this is not aimed at you personally - to come up with such policies on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge in this area.
We have evidence from hundreds of countries across the globe and a hundred years of history of what is and what is not working.
What "harm involved" are you talking about? And are you just restricting to the side effects of the cannabis itself? Or are you including in "harm involved" the stabbings and other fatal and non-fatal gang violence that prohibition is causing both now and has caused historically?
We have been debating this issue now for decades, we don't have relatively little or no knowledge in this area.
Its the presenting a fixed opinion as potentially changeable when it clearly is not. It is very telling that someone I personally find exceedingly reasonable and extremely persuasive even on matters which I disagree with them about is so unconvincing on this issue, and it's because the argument about wanting more information is equivalent to that of a NIMBY. Its clearly not the main objection, but it's the 'reasonable' fallback.
You have got my position wrong. See my response to you below.
As I have said before, I have seen up close the effect of serious mental illness on a young teenager/adult. Legalising a product which may - I stress the word “may” because I am not a doctor or scientist - cause this is something which should be done with the greatest possible care.
It infuriates me to see people in public life talking about mental health as the latest fashionable cause but turning a blind eye to what may be one of its causes. If legalisation and control is the answer, fine. But I’d like answers - not some experiment inflicted on the young and vulnerable because it's not the politicians and commentators who live with the consequences but the poor bloody parents and siblings and family members and those who suffer from it and it lasts for years, a lifetime, if you’re unlucky.
Reading it rightly the allowance goes back to 325,000 per person . Not the drastic change some thought might happen and I can’t see anything about gift tax .
Are couples able to still hand over their eligibility? That makes the big difference.
So bizarre Corbyn's policy of taking questions in 3 rather than just answering the question and moving to the next one.
That's standard at almost every public meeting I've been involved in for years, political and non-political. The idea is supposedly to give a sense of more audience involvement than having the speaker jumping in after every question/comment.
At the risk of repeating myself, let’s get some evidence about the harm involved and then work out how best to minimise it in the most effective way. That may result in the policies you advocate but I marvel at the ability of people - and this is not aimed at you personally - to come up with such policies on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge in this area.
Not sure what your complaint is. If you are saying posters here are making it up as they go along - well, I certainly am, but we all have to get through life making decisions "on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge" because we can't all be experts at everything. This includes people like governments and MPs and judges. If you are saying there is insufficient research into cannabis out there, I am not sure what would satisfy you. There's tons. Governments are there to formulate and enact policies, not to set up Royal Commissions.
Exactly. It's quite clear many asking for more info will never have enough, it's a very common delaying tactic. Theres been research and some places have legalised, if that research is wrong or the legalisation bad people need to say why, not hypocritically accuse others of leaping forward with little to no reasoning. Oh we need more info, no not that info.
It goes both ways and theres a lot of gut feeling thinking on it, which is fine for us all as you note, but the hypocritical presentation is one side is about science of it and others are not. Thats bollocks.
Please point to the evidence about the effect (short and long-term) of the powerful skunk being sold now on the brains of young teenagers and young adults, in particular in relation to the possible links with serious mental illness. I am unaware of it. Maybe there is some. But don’t you think it should be obtained and understood when deciding on whether to allow the legal sale of such a product.
Such evidence usually takes time to obtain and understand. Saying it should be obtained is not a delaying tactic but, IMO, a necessary step any responsible government should take before making such a change.
It seems to me that there is a lot of cherry-picking of studies and claims which support people’s preconceived opinions but a reluctance to look at stuff which might suggest that the answers are not quite as simple as some want to make out.
Clearly our current drugs laws are not fit for purpose. So change is needed. What that change should be needs careful thought based on expert advice, facts and evidence, unfashionable as such a concept might be these days.
Let's face it, TBP should just wind it up - they're no use to man nor beast. As for the Lib Dems, we could see a death spiral: the more they look irrelevant at keeping out Boris, the more people might just throw in their lot with Labour. I predict a repeat of 2017, when the two main parties conquered all.
I get this when I try to read the Labour manifesto:
Error 1020 Ray ID: 53927cf21953dd3e • 2019-11-21 11:57:47 UTC Access denied What happened? This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks.
Labour "Manifesto pledges: If Remain wins, we will push to reform EU"
Ffs, didn't they learn from Dave's mistake? The British public simply do not think the E.U is reformable
Either to appease the right, or out of stupidity, there was a binding 'advisory' vote on a pig in a poke. By contrast, the 1975 referendum was held on the treaty passed by parliament in 1971-72 with the minor changes negotiated by Wilson 1974-75.
If we must have referendums, they need to be on similarly worked-out proposals to 1975. Listen to discussion a few months ago on The Briefing Room (R4).
If the 2016 vote is to be binding, let's rename Constitution Hill 'Messed-Up Constitution Hill'.
You can still sell the Lib Dems on both Spreadex and SPIN at 29. Looks like a bargain to me on current polling. To believe otherwise you have to believe that the Lib Dems know exactly where to target and are doing so effectively. I don't buy it.
Kinder gentler politics....The thing is isn't just her. Think of all the others that get absolute shit from this mob for just asking awkward questions / not being on the train to loony town e.g. Rachel Riley.
Social care is a lovely policy for those in the London and South East.
a. We will ensure no one ever again needs to face catastrophic care costs of more than £100,000 for the care they need in old age, which we will underscore with a lifetime cap on personal contributions to care costs.
So down South you are sure to inherit the remainder of the family home after £200,000 has been paid out (worst case scenario). Up north the house should just about cover those costs.
Reading it rightly the allowance goes back to 325,000 per person . Not the drastic change some thought might happen and I can’t see anything about gift tax .
Are couples able to still hand over their eligibility? That makes the big difference.
Good point , I’ll have to look at it again but they just say they’re going to reverse the Osborne changes. This looks like a calculated risk from Labour .
The Tories I’m sure are going to bring this up but it depends how that argument plays out , forcing them to justify the much higher threshold .
Personally I wouldn’t have touched IHT if I was Labour but the change is much less than was originally rumoured.
All very much like the others now. Labour on 22-24% was always nonsense. Labour nearer 30%, Tories appear to be through the 40% mark seems to be the real situation.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
Cons have snapped up the web address https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/ -- which is actually the Tories having a pop at Labour. That said, they do make that clear on the front page of the site.
Corbyn's Q&A Before the Q&A Corbyn says this is the 45th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings. He says that should be a reminder that peace in Northern Ireland is priceless.
"Labour will scrap Universal Credit. During the period while we design our replacement social security system we will stop the rollout of Universal Credit (UC) and reform it to fix its worst flaws." (Labour)
On topic, Joe Biden seems to be like a supertanker whose engines have cut out. The momentum continues to carry him forward but sooner or later he's going to come to a standstill. The question is whether that is before or after the nomination process has been decided. Unlike others, it seems to me much more likely than not that the answer is "before" and well before.
If Biden drops out for age-related reasons, will that count against the others who are over 70 (especially if the president is also looking a bit doddery by then)? The age profile of this race is most unusual. Three of the first four in the betting are over 70 and the fourth is barely old enough to shave and has run a town less than half the size of a London borough.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
If it was something easy to navigate you might find out what their policies are and think about it :-).
Just listening to the Corbyn performance.
Apparently it is outrageous that rail now gets more total subsidy than under BR. Yes, Jeremy - passengers have nearly trebled.
And the water companies have an awful leak performance because they are privatised. Yes Jeremy, the worst leak performance is in Scotland where it is *not* privatised.
In line with my model, which has it as a solid Tory gain, all the projected vote shares well within the CIs shown in the chart. Model shows Con Maj of 62.
if you're so dimwitted not to see that coming, then you don't deserve
I know you can't grab every domain name, but like really. When I have setup online businesses, the first thing we have done when we have decided on a name is hoover up all the versions of it.
Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016. This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.
Whilst it may well do so, your cited evidence (UK greater than fr plus de) does not support your conclusion (UK greater than EUR). Germany plus France does not add up to the Eurozone.
Let's face it, TBP should just wind it up - they're no use to man nor beast. As for the Lib Dems, we could see a death spiral: the more they look irrelevant at keeping out Boris, the more people might just throw in their lot with Labour. I predict a repeat of 2017, when the two main parties conquered all.
They seem to be pretty useful in Grimsby (see polling above)
Cons have snapped up the web address https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/ -- which is actually the Tories having a pop at Labour. That said, they do make that clear on the front page of the site.
That has to be the worst piece of web design I've ever seen.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
I am loving the blank page in the Labour manifesto that immediately follows the chapter heading "The final say on Brexit". I assume it's to do with left/right facing issues when printed, and admittedly the text follows on the page after, but it's just brilliant.
Cons have snapped up the web address https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/ -- which is actually the Tories having a pop at Labour. That said, they do make that clear on the front page of the site.
That has to be the worst piece of web design I've ever seen.
I believe that is the point...apparently....according to all the online social media gurus.
Cons have snapped up the web address https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/ -- which is actually the Tories having a pop at Labour. That said, they do make that clear on the front page of the site.
That has to be the worst piece of web design I've ever seen.
Let's face it, TBP should just wind it up - they're no use to man nor beast. As for the Lib Dems, we could see a death spiral: the more they look irrelevant at keeping out Boris, the more people might just throw in their lot with Labour. I predict a repeat of 2017, when the two main parties conquered all.
No, TBP are actually very useful (to the Tories) because many trad Lab voters will happily switch to them who would never put a cross in the Con box. Btw on the polling numbers you have to remember that the percentage is roughly double in the 50% of seats where they are standing.
Cons have snapped up the web address https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/ -- which is actually the Tories having a pop at Labour. That said, they do make that clear on the front page of the site.
That has to be the worst piece of web design I've ever seen.
I believe that is the point...apparently....according to all the online social media gurus.
No, they obviously forgot to test it in Chrome. In IE it's passable.
Cons have snapped up the web address https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/ -- which is actually the Tories having a pop at Labour. That said, they do make that clear on the front page of the site.
That has to be the worst piece of web design I've ever seen.
I believe that is the point...apparently....according to all the online social media gurus.
No, they obviously forgot to test it in Chrome. In IE it's passable.
"Labour will scrap Universal Credit. During the period while we design our replacement social security system we will stop the rollout of Universal Credit (UC) and reform it to fix its worst flaws." (Labour)
Our bureaucracy will be better than your bureaucracy
Let's face it, TBP should just wind it up - they're no use to man nor beast. As for the Lib Dems, we could see a death spiral: the more they look irrelevant at keeping out Boris, the more people might just throw in their lot with Labour. I predict a repeat of 2017, when the two main parties conquered all.
No, TBP are actually very useful (to the Tories) because many trad Lab voters will happily switch to them who would never put a cross in the Con box. Btw on the polling numbers you have to remember that the percentage is roughly double in the 50% of seats where they are standing.
Agreed. Anyone who actually wants to Get Brexit Done knows they need to vote for Boris. Anyone who will never vote Tory its good to have an alternative to Labour for them to vote for.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
Newsflash: no one reads party manifestos apart from politics geeks.
Accurately describing the failure of a current policy is not in itself - without more - a good argument for doing the opposite.
We have been debating this issue now for decades, we don't have relatively little or no knowledge in this area.
Its the presenting a fixed opinion as potentially changeable when it clearly is not. It is very telling that someone I personally find exceedingly reasonable and extremely persuasive even on matters which I disagree with them about is so unconvincing on this issue, and it's because the argument about wanting more information is equivalent to that of a NIMBY. Its clearly not the main objection, but it's the 'reasonable' fallback.
You have got my position wrong. See my response to you below.
As I have said before, I have seen up close the effect of serious mental illness on a young teenager/adult. Legalising a product which may - I stress the word “may” because I am not a doctor or scientist - cause this is something which should be done with the greatest possible care.
It infuriates me to see people in public life talking about mental health as the latest fashionable cause but turning a blind eye to what may be one of its causes. If legalisation and control is the answer, fine. But I’d like answers - not some experiment inflicted on the young and vulnerable because it's not the politicians and commentators who live with the consequences but the poor bloody parents and siblings and family members and those who suffer from it and it lasts for years, a lifetime, if you’re unlucky.
And that is all I’m going to say on the subject.
It DOES cause it. Legalisation would be madness. All my friends and I did cannabis (and in every case it led to taking stronger drugs) as teenagers, and for some the damage was irreversible, for many it led to anxiety and depression, for others, alcohol dependency. Now we are mostly parents ourselves, the thought of the kids going through what we did is unthinkable.
Drugs are already legal anyway. You dont get nicked for possession. If drug users were pursued by police in the way other criminals are, City bars would be raided every Friday night, but they aren't, because they aren't. Middle class folk can enjoy a joint or a line as they wish with no fear of prosecution.
People should not be surprised that the Tories are on 44%, unless they mess up the manifesto they will poll above 40%. I just can't see much Tory to Lab movement, I think Labour creeping up will come from undecideds, Lib Dems and possibly BXP.
Leave vote is likely to be 46-51% so with the BXP probably on 5-6% (10-12% across their 300 seats), I think the Tory range is 40-45 points now.
Comments
Be interesting to know how many don't-knows there were too. But UKIP vote was squeezed already in 2017 (4.6% from 25% in 2015) so looks like this BXP vote is largely coming from Labour.
Pointless of me to point out, I suppose, that he is innocent until proved guilty and is entitled to put the prosecution to proof. If, say, “Not Guilty” turns out to be the verdict, it is also pretty despicable - though I would not use the term - for him to have been put through this ordeal.
He has been charged. There will be a trial. It will be an ordeal for all involved because that is the nature of trials, however well prepared or well conducted they are. Let the prosecution put their case. And let him use all lawful means to defend himself.
Ffs, didn't they learn from Dave's mistake? The British public simply do not think the E.U is reformable
Vodka vs A pint of Bitter
If it is legal you can alter behaviour with pricing. You can measure and regulate the strength so that the dose is known to the user.
The damage is already existing. One of the objects of legalisation is damage limitation to users
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
No sign of MORI so far then?
The Lib Dem and Labour manifestoes seem to be continents apart.
What a shower of a mob.
Also, hasn't expert opinion been legalisation since the Blair era?
CON: 44% (+3)
LAB: 28% (+4)
LDEM: 16% (-4)
GRN: 3% (-)
BREX: 3% (-4)
via @IpsosMORI, 15 - 19 Nov
Chgs. w/ Oct
See more:
https://t.co/m1hoBpI81D
I do however think it is hugely dangerous for the SNP, though not as much as had the case gone to trial BEFORE the General Election. I expect that if the case goes to trial, some rather unpleasant details about the internal workings of the SNP and the backstabbing which led to his downfall, may all come out. Beyond that I will say nothing about the specific allegations as the matter is sub-judice and the law in Scotland on "pre trial publicity" is much more strictly applied than in England from my experience. It will however take over from the Earl of Inverness as the main headline in the Scottish press. Don't write off the SCons who are the most likely main beneficiaries in any drop in SNP support in key battlegrounds.
Bold given the pressures on that service from day 1.
Reading it rightly the allowance goes back to 325,000 per person . Not the drastic change some thought might happen and I can’t see anything about gift tax .
As I have said before, I have seen up close the effect of serious mental illness on a young teenager/adult. Legalising a product which may - I stress the word “may” because I am not a doctor or scientist - cause this is something which should be done with the greatest possible care.
It infuriates me to see people in public life talking about mental health as the latest fashionable cause but turning a blind eye to what may be one of its causes. If legalisation and control is the answer, fine. But I’d like answers - not some experiment inflicted on the young and vulnerable because it's not the politicians and commentators who live with the consequences but the poor bloody parents and siblings and family members and those who suffer from it and it lasts for years, a lifetime, if you’re unlucky.
And that is all I’m going to say on the subject.
😂😂😂😂
Error 1020 Ray ID: 53927cf21953dd3e • 2019-11-21 11:57:47 UTC
Access denied
What happened?
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks.
If we must have referendums, they need to be on similarly worked-out proposals to 1975. Listen to discussion a few months ago on The Briefing Room (R4).
If the 2016 vote is to be binding, let's rename Constitution Hill 'Messed-Up Constitution Hill'.
a. We will
ensure no one ever again needs to face
catastrophic care costs of more than
£100,000 for the care they need in old
age, which we will underscore with a
lifetime cap on personal contributions
to care costs.
So down South you are sure to inherit the remainder of the family home after £200,000 has been paid out (worst case scenario). Up north the house should just about cover those costs.
The Tories I’m sure are going to bring this up but it depends how that argument plays out , forcing them to justify the much higher threshold .
Personally I wouldn’t have touched IHT if I was Labour but the change is much less than was originally rumoured.
As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
As Jeremy Corbyn launched the Labour manifesto today in Birmingham, the Conservatives launched a website attacking the party.
https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/
Before the Q&A Corbyn says this is the 45th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings. He says that should be a reminder that peace in Northern Ireland is priceless.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/21/general-election-2019-corbyn-to-launch-labours-manifesto-of-hope-live-news?page=with:block-5dd678aa8f083aa6d578846f#block-5dd678aa8f083aa6d578846f
And also those who gave succour to IRA supporters....
And where is the money going to come for this....
Good luck with that.
O.k
Just listening to the Corbyn performance.
Apparently it is outrageous that rail now gets more total subsidy than under BR. Yes, Jeremy - passengers have nearly trebled.
And the water companies have an awful leak performance because they are privatised. Yes Jeremy, the worst leak performance is in Scotland where it is *not* privatised.
At this point I gave up.
In 2017, I think they knocked the sharper edges off.
This year?
"Good luck with that." seems to be the best summary.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197126246351736834
And if Labour can't be arsed to protect that web domain.....
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1197488113913864194?s=20
Con online team back to 2010 and 2015 strength, after they dropped the ball to Labour in 2017.
Drugs are already legal anyway. You dont get nicked for possession. If drug users were pursued by police in the way other criminals are, City bars would be raided every Friday night, but they aren't, because they aren't. Middle class folk can enjoy a joint or a line as they wish with no fear of prosecution.
Leave vote is likely to be 46-51% so with the BXP probably on 5-6% (10-12% across their 300 seats), I think the Tory range is 40-45 points now.