politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The New Year starts with little cheer for any of the parties
Comments
-
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.0 -
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-425327760 -
One of the nice things about Japan Rail (private company, trains run on time, at reasonable cost, without public subsidy) is that with rare exceptions [*], there's no bullshit with the pricing. The price is the price, regardless of when you travel and when you buy the ticket. There isn't even a discount for getting a return ticket. If a company offers to pay for your travel expenses, you don't even bother telling them what you paid; You just fill in their form saying where you came from, and they wire you the fare.
I get the argument for encouraging people to travel off-peak, but I wonder whether the benefit is really worth all the extra admin and confusion, especially when you account for the cognitive load of the passenger working out when to travel and which ticket to buy.
[*] For example I can get a slightly cheaper Shinkansen ticket by buying the previous day for a particular train using JR's god-awful mobile app, but that's the exception, and it doesn't apply to the regular (slower) commuter trains at all.0 -
Quite right. To me the case for state-supplied heroin seems incontrovertible. Sadly, no politician would ever propose it for fear of being labelled the druggy's friend. (Dave seemed to be toying with this idea before he became leader, but backed off.)david_herdson said:
Actually, it's an excellent argument. If the state regulated the supply of heroin, the quality would become assured, users could be monitored, a huge dent would be put in organised crime and meaningful education could be given to users and at-risk groups. And the state gets taxes on top.FF43 said:
That would be the drug dealers self-justification. Someone will supply the heroin. We might as well get the profit from it. Not a comfortable argument.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
Dealing in arms at least has the potential to give a small amount of influence over those countries that buy them. With no world government to regulate, that's as good as it gets. The alternative is to put people out of work, lose influence to other - possibly hostile - powers in the region concerned, and make no difference on the ground to those at the sharp end. But hey - some activist gets to feel good.0 -
They should put the British government in charge of the heroin business. They'd bollocks up the administration and the marketing so badly that nobody would want to buy it any more.david_herdson said:
Actually, it's an excellent argument. If the state regulated the supply of heroin, the quality would become assured, users could be monitored, a huge dent would be put in organised crime and meaningful education could be given to users and at-risk groups. And the state gets taxes on top.0 -
I wonder if they're just being too cautious, though. It's also quite striking that in the US, hardly any politician will stand up for drug liberalization for fear of incurring the wrath of the voters, but somehow when the voters actually get to vote on the specific issue the ballot propositions keep passing.Stark_Dawning said:
Quite right. To me the case for state-supplied heroin seems incontrovertible. Sadly, no politician would ever propose it for fear of being labelled the druggy's friend. (Dave seemed to be toying with this idea before he became leader, but backed off.)0 -
Swiss railways are the same, you get discounts if you book for a specific train, a normal ticket which allows travel on any train is the same cost a month before or a minute before, whatever time of day.edmundintokyo said:One of the nice things about Japan Rail (private company, trains run on time, at reasonable cost, without public subsidy) is that with rare exceptions [*], there's no bullshit with the pricing. The price is the price, regardless of when you travel and when you buy the ticket. There isn't even a discount for getting a return ticket. If a company offers to pay for your travel expenses, you don't even bother telling them what you paid; You just fill in their form saying where you came from, and they wire you the fare.
I get the argument for encouraging people to travel off-peak, but I wonder whether the benefit is really worth all the extra admin and confusion, especially when you account for the cognitive load of the passenger working out when to travel and which ticket to buy.
[*] For example I can get a slightly cheaper Shinkansen ticket by buying the previous day for a particular train using JR's god-awful mobile app, but that's the exception, and it doesn't apply to the regular (slower) commuter trains at all.
As for the comment on them being slow, they run at about 200kph, which is faster than most UK services. I've read that they are bringing in 300kph trains in a few years for select services that have long straight track sections. But the main reason they are slow is not the trains, but the track which has loads of turns because of all the mountains and valleys.0 -
What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?david_herdson said:
Actually, it's an excellent argument. If the state regulated the supply of heroin, the quality would become assured, users could be monitored, a huge dent would be put in organised crime and meaningful education could be given to users and at-risk groups. And the state gets taxes on top.FF43 said:
That would be the drug dealers self-justification. Someone will supply the heroin. We might as well get the profit from it. Not a comfortable argument.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
Dealing in arms at least has the potential to give a small amount of influence over those countries that buy them. With no world government to regulate, that's as good as it gets. The alternative is to put people out of work, lose influence to other - possibly hostile - powers in the region concerned, and make no difference on the ground to those at the sharp end. But hey - some activist gets to feel good.0 -
Italy will not end up with a social-democrat led coalition. The ruling social democratic PD party is already trailing 6% behind Five Star in the latest poll and Berlusconi will not put Renzi back in power eitherdavid_herdson said:
1. Italy will end up with some social-democrat-led coalition, not a million miles from what it has now. Sweden I don't know much about (ask NickP!)Morris_Dancer said:But, Mr. Herdson, what do you think will happen in the Italian and Swedish elections?
Mr. 43, better yet, imagine a democratic Iran. People are right to say regime change could make things worse, but it could also make things better, and the argument (which you've not made but I've seen elsewhere) that the Iranians should tolerate oppression because it brings stability is less than convincing.
2. Given the choice between sandwiches and freedom, people will invariably choose sandwiches. The trick with reform is to keep the factories and shops open. i don't think the Iranians should 'tolerate' oppression but nor do I think it's realistic in any country with no history of the full freedoms needed to make democracy work, to jump straight to what the likes of Western Europe has. If democracy were introduced today to Iran, the result would probably be much like when Egypt tried: the Islamic parties would dominate because they'd be so much better organised. Before introducing democracy, Iran needs to build up the mentality of a free civil society.
An interim non-Islamic dictatorship would probably be a necessary step. The risk of trying to run before you can walk is that you trip up, fall flat on your face and become sceptical of the whole idea of running. Though of course the risks there are that the regime finds 'reasons' to prolong a the temporary interim stage into something permanent, while replicating the repression and corruption of most dictatorships.0 -
Sharing intelligence with Russia, since that's where they would get their arms from if we (the west in general) stopped selling to them.Theuniondivvie said:What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
0 -
They already buy arms from Russia (S-400 deal) and, given how utterly corrupt the KSA is, plenty of intel will be ending up in Moscow.MaxPB said:
Sharing intelligence with Russia, since that's where they would get their arms from if we (the west in general) stopped selling to them.Theuniondivvie said:What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
0 -
She won't, party members want her to stay until Brexit and the transition period is completed and not beyond, though given polling shows she does as well if not better than most alternatives and Labour is still polling nowhere near enough for a working majority there is no need for her to go anytime soonStark_Dawning said:It's almost beyond doubt now that Theresa will lead the Tories at the next general election. There's no one willing or able to challenge her and she's not going anywhere. In fact, I can't see her giving up the leadership ever.
0 -
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.0 -
Well they've supposedly started cleaning house, so let's see how it goes.Dura_Ace said:
They already buy arms from Russia (S-400 deal) and, given how utterly corrupt the KSA is, plenty of intel will be ending up in Moscow.MaxPB said:
Sharing intelligence with Russia, since that's where they would get their arms from if we (the west in general) stopped selling to them.Theuniondivvie said:What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
I'm also not sure that the new administration will go ahead with it either. They seem to value the relationship with the US much more than the previous one.0 -
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-425327760 -
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the UK compared to 39% in Germany and 48% in the USATGOHF said:
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42532776
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/0 -
What % support his other policies like 100% death duties, nationalising Harvey Nichols and no limits on immigration ?HYUFD said:
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the UK compared to 39% in Germany and 48% in the USATGOHF said:
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.Philip_Thompson said:malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42532776
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/0 -
A large majority would oppose the first and last and a majority the second too though technically he has proposed none of those just reversing Osborne's IHT cut, renationalising the railways and key utilities and trying to put controls on free movement while staying as close as possible to the single marketTGOHF said:
What % support his other policies like 100% death duties, nationalising Harvey Nichols and no limits on immigration ?HYUFD said:
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the U2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/TGOHF said:
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.Philip_Thompson said:malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-425327760 -
Perhas a better analogy would be 18th Century slave traders then.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.0 -
I guess my main point is that legalisation is sweeping the USA but yet there is almost no discussion of it in the Uk.HYUFD said:
A large majority would oppose the first and last and a majority the second too though technically he has proposed none of those just reversing Osborne's IHT cut, renationalising the railways and key utilities and trying to put controls on free movement while staying as close as possible to the single marketTGOHF said:
What % support his other policies like 100% death duties, nationalising Harvey Nichols and no limits on immigration ?HYUFD said:
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the U2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/TGOHF said:
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.Philip_Thompson said:malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
What good does that achieve?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42532776
0 -
Not a chancedavid_herdson said:
But the faces all tell the same time though?malcolmg said:
Ruthie's positions are like the town clock, a different face for each audience.Theuniondivvie said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Divvie, I posted this in reply to Mr. Ace's insightful and wise comment. I repost it for you to answer, if you wish:
"Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?"
If Ruth Davidson were in favour of a regime that executes homosexuals and makes the hijab mandatory for women would you refrain from remarking upon it?
Edited extra bit: I posted this at the same time as you actually replied to the above.
Show me the Conservative MP who has made the case for Saudi Arabia at an event commemorating the nation's founding (or founding of current political governance structure) and I'll happily condemn them.
I'm not aware of Ruth's position on Iran or Saudi (or for that matter the DUP), but outside 'No to Indy Ref II', what other consistent positions does she have?
Here's Tessy not making the case for Saudi Arabia.
https://twitter.com/JasonLiosatos/status/943147693395898368
Here's Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to SA not commemorating the nation's founding (or founding of current political governance structure).
'On the occasion of Saudi National Day, I am reminded of the great history of Saudi Arabia. Today, the Saudi people can rightly proud of their nation, of their history and their developments. Saudi Arabia is a strong nation, an important player in the world and a close friend and partner of the UK. I am looking forward to celebrating the anniversary of 100 years of relations between our two Kingdoms in December this year.'
https://tinyurl.com/y7sgsnq70 -
As I said typical Tory, profit first whether by murder or any other causeMaxPB said:
They are going to buy the bombs from someone, better us than Russia.malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?0 -
Incidentally, welcome to PB, Mr. Foxy.0
-
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
His handlers must be thinking about it as it would spike turnout in the traditionally vote-shy lazy stupid little shit demographic.TGOHF said:
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.David_Evershed said:Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the stprofit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-425327760 -
He's just taken off his sox...Morris_Dancer said:Incidentally, welcome to PB, Mr. Foxy.
0 -
oooft , kick in the goolies for the Tory "profit at any cost, even childrens lives " mongersDura_Ace said:
They already buy arms from Russia (S-400 deal) and, given how utterly corrupt the KSA is, plenty of intel will be ending up in Moscow.MaxPB said:
Sharing intelligence with Russia, since that's where they would get their arms from if we (the west in general) stopped selling to them.Theuniondivvie said:What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
0 -
Would hesitate to call an ounce for personal use small.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-425327760 -
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
18th Century slave-traders were carrying out a legal activity. And the LibDems have had legalisation of cannabis al la California for a while.Foxy said:
Perhas a better analogy would be 18th Century slave traders then.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.0 -
Mr. Charles, oh.
Anyway, I must be off. May end up perambulating in precipitation. *sighs*0 -
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USATGOHF said:
I guess my main point is that legalisation is sweeping the USA but yet there is almost no discussion of it in the Uk.HYUFD said:
A large majority would oppose the first and last and a majority the second tTGOHF said:
What % support his other policies like 100% death duties, nationalising Harvey Nichols and no limits on immigration ?HYUFD said:
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the U2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/TGOHF said:
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.Philip_Thompson said:malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
What good does that achieve?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-425327760 -
How? Do Russian bombs do significantly less damage?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
What, Sunni, Wahabist, surreptitiously-ISIS-supporting KSA would start holding hands with Assad supporting, Iran-allied Rooshia if we didn't sell them toys? It's a theory I guess.MaxPB said:
Sharing intelligence with Russia, since that's where they would get their arms from if we (the west in general) stopped selling to them.Theuniondivvie said:What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
Of course just over a year ago PB Tories in one of their regular fits of hysteria were suggesting that we team up with Putin and Assad to exterminate the greatest threat to Western democracy since, well, the last one, so anything's possible.0 -
New year, new username, same old FoxyMorris_Dancer said:Incidentally, welcome to PB, Mr. Foxy.
0 -
you would be happy for your children to be murdered as long as a profit was being made, get a grip. I have higher morals and would prefer not to have blood on my hands by association with these murderers.MaxPB said:
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...0 -
You dullard , who cares about Russian bombs, it is the lack of morals that you are happy to have children murdered as long as you make the profit rather than the Russians. Tories really are sick.Philip_Thompson said:
How? Do Russian bombs do significantly less damage?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
That's extremely unfair.malcolmg said:
you would be happy for your children to be murdered as long as a profit was being made, get a grip. I have higher morals and would prefer not to have blood on my hands by association with these murderers.MaxPB said:
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
It's only other people's children that Tories don't mind getting pasted.0 -
Because we would not be doing the murdering, bit like being with your pal when he rapes someone and you use the excuse that you were better holding his jacket than a stranger.MaxPB said:
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
Children would be getting murdered either way. War is hell and we operate in the real world.malcolmg said:
You dullard , who cares about Russian bombs, it is the lack of morals that you are happy to have children murdered as long as you make the profit rather than the Russians. Tories really are sick.Philip_Thompson said:
How? Do Russian bombs do significantly less damage?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
Are Tesco's murdering people by selling tobacco?malcolmg said:
Because we would not be doing the murdering, bit like being with your pal when he rapes someone and you use the excuse that you were better holding his jacket than a stranger.MaxPB said:
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?0 -
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.dixiedean said:
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time0 -
I would draw a distinction between decriminalisation for personal use, and legalisation.OldKingCole said:
18th Century slave-traders were carrying out a legal activity. And the LibDems have had legalisation of cannabis al la California for a while.Foxy said:
Perhas a better analogy would be 18th Century slave traders then.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of bhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Personally, I wouldn't take it any further, I hate the damage that drugs do.0 -
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
0 -
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.dixiedean said:
Would hesitate to call an ounce for personal use small.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-425327760 -
Happy New Year everyone!
0 -
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at presentTGOHF said:
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA0 -
They do not sell it to children and trying to equate something stupid like that that speaks a thousand words. Anyone with any morals would prefer not to be involved in murdering other people's children and would not use the excuse that the Russians would do it as justification to line their pockets.Philip_Thompson said:
Are Tesco's murdering people by selling tobacco?malcolmg said:
Because we would not be doing the murdering, bit like being with your pal when he rapes someone and you use the excuse that you were better holding his jacket than a stranger.MaxPB said:
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?malcolmg said:
Almost certainly yes.Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.Theuniondivvie said:
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Tories whinge about Russian involvement in Syria but the UK does it the coward's way by just making a profit.0 -
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.HYUFD said:
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.dixiedean said:
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time0 -
They don't sell it to children as its illegal to sell it to children, just as its illegal under International Law to sell to nations under sanctions.malcolmg said:
They do not sell it to children and trying to equate something stupid like that that speaks a thousand words. Anyone with any morals would prefer not to be involved in murdering other people's children and would not use the excuse that the Russians would do it as justification to line their pockets.Philip_Thompson said:Are Tesco's murdering people by selling tobacco?
Tories whinge about Russian involvement in Syria but the UK does it the coward's way by just making a profit.
If we don't make legal sales then that just provides more finances to those nations that will make the legal sales to do as they please. That doesn't leave anyone any better off.0 -
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..HYUFD said:
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at presentTGOHF said:
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA0 -
I quite like the commute, it is the best chance I get to read the newspaper. Working at home also requires a lot of self discipline because of the distractions and I also like to keep work and home life separate, though I am not anti home working for those who do find they work productively doing itmalcolmg said:
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.HYUFD said:
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.dixiedean said:
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time0 -
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDsTGOHF said:
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..HYUFD said:
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at presentTGOHF said:
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA0 -
@david_herdson:
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.
@dixiedean:
Agree with that.
However, I would say that we now have the opportunity to study a number of different systems of de-crim in societies reasonably similar to our own (Potugal, Holland, Uruguay, Canada, as well as various different US States' legislation.)
There is, therefore the option of studying these experiments, and producing evidence-based legislation here.
Not holding my breath, mind.0 -
Not to mention hours of "conversations" with tedious people.malcolmg said:
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.HYUFD said:
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.dixiedean said:
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time0 -
I have an office and find it easy to focus. Though it is horses for courses as some people cannot handle it all. I find I get much more work done and much less distraction. Biggest drawback for me is doing too many hours as you do not have a strict cutoff to go home I tend to put in too many hours.HYUFD said:
I quite like the commute, it is the best chance I get to read the newspaper. Working at home also requires a lot of self discipline because of the distractions and I also like to keep work and home life separate, though I am not anti home working for those who do find they work productively doing itmalcolmg said:
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.HYUFD said:
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.dixiedean said:
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time0 -
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).HYUFD said:
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDsTGOHF said:
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..HYUFD said:
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at presentTGOHF said:
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.0 -
LOL, spot ondixiedean said:
Not to mention hours of "conversations" with tedious people.malcolmg said:
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.HYUFD said:
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.dixiedean said:
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time0 -
Should parliamentary time be squandered pandering to pot-heads? One or two more important issues to sort out.0
-
Yes at least with traditional office working hours you know you have a start and end timemalcolmg said:
I have an office and find it easy to focus. Though it is horses for courses as some people cannot handle it all. I find I get much more work done and much less distraction. Biggest drawback for me is doing too many hours as you do not have a strict cutoff to go home I tend to put in too many hours.HYUFD said:
I quite like the commute, it is the best chance I get to read the newspaper. Working at home also requires a lot of self discipline because of the distractions and I also like to keep work and home life separate, though I am not anti home working for those who do find they work productively doing itmalcolmg said:
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.HYUFD said:
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.dixiedean said:
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does.Fishing said:
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.stodge said:
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time0 -
Gay marriage probably only passed because the LDs were in a coalition government (more Tory MPs voted against it than voted for it) so yes a coalition government containing the LDs and a shift in public opinion would probably be required for itdavid_herdson said:
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).HYUFD said:
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDsTGOHF said:
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..HYUFD said:
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at presentTGOHF said:
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.0 -
That's no way to talk about Lib Dem Peers!SandyRentool said:Should parliamentary time be squandered pandering to pot-heads? One or two more important issues to sort out.
How many thousands of amendments will they put down on the EU withdrawal bill with no real democratic mandate to justify their 104 seats there based on their party's current support.0 -
Gay marriage passed because equal rights for gays is an idea whose time has come. Name the liberal democracies that don't allow gay marriage please.HYUFD said:
Gay marriage probably only passed because the LDs were in a coalition government (more Tory MPs voted against it than voted for it) so yes a coalition government containing the LDs and a shift in public opinion would probably be required for itdavid_herdson said:
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).HYUFD said:
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDsTGOHF said:
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..HYUFD said:
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at presentTGOHF said:
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.0 -
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage passed because equal rights for gays is an idea whose time has come. Name the liberal democracies that don't allow gay marriage please.HYUFD said:
Gay marriage probably only passed because the LDs were in a coalition government (more Tory MPs voted against it than voted for it) so yes a coalition government containing the LDs and a shift in public opinion would probably be required for itdavid_herdson said:
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).HYUFD said:
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDsTGOHF said:
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..HYUFD said:
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at presentTGOHF said:
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.HYUFD said:
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.0 -
Historic England is not unpersuaded by such arguments...Pro_Rata said:
If the A1 South of Peterborough were a building, it would surely be a Grade 1 listed historic monument by now. It really does just feel like driving back into the 1950s in places, especially through some of the Hertfordshire new towns. And some of the OK Diners and olde worlde service areas extend further north up to Doncaster as well. It's all pretty damn weird tbh.JosiasJessop said:
They can't do much about the Black Cat until they sort out what's happening with the A428. The whole thing needs a bypass: it's mad to think that some houses near Sandy have front doors that open out directly onto the A1 dual carriageway ...Yorkcity said:
The A1 is good now from Catterick down to Peterborough All three laned motorway..However surprisingly crap near London still roundabouts and no upgrading to motorway status .TOPPING said:
Yes fair enough if it's on the spur of the moment it'll cost you. I suppose that's how they structure it, whatever the increase. As to taking a car on the M1? I hate it. Depending on which side of the county you're on, the A1 is a better bet 10/10 times IMO.TwistedFireStopper said:
It was short notice and travelling at peak times. Just done a quick google and the same journey tomorrow would still cost 254 quid. I'd still use the car!TOPPING said:
£300? Not doubting you, obvs, but you must have spent a lot of time trying to find the most expensive ticket available.TwistedFireStopper said:I can count the number of return train journeys I've taken on a couple of limbs (note- I'm not from Norfolk). The last time I considered taking the train down to that shittole London, the quoted price was well North of 300 quid for me and my lad. I declined the chance to spend an hour on a train amongst the plebs and bunged 40 quid worth's of petrol in the car and spent 90 minutes on the M1 instead.
To mangle a quote that Thatcher never said, "anyone on a train paying 550 quid a month to go to that shittole London needs to have a word with themselves"
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1402678
And further...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/nov/27/lancaster-services-m6-listed-status0 -
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html0 -
Margaret Thatcher once famously took David Cameron to task for not being further behind in the polls. She was referring of course to the fact that she was massively behind in the polls between elections but then went on to win the 83 and 87 elections -and her successor, Major did the same in 92. Cameron himself was 12 points behind in the polls but then went on to win in 2015.
Corbyn Labour should be worried about four things. 1). No opposition has ever gone on to form a government without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls. 2). Despite his much vaunted 40% in 2017, this was brought about largely by piling up votes in seats Labour already holds. He is very very bad at winning Tory marginals in Middle England. 3). Theresa May is unpopular and wounded, yet the Tories continue to be level pegging with Labour between elections, holding up in the 40s. What will happen when the Tories have a new and better at fighting elections leader in 2022? 4). A very large number of older Tory voters did not turn out to vote in 2017, angry at a Tory manifesto which attacked their interests, and convinced that Corbyn was no threat. Suppose as is likely that those older voters turn out in their legions in 2022?
Corbyn wont be PM in 2018, or 2019 or 2020 either. But he had better work out fast how to get to 15 points plus in the polls. Otherwise the song will be "No! Jeremy Corbyn"0 -
Pot heads will be pot heads. Key outcome is reduction in criminal activity and freeing up police resources for other priorities.SandyRentool said:Should parliamentary time be squandered pandering to pot-heads? One or two more important issues to sort out.
0 -
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html
0 -
Legalise and regulate makes the most sense from both a utilitarian and moral perspective, IMO.david_herdson said:
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.dixiedean said:
Would hesitate to call an ounce for personal use small.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone...malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42532776
Which is why it won't happen for some time yet...0 -
Rob Hayward is someone very well worth listening to.HYUFD said:
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html0 -
And speaking of the sainted Margaret, funds at the Graun must really be getting stretched and accountants must be buzzing as they have put up a textbook clickbait article by one of the staffers praising one of Grantham's most famous natives (as we're also talking about the A1).stevef said:Margaret Thatcher once famously took David Cameron to task for not being further behind in the polls. She was referring of course to the fact that she was massively behind in the polls between elections but then went on to win the 83 and 87 elections -and her successor, Major did the same in 92. Cameron himself was 12 points behind in the polls but then went on to win in 2015.
Corbyn Labour should be worried about four things. 1). No opposition has ever gone on to form a government without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls. 2). Despite his much vaunted 40% in 2017, this was brought about largely by piling up votes in seats Labour already holds. He is very very bad at winning Tory marginals in Middle England. 3). Theresa May is unpopular and wounded, yet the Tories continue to be level pegging with Labour between elections, holding up in the 40s. What will happen when the Tories have a new and better at fighting elections leader in 2022? 4). A very large number of older Tory voters did not turn out to vote in 2017, angry at a Tory manifesto which attacked their interests, and convinced that Corbyn was no threat. Suppose as is likely that those older voters turn out in their legions in 2022?
Corbyn wont be PM in 2018, or 2019 or 2020 either. But he had better work out fast how to get to 15 points plus in the polls. Otherwise the song will be "No! Jeremy Corbyn"0 -
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.HYUFD said:
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html0 -
That’s not true.stevef said:
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.HYUFD said:
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/0 -
Oh yes there is.HYUFD said:
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html
In 2014 Labour’s lead was 11% in London and the most recent YouGov has Labour 24% ahead.0 -
From the 'you couldn't make it up' file:
"The shadow transport secretary says he was forced to cancel an event as part of protests against rail fare increases - after his train broke down."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-42541650
0 -
Not entirely true. In 1991 Labour had a 3% lead over the Tories and in 2000 the Tories a 2% lead over Labour in the local elections. In 1996 Labour had a 14% lead over the Tories and in 2009 the Tories a 15% lead over Labour in Blair and Cameron's final local elections.stevef said:
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.HYUFD said:
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html
Opposition parties generally need a more than 10% lead in local elections to be sure of forming the next government0 -
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.HYUFD said:Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.0 -
Given the Tory lead in seats in Wandsworth and Westminster means Labour needs 10 to 15 gains in both to win control even that swing may not be enoughTheScreamingEagles said:
Oh yes there is.HYUFD said:
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html
In 2014 Labour’s lead was 11% in London and the most recent YouGov has Labour 24% ahead.0 -
Welcome to the year of The Thorn, folks0
-
No they didn't. Kinnock did modestly in the 1983-7 election (the best of the set being Labour's win in 1985 by 7%, which is low for a mid-term election). He did better in 1987-92 but even there, the biggest lead (on a gigantic turnout) was 11% in 1990, on an election dominated by the Poll Tax - an issue which was dumped by the Tories by the time of the general election. In any case, you weren't talking about that parliament.stevef said:
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.HYUFD said:
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.Richard_Nabavi said:Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html
Hague chalked up some impressive totals of gains during 1998-2000 but that was off the back of a truly catastrophic cycle for the Tories from 1994-96. In terms of vote share, he lost two of the three and won the last one by only 2%, with a vote share of less than one-third (the Lib Dems polled some 26%).
In each case, the underlying weakness of the opposition was clear for those prepared to look for it.0 -
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather than a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriagePhilip_Thompson said:
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.HYUFD said:Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.0 -
Toby Young must surely regret accepting the appointment to that Universities-R-Us thing. All his embarrassing past pronouncements are getting dredged up making him look a bit of an arse.0
-
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.HYUFD said:
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriagePhilip_Thompson said:
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.HYUFD said:Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.0 -
-
0
-
You mean CROSSOVER!!!!Theuniondivvie said:0 -
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.Philip_Thompson said:
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.HYUFD said:
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriagePhilip_Thompson said:
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.HYUFD said:Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage0 -
LAB: 42% (+1)
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)
GRN: 1% (-1)
UNCROSSSOVEEEERRRR0 -
That was posted yesterday and would see 290 Labour MPs and 288 ToryTheuniondivvie said:0 -
I laugh in the face of your MOE changes.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
I would disagree. The RCPsych review here on the link between cannabis use, poor school performance, poor work performance, mental health etc is here and quite evidence based:david_herdson said:
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.dixiedean said:
Would hesitate to call an ounce for personal use small.David_Evershed said:
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.Philip_Thompson said:
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.Foxy said:
The drug dealers and pimps defence...Philip_Thompson said:
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?malcolmg said:
You seen the .Philip_Thompson said:
We're not murdering anyone.malcolmg said:
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.Philip_Thompson said:
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?malcolmg said:
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
If ?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Perhaps we should be better than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42532776
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme=mobile
Decriminalisation without legalisation means that youngsters are safe from prosecution, but as a civil rather than criminal act, be directed towards drug rehab and counselling rather than a criminal record. Obviously these would need to be adequately resourced.
While being permanently stoned may make Brexit Britain more tolerable, it would not improve the countries prospects.0 -
Experience suggests that he doesn’t mind that.Stark_Dawning said:Toby Young must surely regret accepting the appointment to that Universities-R-Us thing. All his embarrassing past pronouncements are getting dredged up making him look a bit of an arse.
0 -
I don't think you're right. Cameron was always a liberal leader and he would have likely still proposed gay marriage even without the Lib Dems which would have been passed with opposition votes.HYUFD said:
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.Philip_Thompson said:
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.HYUFD said:
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriagePhilip_Thompson said:
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.HYUFD said:Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage0 -
He would not have risked splitting the party in such a way without the buttress of the Coalition at that timePhilip_Thompson said:
I don't think you're right. Cameron was always a liberal leader and he would have likely still proposed gay marriage even without the Lib Dems which would have been passed with opposition votes.HYUFD said:
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.Philip_Thompson said:
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.HYUFD said:
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriagePhilip_Thompson said:
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.HYUFD said:Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage0 -
Regardless of how and why it was implemented, what is extraordinary is how uncontroversial it has now become.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think you're right. Cameron was always a liberal leader and he would have likely still proposed gay marriage even without the Lib Dems which would have been passed with opposition votes.HYUFD said:
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.Philip_Thompson said:
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.HYUFD said:
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriagePhilip_Thompson said:
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.HYUFD said:Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage
Only the political fringe now opposes it.
This has held true everywhere it has been introduced.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
The latest poll today gives Labour a tiny lead and a projected seat tally of 290. So despite the unpopularity of May's government, the best that Corbyn Labour can be projected for between elections is to be 36 seats short of a majority, and unable to carry out its programme even if were to to come to office.
Compare that with similar polls between elections which gave Kinnock and Miliband double digit leads and projected majority government seat tallies of 350 plus.
As Andrew Rawnsley pointed out in the Observer yesterday, Corbyn and his gang should stop doing hubristic laps of honour after the defeat in 2017, stop taking the electorate for granted by declaring himself prime minister by Christmas 2017, oops sorry that's 2018, and start working out how a 73 year old Marxist demagogue is going to win 60 Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022.0 -
The Swiss introduced it quite a while back - you have to be a registered addict but any GP can prescribe it. When they introduced it, burglary rates (already low) dropped massively. Some years later, an evangelical group organised a referendum to try to reverse the change. They were defeated - the Swiss are by no means radical, but they're open to new ideas that actually are shown to work. You don't bankrupt yourself, you don't need to become a criminal, you don't need to trade with a criminal and the person you do deal with (your GP) can gently suggest ways to come off it (whereas a criminal dealer will encourage you to take more).Stark_Dawning said:
Quite right. To me the case for state-supplied heroin seems incontrovertible. Sadly, no politician would ever propose it for fear of being labelled the druggy's friend. (Dave seemed to be toying with this idea before he became leader, but backed off.)
I was told it doesn't happen for crack since apparently a crack addict needs several doses per day, and the GPs and pharmacies would be overwhelmed.
SeanT's view on this issue would be genuinely interesting.
0
