politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Javid goes on the offensive at cabinet over cannabis for medic
Comments
-
And Mrs May’s. No decision until there’s absolutely no time to change her mind!MarqueeMark said:
There won't be a Brexit deal until 48 hours before we are due to leave. It's the EU way.....Scott_P said:
However, there’ll be several ‘deals’ before!0 -
That's a pretty broad statement: do you have any evidence to back that claim up? I mean, you can make a case with automotive or financial services*, but not really for any other sectors that I can think of.ralphmalph said:Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not.
* And even there, we do lots of trade with the rest of the world. Before we sold it to the Swiss, my fund management company's biggest clients were in Australia. And Jaguar and Aston Martin are increasing global in outlook.0 -
Valium is tightly controlled at the GP end. They get flashing red messages on their patient information screen when they try and prescribe it and iirc are measured by some outside agency or other in the NHS system as to how much each GP is letting slip through their fingers.Fenster said:
And criminalisation of drugs is a magic bullet?
I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.
I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.
---------------------------------------------------
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
This is in response to the 1960s/70s housewives all addicted to Valium scare presumably.0 -
Nigelb said:
Yorkshire in a spot of bother.
Cometh the hour, cometh the Kohler-Cadmore ... ?
He goeth to the dressing room.
0 -
I think Minford et al made their forecasts pretty clear and were received with scepticism only because they accepted that their proposed solution would have spelled the end of domestic manufacturing and some commentators, as well as practitioners, baulked at that.ralphmalph said:@Topping -
Ignoring the short term impact and Carney's response, what the forecasts did I believe is this.
Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can now make, out of the EU, do to the growth rate.
Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. This is silly, and it is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate. They did factor in Tariffs and NTB's but based no thought on how to mitigate them or reduce their impacts.
One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it.
What a state the countries economic profession is in.
But yes, your central thrust its the nail on the head - do we try to remain as close as possible to the EU thereby incurring some limited amount of damage, or do we tear up the rule book and start again, thereby trying to reposition ourselves somehow.
The former is the more attainable (politically as well as practically) while the latter will involve breaking a lot of eggs in the meantime for no certain (!) beneficial outcome in the long run*.
*when you know what happens.0 -
Don't worry, it was a success! We were told so this morning!FrancisUrquhart said:All accounted for, the party spent £400,000 to entertain a 4,000-strong group of its most hardcore, mostly London-based supporters.
Michael Foot rallied 40,000 of the Labour faithful, and even Neil Kinnock managed 10,000, both for considerably less than Labour Live’s £100-a-head cost, but the applause did not translate to votes in the elections that followed.
https://www.theredroar.com/2018/06/the-true-cost-of-labour-live/
It'll be interesting to see if they really do try to do the same thing next year ...0 -
And criminalisation of drugs is a magic bullet?Fenster said:
I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.
I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.
---------------------------------------------------
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
Drugs cause mental illness to afflict those with a hereditary or genetic predisposition to it. Individuals who do them are dicing with the possibility of instigating life ruining Schizophrenia or variants of this debilitating condition. Anyone who thinks Drugs should be decriminalized is frankly stupid. Drugs and the people who push them on others are frankly evil and should be dealt with in the harshest terms.
0 -
https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/1008701409141895169?s=20
Son of immigrant married to immigrant complains about immigrants....0 -
Mr. Jessop, it'll be more and more successful if they do, financially at least.
The problem is that a crowd of cultists singing Corbyn's name might delight the well-dressed socialists of Islington, but is unlike to enthuse the rest of the nation.0 -
.
0 -
A preview of the inefficiencies to come when they get into power?FrancisUrquhart said:All accounted for, the party spent £400,000 to entertain a 4,000-strong group of its most hardcore, mostly London-based supporters.
Michael Foot rallied 40,000 of the Labour faithful, and even Neil Kinnock managed 10,000, both for considerably less than Labour Live’s £100-a-head cost, but the applause did not translate to votes in the elections that followed.
https://www.theredroar.com/2018/06/the-true-cost-of-labour-live/0 -
he;s fine thanks , when youre 22 it's all a big laughTOPPING said:
The NIESR "jumbled a whole lot of factors...snipped uninformed garbage"Alanbrooke said:no they jumbled a whole lot of factors few of which are based on anything they could know and called it a forecast.
it is the role of the forecaster to permanently explain why his last guess wasn't correct but why his next one is.
the point of a forecast imo isn't to give you an answer but to make you think about what is important and hence how youre going to handle it.
and then there's Deus ex Machina the things the forecasters just cant quantify because they don't even think about them. Trump, Merkel losing her job, Jezza, the Yellowstone Caldera.
shit happens and forecasts guarantee nothing.
Yesterday Mrs Brooke was as happy as a pig in the proverbial as Junior was having a whale of a time Japan. He's in Osaka, now she's less happy.
I agree with your point about forecasts' usefulness but really, to dismiss them in the way you just spelled out is asinine squared.
I very much hope your son is ok.
I don't necessarily dismiss the forecasts, I dismiss the people who abuse them.
Personally I expected the economy to slow off a bit due to the uncertainty and for investment to have a wobble. I'm pleasantly surprised the economy has held up as it has.
Since 2016 however we have had sufficient changes to base forecasts as to make the pre Brexit ones irrelevant.
Trump, Cameron flounce, TMay cant negotiate, oil prices, QE, exchange rates. Like every forecast it's time to forget what has been and look forward.
Trade wars, Merkel, Italy, Juncker goes, EU slowdown, China slowdown, oil price drops.
plus all the things we don't know which lurk round the corner and which will make our best guesses laughable.
0 -
Drug rooms might be a start. If the Scottish party that says it will ensure Scotland's voice will be heard in cabinet stopped opposing them, the Home Office may actually take notice.DavidL said:
No you don't. We manage to prescribe industrial quantities of morphine after all. But I do think that it is past time that we looked again at the legalisation of drugs. The Portuguese experience is stark: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.htmlRobD said:
You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.DavidL said:
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.JosiasJessop said:I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.
But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.0 -
---------------------------------------------------The_Taxman said:
And criminalisation of drugs is a magic bullet?Fenster said:
I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.
I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
Drugs cause mental illness to afflict those with a hereditary or genetic predisposition to it. Individuals who do them are dicing with the possibility of instigating life ruining Schizophrenia or variants of this debilitating condition. Anyone who thinks Drugs should be decriminalized is frankly stupid. Drugs and the people who push them on others are frankly evil and should be dealt with in the harshest terms.
And alcohol is different how? Tobacco isn’t quite as addictive but the physical problems resulting from abuse can be really nasty.
No-one is suggesting a total free-for all for ‘drugs’; or for all drugs. Managed supply, like alcohol, is the way forward.0 -
Good to hear it, and yes, I was in an earthquake in Japan at around that age. Funniest thing that had happened the whole trip (apart from the love hotels).Alanbrooke said:
he;s fine thanks , when youre 22 it's all a big laughTOPPING said:
The NIESR "jumbled a whole lot of factors...snipped uninformed garbage"Alanbrooke said:no they jumbled a whole lot of factors few of which are based on anything they could know and called it a forecast.
it is the role of the forecaster to permanently explain why his last guess wasn't correct but why his next one is.
the point of a forecast imo isn't to give you an answer but to make you think about what is important and hence how youre going to handle it.
and then there's Deus ex Machina the things the forecasters just cant quantify because they don't even think about them. Trump, Merkel losing her job, Jezza, the Yellowstone Caldera.
shit happens and forecasts guarantee nothing.
Yesterday Mrs Brooke was as happy as a pig in the proverbial as Junior was having a whale of a time Japan. He's in Osaka, now she's less happy.
I agree with your point about forecasts' usefulness but really, to dismiss them in the way you just spelled out is asinine squared.
I very much hope your son is ok.
I don't necessarily dismiss the forecasts, I dismiss the people who abuse them.
Personally I expected the economy to slow off a bit due to the uncertainty and for investment to have a wobble. I'm pleasantly surprised the economy has held up as it has.
Since 2016 however we have had sufficient changes to base forecasts as to make the pre Brexit ones irrelevant.
Trump, Cameron flounce, TMay cant negotiate, oil prices, QE, exchange rates. Like every forecast it's time to forget what has been and look forward.
Trade wars, Merkel, Italy, Juncker goes, EU slowdown, China slowdown, oil price drops.
plus all the things we don't know which lurk round the corner and which will make our best guesses laughable.0 -
No my central point is we do not know what the future holds from any forecasts because they have not even used the correct thought process to compare the different economic models.TOPPING said:
I think Minford et al made their forecasts pretty clear and were received with scepticism only because they accepted that their proposed solution would have spelled the end of domestic manufacturing and some commentators, as well as practitioners, baulked at that.ralphmalph said:@Topping -
Ignoring the short term impact and Carney's response, what the forecasts did I believe is this.
Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can now make, out of the EU, do to the growth rate.
Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. This is silly, and it is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate. They did factor in Tariffs and NTB's but based no thought on how to mitigate them or reduce their impacts.
One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it.
What a state the countries economic profession is in.
But yes, your central thrust its the nail on the head - do we try to remain as close as possible to the EU thereby incurring some limited amount of damage, or do we tear up the rule book and start again, thereby trying to reposition ourselves somehow.
The former is the more attainable (politically as well as practically) while the latter will involve breaking a lot of eggs in the meantime for no certain (!) beneficial outcome in the long run*.
*when you know what happens.0 -
There are types of migrant in Trump's small mind. I don't need to spell out how his categorisation system works.CarlottaVance said:https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/1008701409141895169?s=20
Son of immigrant married to immigrant complains about immigrants....0 -
Oh I see they have the wrong thought process. Right, k.ralphmalph said:
No my central point is we do not know what the future holds from any forecasts because they have not even used the correct thought process to compare the different economic models.TOPPING said:
I think Minford et al made their forecasts pretty clear and were received with scepticism only because they accepted that their proposed solution would have spelled the end of domestic manufacturing and some commentators, as well as practitioners, baulked at that.ralphmalph said:@Topping -
Ignoring the short term impact and Carney's response, what the forecasts did I believe is this.
Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can now make, out of the EU, do to the growth rate.
Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. This is silly, and it is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate. They did factor in Tariffs and NTB's but based no thought on how to mitigate them or reduce their impacts.
One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it.
What a state the countries economic profession is in.
But yes, your central thrust its the nail on the head - do we try to remain as close as possible to the EU thereby incurring some limited amount of damage, or do we tear up the rule book and start again, thereby trying to reposition ourselves somehow.
The former is the more attainable (politically as well as practically) while the latter will involve breaking a lot of eggs in the meantime for no certain (!) beneficial outcome in the long run*.
*when you know what happens.0 -
Crickey Panama should have scored there.0
-
Ascot train strike is off.0
-
Javid being a bit too blatant with his positioning for a leadership contest now perhaps?0
-
-
There is a tide in the affairs of man etc...kle4 said:Javid being a bit too blatant with his positioning for a leadership contest now perhaps?
0 -
Are we sure it is Javid leaking? Half the Cabinet is likely jockeying for position now.kle4 said:Javid being a bit too blatant with his positioning for a leadership contest now perhaps?
0 -
Mr. kle4, he'll be aided by Boris' sickeningly, odiously, obvious self-regard and naked ambition in this aspect. It's raised the bar.0
-
I can see England having a frustrating night against Panama. They seem very good at disrupting play with "Italian style" defending.0
-
It seems that the current Home Secretary is looking to seize the agenda. Can’t think why.0
-
And why not. May could be gone by Friday.DecrepitJohnL said:
Are we sure it is Javid leaking? Half the Cabinet is likely jockeying for position now.kle4 said:Javid being a bit too blatant with his positioning for a leadership contest now perhaps?
0 -
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.0 -
It’s the wrong question. Does the public nevertheless support this spending item? I expect the answer is a resounding yes. The dishonesty is priced into politics.Scott_P said:0 -
Lukaku hasn't strayed from the penalty spot for ages and has always been calling for the ball; typical goalhanger....and *that* is why!!0
-
Mr. Meeks, nonsense. He's merely the humble son of a bus driver who is deeply concerned about injustice.0
-
Has anyone seen odds on the German debate? Who will lose their job first - Angela Merkel or Joachim Löw?0
-
Also, we continually over-estimate how much the public (not the ones answering polls) actually are aware and remember things. I would suggest in 3 months they may remember more money for the NHS, even that isn't a cert.AlastairMeeks said:
It’s the wrong question. Does the public nevertheless support this spending item? I expect the answer is a resounding yes. The dishonesty is priced into politics.Scott_P said:
New Labour were brilliant at shaping a message and pumping it day in day out, because they realized Mondeo Man doesn't spend their days on PB.com. For those more politically engaged, it was frustrating to hear the say BS from every Labour minister, not matter if it had been debunked or repeated 100 times, but the normal member of the public they probably only heard it once.0 -
Mr. Aldo, wilkommen zum PB.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.0 -
Bloody goal-hanger at it again.TOPPING said:Lukaku hasn't strayed from the penalty spot for ages and has always been calling for the ball; typical goalhanger....and *that* is why!!
0 -
Ive been pushing May or Merkel for most of the last 12 monthsMagicAldo said:Has anyone seen odds on the German debate? Who will lose their job first - Angela Merkel or Joachim Löw?
0 -
Re Patrick Minford and no tariffs.
I think there are two reasonable objections one can make:
1. South Korea has managed the near impossible feat of having FTAs with every major industrialised country in the world. Why? Because it has pretty high tariffs under MFN, and therefore the gains for countries in signing an FTA with South Korea are high.
2. His analysis ignores NTBs. The risk with going zero tariff, and not thinking about NTBs is that parliament is used as a piecemeal method of applying restrictictions to other countries selling into the UK. Essentially, we end up with what India had for a long-time: producer capture, where rules and regulations discourage imports. This is a particular issue for us, as we're a relatively small market.0 -
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Aldo, wilkommen zum PB.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.0 -
It might not be him leaking, but given it leaks like the proverbial sieve, he would know that challenging her like that would be reported.DecrepitJohnL said:
Are we sure it is Javid leaking? Half the Cabinet is likely jockeying for position now.kle4 said:Javid being a bit too blatant with his positioning for a leadership contest now perhaps?
0 -
Merkel crapped on Europe by throwing the doors open to all and sundry and then telling everyone they had to share the problem she created.kle4 said:
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Aldo, wilkommen zum PB.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
0 -
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.Scott_P said:0 -
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this messCasino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.0 -
Yes, but she's learnt her lesson nowkle4 said:
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Aldo, wilkommen zum PB.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
0 -
LOLZA - another chance to laugh at yesterday's thread header.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/10087519068424642560 -
What a good day its been in the drug policy debate on medical cannabis.Firstly,Labour has come out in favour of decriminalisation for medical users and a wider look at the matter as a whole.The Lib Dems and SDP are already on-board as now are the DUP,Murdoch,Rothermere and assorted others.Secondly,government is facing calls from its own side from unusual sources in the Tory party,not the usual suspects,eg Mike Penning.
Absolute key now is to get the right doctors on the new panel.I nominate Dr Lester Greenspoon,Harvard psychiatrist aged 89,who can tell them how cannabis saved his son's life during treatment for leucemia.0 -
I doubt itrcs1000 said:
Yes, but she's learnt her lesson nowkle4 said:
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Aldo, wilkommen zum PB.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
she's playing her old anaconda tactics to see if she can strangle the opposition0 -
This is paranoid as the withdrawal agreement will only contain a political statement about the future relationship and this can be very thin if nothing is agreed at that point. The details will still need to be negotiated post-Brexit.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.0 -
It certainly doesn't seem that big a hurdle to overcome as these things go.RobD said:
Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.Anazina said:
How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.0 -
Never laugh at the prospect of Scottish Independence is my motto. Those numbers can change quickly.TGOHF said:LOLZA - another chance to laugh at yesterday's thread header.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/10087519068424642560 -
Well it was a small majority so I doubt it would have been easy, it would still be messy, but clearly it would have been easier.bigjohnowls said:
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this messCasino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.0 -
Mr. Owls, perhaps. Knowing May she would have managed to contrive a crisis anyway (to be fair, she is in a challenging position. And rubbish).0
-
The public are inherently dishonest too.AlastairMeeks said:
It’s the wrong question. Does the public nevertheless support this spending item? I expect the answer is a resounding yes. The dishonesty is priced into politics.Scott_P said:
When asked if they were willing to give up a bit more of their inheritance to fund their elderly parents social care - which would increae local government funding for social care (including home care) and reduce pressure on the NHS by limiting bed blocking - they apparently said no in large numbers.
It's quite crazy that we have a welfare system - via pension credit - and a social care system - via home helps - that provides taxpayer cash to multi millionaires (in property terms).0 -
Not surprising. TM has gone to pot.0
-
Indy is done for an English generation.kle4 said:
Never laugh at the prospect of Scottish Independence is my motto. Those numbers can change quickly.TGOHF said:LOLZA - another chance to laugh at yesterday's thread header.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1008751906842464256
0 -
The definition of supplier can be linked to how much you are caught with.Anazina said:
Eh? Don't understand how that relates to my reply, sorry.RobD said:
Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.Anazina said:
How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.
"10 days of personal use"? What does that mean?0 -
1 Pickford
2 Walker
5 Stones
6 Maguire
8 Henderson
12 Trippier
7 Lingard
20 Alli
18 Young
9 Kane
10 Sterling
Predictable, but still disappointing.0 -
Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski has been told no action will be taken over claims he acted inappropriately towards a female researcher.
Mr Kawczynski was referred to the Conservatives' internal disciplinary committee after media reports he tried to set up a date between a visitor and the woman in 2013.
He always denied the allegations.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-445235730 -
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.bigjohnowls said:
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this messCasino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.0 -
The 9 year old goalie will at least have some older 11 year olds in front of him.....FrancisUrquhart said:1 Pickford
2 Walker
5 Stones
6 Maguire
8 Henderson
12 Trippier
7 Lingard
20 Alli
18 Young
9 Kane
10 Sterling
Predictable, but still disappointing.0 -
This is what concerns me.
There is currently little scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of these oils as a treatment for epilepsy, although they do contain the same active ingredients.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-445190580 -
Has anyone worked out if that is actually true based on the Brexit leanings of those who lost seats and newly-elected MPs?bigjohnowls said:
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this messCasino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.0 -
I could see that. The 'stay at home next time' next time reaction arising from a deal which disappoints even a minority of the party could be enough.Casino_Royale said:
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.bigjohnowls said:
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this messCasino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.0 -
This Government is being led from the bottom up.surby said:Not surprising. TM has gone to pot.
Gove on the environment, Hunt on Health, and Javid now on migration and law & order.
Theresa May is providing no leadership whatsoever.0 -
She's only there to see Brexit through and take as much of the hit from that as can be managed. It's why she she has survived thus far, as I don't think the others want to take on the job at this juncture. But they seem to be on active maneuvers, suggesting things have spiraled enough that they might risk moving before it is done after all.Casino_Royale said:
This Government is being led from the bottom up.surby said:Not surprising. TM has gone to pot.
Gove on the environment, Hunt on Health, and Javid now on migration and law & order.
Theresa May is providing no leadership whatsoever.0 -
This is why it's in the interests of the Conservative party to hold a people's vote on the Brexit deal, otherwise they may be forced into a General Election in a position of extreme weakness.Casino_Royale said:
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.bigjohnowls said:
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this messCasino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.0 -
I think Canada's already been through this debate. Possessing 30 g of dried cannabis is legal. Sorry, I have no idea if this is a little or a lot. I haven't taken it since university.RobD said:
The definition of supplier can be linked to how much you are caught with.Anazina said:
Eh? Don't understand how that relates to my reply, sorry.RobD said:
Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.Anazina said:
How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.
"10 days of personal use"? What does that mean?0 -
Whether Javid is leaking or not, he certainly knows that on this topic he has an open goal in front of him.0
-
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.0
-
Sounds significant - how many of the remainer rebels will decide the deceit from last time from May justifies them not playing ball? Presumably the Lords think it will be close.williamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
It seems to me that the nub of the problem is that society/politics and logic/science don't seem to mix very well.
That looks set to be our undoing, unless we heed wisdom.0 -
Lords. Signing. Their. Death. Warrant......williamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
Or maybe it is just the fact that they are so useless and have taken so long to come up with nothing.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.0 -
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately the unelected Lords can only delay not blockwilliamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
LOL, Toom Tabard is ever hopeful for his mastersTGOHF said:
Indy is done for an English generation.kle4 said:
Never laugh at the prospect of Scottish Independence is my motto. Those numbers can change quickly.TGOHF said:LOLZA - another chance to laugh at yesterday's thread header.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/10087519068424642560 -
The government won a close vote through deceit (or at least that is what several MPs feel happened, which amounts to the same outcome even if there was no intention to deceive) - the Lords can probably justify seeing if the Commons really does feel the way it previously indicated.MarqueeMark said:
Lords. Signing. Their. Death. Warrant......williamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
But do it on too many votes, or a third time if the Commons send it back again, and I should think that would be pushing it for many people.0 -
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.HYUFD said:
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not blockwilliamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
An ounce. Significant, but not excessive amount.rural_voter said:
I think Canada's already been through this debate. Possessing 30 g of dried cannabis is legal. Sorry, I have no idea if this is a little or a lot. I haven't taken it since university.RobD said:
The definition of supplier can be linked to how much you are caught with.Anazina said:
Eh? Don't understand how that relates to my reply, sorry.RobD said:
Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.Anazina said:
How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.
"10 days of personal use"? What does that mean?0 -
She couldn’t flush a toilet.malcolmg said:
Or maybe it is just the fact that they are so useless and have taken so long to come up with nothing.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.0 -
Don't forget 20% of UKIP voters went for Corbyn too and could also go back if too many concessions to the EUCasino_Royale said:
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.bigjohnowls said:
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this messCasino_Royale said:
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.Scott_P said:
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.0 -
Theoretically the Commons could amend the Parliament Act if needed, in 1911 the Commons forced the Lords to move from being a blocking to delaying bodywilliamglenn said:
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.HYUFD said:
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not blockwilliamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
Tories will never get rid of their trough, that is for certain.MarqueeMark said:
Lords. Signing. Their. Death. Warrant......williamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
There isn't even a genuine Commons majority against the amendment so this is firmly in the realms of fantasy.HYUFD said:
Theoretically the Commons could amend the Parliament Act if needed, in 1911 the Commons forced the Lords to move from being a blocking to delaying bodywilliamglenn said:
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.HYUFD said:
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not blockwilliamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
Nay, Mr Dancer; I'm afraid to say your knowledge of the nation is as poor as your grasp of history. We were informed this morning that this successful event would lead to more votes for Labour, perhaps even enough for them to win the next election.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, it'll be more and more successful if they do, financially at least.
The problem is that a crowd of cultists singing Corbyn's name might delight the well-dressed socialists of Islington, but is unlike to enthuse the rest of the nation.
Pensioners would see the hordes enraptured at Jezza's words, throw down their zimmer frames and strut their funky stuff as they put their cross against Labour. Businessmen would start waving glow-sticks in the air as they jive down to polling stations. Poor mothers would buy £100 t-shirts of Jezza's face for each of their kids instead of food, knowing that the feelings of self-righteousness would feed them for a month.
Even you might feel the immutable force of the Jezza.
LOL.
0 -
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.TGOHF said:LOLZA - another chance to laugh at yesterday's thread header.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/10087519068424642560 -
Delay for 12 months!HYUFD said:
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately the unelected Lords can only delay not blockwilliamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
There was when it was voted on and in any case the Commons has already voted by a huge majority to leave the Single Market and a comfortable majority to leave the Customs Union so the most it can do is try and ensure we move towards a Canada style FTA with the EU which is May's aim anywaywilliamglenn said:
There isn't even a genuine Commons majority against the amendment so this is firmly in the realms of fantasy.HYUFD said:
Theoretically the Commons could amend the Parliament Act if needed, in 1911 the Commons forced the Lords to move from being a blocking to delaying bodywilliamglenn said:
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.HYUFD said:
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not blockwilliamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
0 -
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.kle4 said:
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.Scott_P said:
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?0 -
It seems Tunisia have taken the Republic of Ireland under Jack Charlton's approach to international football.0
-
As I have already pointed out the Commons could even amend the Parliament Act to reduce that time if it really wanted as in 1911 it forced the Lords to become a delaying not a blocking body.justin124 said:
Delay for 12 months!HYUFD said:
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately the unelected Lords can only delay not blockwilliamglenn said:Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
May could even appoint 200 Leaver peers if she wanted as well even if the Lords then became standing room only I doubt she would care0 -
I doubt this is going to go down well with the scorched earth school of Brexit:
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1008688962486132737?s=210 -
Theresa May (and presumably Jeremy Hunt as well) wants to undo the Lansley NHS reforms.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/18/theresa-may-pledges-overhaul-david-cameron-health-reforms-get/0 -
Anyone in France with a pair of boots and a Tunisian grandmother?FrancisUrquhart said:It seems Tunisia have taken the Republic of Ireland under Jack Charlton's approach to international football.
0 -
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will riseStereotomy said:
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.kle4 said:
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.Scott_P said:
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?0 -
Tunisia's defence looks pretty ropey.0
-
I think once the first three are in, the goals could really flow......0
-
That reminds me that Dominic Cummings was threatening a referendum on the ECHR as the next phase of the culture war. Whatever happened to that?AlastairMeeks said:I doubt this is going to go down well with the scorched earth school of Brexit
0 -
We are going to win the world cup, right?0
