Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gove’s white lines are a red line for a majority of the electo

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited June 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gove’s white lines are a red line for a majority of the electorate

And now with Michael Gove admitting to cocaine use when he was younger, we found that 56% of Brits think this should disqualify someone from top office https://t.co/997tPlJLel

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,122
    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,122
    Vaguely related point, I'm surprised that Mordaunt has seemingly decided not to run.

    Perhaps lacks the support of her colleagues?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,129
    edited June 9
    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 447

    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?

    No. Doing drugs, getting sacked for lying and being a complete buffoon are one thing, but attacking the heir to the throne is quite another:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=aKmf7p304go
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,129

    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?

    No. Doing drugs, getting sacked for lying and being a complete buffoon are one thing, but attacking the heir to the throne is quite another:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=aKmf7p304go
    The main part I got annoyed at was when he called Hitler German TBH...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    Fourth like the sliding Tories
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 447

    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?

    No. Doing drugs, getting sacked for lying and being a complete buffoon are one thing, but attacking the heir to the throne is quite another:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=aKmf7p304go
    The main part I got annoyed at was when he called Hitler German TBH...
    I wouldn’t expect that Gove clip to annoy you, or to annoy most reasonable, well-adjusted, sane adults. But then, it is not people like that who are going to choose the next PM. It is Tory MPs and Tory members, and many of them are stark-raving bonkers

    There is not much that unites the modern Conservative and Unionist Party, but one thing is love of Her Majesty and her family. She will not be amused with Herr Gove.

    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    FPT:


    Corbyn is at his best campaigning, as we saw last time.

    He lost to Theresa May. He's not very good.

    He only got away with it because expectations were even lower than his performance.
    Do you believe everyone voted in the general election on the basis of performance in the election campaign?

    It seems like a flawed hypothesis.

    I might suggest a better way to assess campaigning performance might be the change from the beginning of the campaign to the end. In fairness part of that was simply Labour being able to get its message out in a way it can't outside of a GE.
    Notice the Corbynite hypothesis is moving on from people having liked a politician who appeared honest and plain-speaking and who stuck to his principles through thick and thin?

    Labour politicians are on the media all the time. The “no attention outside an election” argument might stand up for a minor party, but not the official opposition!.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    edited June 9

    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?

    No. Doing drugs, getting sacked for lying and being a complete buffoon are one thing, but attacking the heir to the throne is quite another:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=aKmf7p304go
    The main part I got annoyed at was when he called Hitler German TBH...
    I wouldn’t expect that Gove clip to annoy you, or to annoy most reasonable, well-adjusted, sane adults. But then, it is not people like that who are going to choose the next PM. It is Tory MPs and Tory members, and many of them are stark-raving bonkers

    There is not much that unites the modern Conservative and Unionist Party, but one thing is love of Her Majesty and her family. She will not be amused with Herr Gove.

    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?
    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,451
    Surprised that amphetamines are more acceptable than ecstasy.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    edited June 9
    Isn’t the more concerning part of the Mail story that Gove was writing anti-drugs articles at the same time?

    And the possible US travel ban is a nice journalistic twist, for a future PM, even if surely fabricated?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,129
    edited June 9
    rcs1000 said:

    Surprised that amphetamines are more acceptable than ecstasy.

    TBH always saw them as much the same, I was wondering about the slight difference between them...
    IanB2 said:

    FPT:


    Corbyn is at his best campaigning, as we saw last time.

    He lost to Theresa May. He's not very good.

    He only got away with it because expectations were even lower than his performance.
    Do you believe everyone voted in the general election on the basis of performance in the election campaign?

    It seems like a flawed hypothesis.

    I might suggest a better way to assess campaigning performance might be the change from the beginning of the campaign to the end. In fairness part of that was simply Labour being able to get its message out in a way it can't outside of a GE.
    Notice the Corbynite hypothesis is moving on from people having liked a politician who appeared honest and plain-speaking and who stuck to his principles through thick and thin?

    Labour politicians are on the media all the time. The “no attention outside an election” argument might stand up for a minor party, but not the official opposition!.
    What?

    I was talking about Corbyn's campaigning ability and the best way to assess it, not sure where you get that first sentence from...

    Did I say attention?

    I said message, basically our policies, that is how we attracted votes last time. The papers for example usually give Labour plenty of attention but very little to do with our message.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,129
    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,105
    IanB2 said:

    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”

    Good to see that some aspects of the Soviet Union haven't been lost to history......
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    The Conservatives are readying themselves for election battle against Corbyn, but what could have been one of their most potent weapons now lies blunted in their hand. They cannot warn that Corbyn is a dangerous revolutionary, any more than they could ever again repeat their promise of strong and stable government. For they are dangerous revolutionaries now too. Just as their own record on Islamophobia prevents them launching a credible attack on Labour antisemitism – and note the depressing fact that the new MP for Peterborough gave an online nod to talk of “Zionist slave masters”, apologising once it came to light – so they cannot accuse Labour of wanting to tear down the existing order in a rampage fuelled by ideological zeal. They cannot make that accusation because they would be describing themselves.

    This is what happens when you allow Nigel Farage to dictate the terms of political trade. A party that once presented itself as the guardian of cautious common sense is now consumed by fervour, ready to burn everything down, and all for the promise of distant, utopian bliss.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/07/brexit-strange-death-british-conservatism
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 25,040
    IanB2 said:

    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”

    Has he yet completed the last reshuffle?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,280

    IanB2 said:

    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”

    Has he yet completed the last reshuffle?
    Seems like Corbyn is very much emboldened by the Peterborough result to continue with his policy of ambiguity
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901
    Pulpstar said:

    IanB2 said:

    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”

    Has he yet completed the last reshuffle?
    Seems like Corbyn is very much emboldened by the Peterborough result to continue with his policy of ambiguity
    Demothing Thornbury is not ambiguity, it is Lexitism.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,105
    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IanB2 said:

    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”

    Has he yet completed the last reshuffle?
    Seems like Corbyn is very much emboldened by the Peterborough result to continue with his policy of ambiguity
    Demothing Thornbury is not ambiguity, it is Lexitism.
    On the upside, she won't have holes in her garments....
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,129
    edited June 9
    @Foxy

    Not quite my position but a reasonable one.

    As for the 'senior Labour sources' I'm calling BS. Corbyn rarely fires people especially without good reason. There was Benn as part of the coup attempt, a couple over EU votes and going against the whip (some resignations there) Sarah Champion over an article in the Sun, Chris Williamson I think then is most of them. As the party will probably end up adopting a second referendum policy at conference I can't see it.

    It would also be a pointless provocation, which is why I'm guessing the people who briefed it are briefing it rather than it being true. Although I'll wait to be surprised...

    Edit: The 'senior Labour sources' are the ones working for the Lib Dems, albeit indirectly...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IanB2 said:

    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”

    Has he yet completed the last reshuffle?
    Seems like Corbyn is very much emboldened by the Peterborough result to continue with his policy of ambiguity
    Demothing Thornbury is not ambiguity, it is Lexitism.
    On the upside, she won't have holes in her garments....
    Surely agree that Thornbury should not be holy exposed?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,142
    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    That's a really powerful argument actually and changes how I feel about the story. I personally wouldn't have drugs as a barrier to entry in politics, but the hypocrisy of changing the code for teachers is pretty damning.

    On a betting note, Gove is currently 19.5 which looks fantastic value.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 463
    IanB2 said:

    Isn’t the more concerning part of the Mail story that Gove was writing anti-drugs articles at the same time?

    It is acceptable to write anti drug use articles while partaking, as long as the author writes about their own drug use and justifies their own stance as part of the story. Quite a lot of alcoholics have written articles like this.

    This is clearly not the case with Gove, as he has only recently admitted that he took Cocaine even though he was making decisions about the lives of class A drug takers and writing articles about it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,606
    Good morning, everyone.

    Will start writing the F1 pre-race ramble now. Given it's later (relative to qualifying) than usual, hopefully the markets will actually be up.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,662

    IanB2 said:

    Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:

    ”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”

    Good to see that some aspects of the Soviet Union haven't been lost to history......
    Are they thinking of moving her to Hartlepool? :)
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 463

    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?

    No. Doing drugs, getting sacked for lying and being a complete buffoon are one thing, but attacking the heir to the throne is quite another:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=aKmf7p304go
    The main part I got annoyed at was when he called Hitler German TBH...
    The video is quite clever comedy and avoids many of the pitfalls that trying to make jokes about hitler and nazi Germany fall into.

    One joke though would no longer post 1997 be acceptable for TV "... Hitler's wife succeeded in committing suicide"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164

    Good morning, everyone.

    Will start writing the F1 pre-race ramble now. Given it's later (relative to qualifying) than usual, hopefully the markets will actually be up.

    There’s not a lot up so far. Race is at 19:10 U.K. time, so we might have to wait a while longer.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,105
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    That's a really powerful argument actually and changes how I feel about the story. I personally wouldn't have drugs as a barrier to entry in politics, but the hypocrisy of changing the code for teachers is pretty damning.

    On a betting note, Gove is currently 19.5 which looks fantastic value.
    Nah. There's a whole raft of the membership - those who were prepared to overlook him being a conniving little shit for knifing Boris in 2016 - who now have another solid reason not to vote for him.

    He's toast.

    On the bright side for Gove, Boris is going to need somebody to resolve the Irish issue to progress Brexit. Step forward his new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,606
    edited June 9
    Mr. Sandpit, *sighs*

    Between more maintenance woe and going out for dinner, not sure how much time I'll have. Was hoping to get this done and dusted early on.

    Edited extra bit: most of the Ladbrokes markets are up.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 463
    "This is one of those regular reminders that opinion polls shouldn’t be taken as gospel but need putting into context, the British public are much more forgiving and less moralistic than the polling implies as Messrs Cameron and Osborne will testify."

    I agree with the first part "opinion polls shouldn’t be taken as gospel but need putting into context" but you fall short with your putting it into context.

    The question "Do you think it is acceptable that [some generic MP] has taken the following drugs in the past?" Is totally different to "Should I put an X next to a candidate whose party leader has probably taken cocaine in the past?"

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 446

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    I think the killer would be if Gove failed to use his position in education to protect people who had lost their jobs in schools or not been able to enter the profession because of convictions for possession of class A drugs. Stuff there for journalists to research.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164
    edited June 9
    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Would you support something like the Portugal system for the U.K.?

    IMO the ‘middle way’ policy, as seen in most of Europe, of informal social and policing tolerance while still being illegal, is the worst of all worlds, and leads to some of the comments we’ve seen this morning about differences of class and race.

    The system in Portugal I think works, with users referred to clinics. The system in most Asian and Middle Eastern countries also works, with severe deterrent sentencing keeping a lid on most casual recreational use. That said, as an example they’ve recently reduced the minimum sentence in the UAE from four years to two for possession, and citizens (as opposed to foreign residents) can do their sentences in secure rehab facilities rather than prisons - so even some of these countries are realising there’s a public health issue at stake.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,773

    @Foxy

    Not quite my position but a reasonable one.

    As for the 'senior Labour sources' I'm calling BS. Corbyn rarely fires people especially without good reason. There was Benn as part of the coup attempt, a couple over EU votes and going against the whip (some resignations there) Sarah Champion over an article in the Sun, Chris Williamson I think then is most of them. As the party will probably end up adopting a second referendum policy at conference I can't see it.

    It would also be a pointless provocation, which is why I'm guessing the people who briefed it are briefing it rather than it being true. Although I'll wait to be surprised...

    Edit: The 'senior Labour sources' are the ones working for the Lib Dems, albeit indirectly...

    So blind.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901
    Oh dear, time to start laying Boris again? he has Graylings backing...

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,798
    Foxy said:

    Oh dear, time to start laying Boris again? he has Graylings backing...

    While being terrible at his day job, doesn't Grayling have a good record at backing leadership winners?

    A bit like the difference between Rogerdamuses predictions overall and his Oscars predictions specifically. ;)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,773
    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,798
    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,798
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
    Lawmakers shouldn't be lawbreakers but are you suggesting anyone who has ever broken a law in the past should be barred from being a lawmaker for the rest of their life?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Would you support something like the Portugal system for the U.K.?

    IMO the ‘middle way’ policy, as seen in most of Europe, of informal social and policing tolerance while still being illegal, is the worst of all worlds, and leads to some of the comments we’ve seen this morning about differences of class and race.

    The system in Portugal I think works, with users referred to clinics. The system in most Asian and Middle Eastern countries also works, with severe deterrent sentencing keeping a lid on most recreational use. That said, as an example they’ve recently reduced the minimum sentence in the UAE from four years to two for possession, and citizens (as opposed to foreign residents) can do their sentences in secure rehab facilities rather than prisons - so even some of these countries are realising there’s a public health issue at stake.
    Yes, I support decriminalisation and treatment of users, not legalisation.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
    Indeed. I still think there’s a story to come about much more recent drug use by one of the candidates.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,606
    Betting Post:

    F1: I'll include this in my pre-race tosh but it might be a little while going up.

    Verstappen's 2.75 to win his group, which is him, Gasly, Ricciardo, and Hulkenberg. Verstappen should be faster by some way, the Renaults are unreliable, his team mate will be asked to move aside, *and* he starts on fresh tyres.
  • isamisam Posts: 26,935
    ...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
    If cocaine use should end a career in professions such as Teaching or medicine, why should politicians be exempt?

    If Gove had brought in a more tolerant and rehabilitive approch to discipline of drug use, that would have been a different kettle of fish.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,451

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
    Do you have any evidence he wasn't using in 2014?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,798
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
    If cocaine use should end a career in professions such as Teaching or medicine, why should politicians be exempt?

    If Gove had brought in a more tolerant and rehabilitive approch to discipline of drug use, that would have been a different kettle of fish.
    You said that it was for people who were using drugs while a teacher. If he was caught using drugs while a politician that'd be the same thing. Or did he bring in a policy that someone who had used drugs 20 years prior couldn't be a teacher?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,798
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
    Do you have any evidence he wasn't using in 2014?
    Do you have any evidence he was?

    The story given is that this was decades ago.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,105
    edited June 9
    algarkirk said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    I think the killer would be if Gove failed to use his position in education to protect people who had lost their jobs in schools or not been able to enter the profession because of convictions for possession of class A drugs. Stuff there for journalists to research.

    No, the killer is that someone who has ambitions to be our PM can't have a position on gang violence in our society without being a screaming hypocrite - because many in that epidemic of knife deaths are killed on the back of making huge money supplying people like Gove with a weekend recreational high.

    Literally, the killer argument.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,773

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
    Lawmakers shouldn't be lawbreakers but are you suggesting anyone who has ever broken a law in the past should be barred from being a lawmaker for the rest of their life?
    If it’s a criminal offence for you and me, it should be for them too. That’s all I am saying. If it’s just a youthful mistake for them, then that has to be the case for others too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,105

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
    If cocaine use should end a career in professions such as Teaching or medicine, why should politicians be exempt?

    If Gove had brought in a more tolerant and rehabilitive approch to discipline of drug use, that would have been a different kettle of fish.
    You said that it was for people who were using drugs while a teacher. If he was caught using drugs while a politician that'd be the same thing. Or did he bring in a policy that someone who had used drugs 20 years prior couldn't be a teacher?
    Can someone in the know clarify, because my understanding was that earlier convictions for drug use barred entry to the teaching profession?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,368
    edited June 9
    IanB2 said:


    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?

    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
    Conservatives in the past year increased their membership by a third from around 120,000 to 160,000. An important question, especially for those with HYUFD's reliance on ConHome surveys, is whether the new recruits share the same characteristics and opinions as older members.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/conservative-membership-surge-amid-fears-campaign-swing-leadership/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164

    Betting Post:

    F1: I'll include this in my pre-race tosh but it might be a little while going up.

    Verstappen's 2.75 to win his group, which is him, Gasly, Ricciardo, and Hulkenberg. Verstappen should be faster by some way, the Renaults are unreliable, his team mate will be asked to move aside, *and* he starts on fresh tyres.

    I’d fancy Ricciardo from that group, he’s been on the pace this weekend. Also look at Magnussen to get a point, starting from the pit lane after his accident yesterday and needing a new chassis.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,798
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
    Lawmakers shouldn't be lawbreakers but are you suggesting anyone who has ever broken a law in the past should be barred from being a lawmaker for the rest of their life?
    If it’s a criminal offence for you and me, it should be for them too. That’s all I am saying. If it’s just a youthful mistake for them, then that has to be the case for others too.
    Is that not already the case?

    If he'd been caught 20 years ago it would have been a criminal offence for him too. While if you had made a mistake 20 years ago then that would be a youthful mistake by now too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164

    IanB2 said:


    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?

    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
    Conservatives in the past year increased their membership by a third from around 120,000 to 160,000. An important question, especially for those with HYUFD's reliance on ConHome surveys, is whether the new recruits share the same characteristics and opinions as older members.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/conservative-membership-surge-amid-fears-campaign-swing-leadership/
    There would also have been some churn in the numbers (me for example, who didn’t renew) so there’s probably closer to 50k new members in total.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
    Lawmakers shouldn't be lawbreakers but are you suggesting anyone who has ever broken a law in the past should be barred from being a lawmaker for the rest of their life?
    If it’s a criminal offence for you and me, it should be for them too. That’s all I am saying. If it’s just a youthful mistake for them, then that has to be the case for others too.
    Is that not already the case?

    If he'd been caught 20 years ago it would have been a criminal offence for him too. While if you had made a mistake 20 years ago then that would be a youthful mistake by now too.
    So the only crime that matters is being caught?

    Though my opinion doesn't matter. At the moment none of us have a vote in who is next PM, and only a few in the final round.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,773

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
    Lawmakers shouldn't be lawbreakers but are you suggesting anyone who has ever broken a law in the past should be barred from being a lawmaker for the rest of their life?
    If it’s a criminal offence for you and me, it should be for them too. That’s all I am saying. If it’s just a youthful mistake for them, then that has to be the case for others too.
    Is that not already the case?

    If he'd been caught 20 years ago it would have been a criminal offence for him too. While if you had made a mistake 20 years ago then that would be a youthful mistake by now too.
    Why does it make a difference whether he was caught then or confessed now? If it were another serious offence, would we just let it go? No.

    Remember the law states class A possession is a serious offence that carries up to 7 years imprisonment.

    Is it serious or not? The Tories generally argue it is, when they are not running for office. There’s the hypocrisy.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282

    IanB2 said:


    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?

    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
    Conservatives in the past year increased their membership by a third from around 120,000 to 160,000. An important question, especially for those with HYUFD's reliance on ConHome surveys, is whether the new recruits share the same characteristics and opinions as older members.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/conservative-membership-surge-amid-fears-campaign-swing-leadership/
    I bet a lot of the same people are the “subscribers” to Farage’s limited company.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,368

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.

    I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.

    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    If people have been big time dealers then fair enough but outside of that I'd rather take those punishments away for the working class. It would never be applied to the rich equally anyway.

    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
    Lawmakers shouldn't be lawbreakers but are you suggesting anyone who has ever broken a law in the past should be barred from being a lawmaker for the rest of their life?
    If it’s a criminal offence for you and me, it should be for them too. That’s all I am saying. If it’s just a youthful mistake for them, then that has to be the case for others too.
    Is that not already the case?

    If he'd been caught 20 years ago it would have been a criminal offence for him too. While if you had made a mistake 20 years ago then that would be a youthful mistake by now too.
    Is youthful quite the right word for a man in his early 30s? I get your drift though.

    My suspicion is that while past cocaine use will not harm Gove's chances, hypocrisy might, if properly deployed by his opponents.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,368
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:


    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?

    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
    Conservatives in the past year increased their membership by a third from around 120,000 to 160,000. An important question, especially for those with HYUFD's reliance on ConHome surveys, is whether the new recruits share the same characteristics and opinions as older members.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/conservative-membership-surge-amid-fears-campaign-swing-leadership/
    There would also have been some churn in the numbers (me for example, who didn’t renew) so there’s probably closer to 50k new members in total.
    Good point.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,368
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:


    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?

    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
    Conservatives in the past year increased their membership by a third from around 120,000 to 160,000. An important question, especially for those with HYUFD's reliance on ConHome surveys, is whether the new recruits share the same characteristics and opinions as older members.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/conservative-membership-surge-amid-fears-campaign-swing-leadership/
    I bet a lot of the same people are the “subscribers” to Farage’s limited company.
    Entryism is a word usually applied only on the left. I'm sure all the new members are pure in heart and spirit. :wink:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,561
    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,933
    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    I think many ...... most....... of us would agree that doing something perceived as foolish, or even illegal ......... many years ago, while of student age is one thing, continuing the practice while simultaneously campaigning against it is something much more reprehensible.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,716
    My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.

    Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.

    Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?

    If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.

    And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 28,941

    Vaguely related point, I'm surprised that Mordaunt has seemingly decided not to run.

    Perhaps lacks the support of her colleagues?

    She's still 65 on Betfair.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,535
    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,606
    Mr. Sandpit, Ricciardo's driving well but his car isn't in the same league as the Red Bull. His odds, incidentally, are evens for winning the group.

    Verstappen starts 9th, Ricciardo 4th, with Gasly 5th and Hulkenberg 7th.

    Anyway, one makes one's choice and hopes for the best.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,368

    My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.

    Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.

    Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?

    If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.

    And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.

    It is already illegal to drive under the influence of, or even having taken, drugs. In addition, many employers prohibit working under their influence.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,094
    Foxy said:

    Oh dear, time to start laying Boris again? he has Graylings backing...

    Speculation that all the Conservative party leadership candidates offered Grayling their entire drugs stashes to avoid his endorsement are yet to be confirmed ....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:


    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?

    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
    Conservatives in the past year increased their membership by a third from around 120,000 to 160,000. An important question, especially for those with HYUFD's reliance on ConHome surveys, is whether the new recruits share the same characteristics and opinions as older members.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/conservative-membership-surge-amid-fears-campaign-swing-leadership/
    I bet a lot of the same people are the “subscribers” to Farage’s limited company.
    Entryism is a word usually applied only on the left. I'm sure all the new members are pure in heart and spirit. :wink:
    I also wonder whether - as well as ensuring he maintains control - Farage’s structure might have been designed to allow Tory members to sign up without having to break Tory rules by being a member of another party.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,933

    My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.

    Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.

    Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?

    If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.

    And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.

    Compare and contrast; rules about being a commercial pilot. At the moment there are no 'rules' about having a skinful the night before leading a surgical team. Many years ago I knew a dentist who was regularly to be found sinking a gin or two in the local Conservative club at midday.
    To be fair, his hands were a lot steadier after lunch then before.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282

    Vaguely related point, I'm surprised that Mordaunt has seemingly decided not to run.

    Perhaps lacks the support of her colleagues?

    She's still 65 on Betfair.

    She doesn’t look it.

    Too inexperienced to shoot straight for PM?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,094

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:


    Incidentally, I note that the Tories are down to just 120,000 members. That is miles behind both the SNP and Labour. Can’t be far off the Brexit Party or the Liberal Democrats either. And most Con members seem to be entryists. Where on earth did the proper Tories go?

    On R4 yesterday a 160,000 figure was given?

    The LibDems claim to be up to 105,000, with figures for the post-Euro surge. Which reveals that a lot of the people who joined in the earlier surges hadn’t renewed.
    Conservatives in the past year increased their membership by a third from around 120,000 to 160,000. An important question, especially for those with HYUFD's reliance on ConHome surveys, is whether the new recruits share the same characteristics and opinions as older members.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/conservative-membership-surge-amid-fears-campaign-swing-leadership/
    I bet a lot of the same people are the “subscribers” to Farage’s limited company.
    Entryism is a word usually applied only on the left. I'm sure all the new members are pure in heart and spirit. :wink:
    Boris has been quite keen on entryism .... just not with his wife .... :blush:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,606
    Mr. B2, no experience is better than bad experience. Ahem.

    Mordaunt should go for it. Shake things up. Become favourite. Enable me to lay my bet.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 5,467
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?
    OK, but how does Boris get a pass for being a serial philanderer, liar, and I believe drug-taker in his youth?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,535

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?
    OK, but how does Boris get a pass for being a serial philanderer, liar, and I believe drug-taker in his youth?
    He doesn't. Not from me anyway.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 618

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?
    OK, but how does Boris get a pass for being a serial philanderer, liar, and I believe drug-taker in his youth?
    Apparently it is being (reluctantly) honest about the public do not like. Dissembling or lying after taking them is considered normal. We get the politicians our tastes deserve.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,368
    IanB2 said:

    Vaguely related point, I'm surprised that Mordaunt has seemingly decided not to run.

    Perhaps lacks the support of her colleagues?

    She's still 65 on Betfair.

    She doesn’t look it.

    Too inexperienced to shoot straight for PM?
    I'd not completely rule out CCHQ leaning on MPs to support women candidates in order to prevent an all-male competition.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,933

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?
    OK, but how does Boris get a pass for being a serial philanderer, liar, and I believe drug-taker in his youth?
    Senior MP's and indeed PM's have been serial philanderers in the past and it didn't do them a lot of harm.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,416
    I'm afraid the difference from Cameron, Osborne and Johnson is that he's admitted it. Vaguely saying, not for attribution ("friends say..."), that the story is inaccurate and anyway you aren't going to comment is accepted by the public. We have a "don't ask, don't tell" collective attitude. Straightforwardly admitting it will disturb more people.

    That said, if he's selected I reckon people will get over it. I can't see many people actually changing their vote over something Gove did 20 years ago, including any hypocrisy at that time. The story about Cameron doing something obscene with a dead pig was widely believed and surely a real "euuu" thing, but did it really make a single voter change?

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,874
    ydoethur said:

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?

    No - human nature. You are not a saint and indeed if you claimed to be I would be extremely suspicious. Of course, Michael isn't either, as we see.

    Must revise my opinion of your article however. I did judge it very good but now, well, not so much. You missed the big story. 1000 words on him and not one mention - not a single one - of the drugs.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,606
    Mr. Palmer, was it widely believed, or was it obvious bullshit that entertained his political opponents? I suspect the latter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,535
    kinabalu said:

    Must revise my opinion of your article however. I did judge it very good but now, well, not so much. You missed the big story. 1000 words on him and not one mention - not a single one - of the drugs.

    You're quite right. I never even considered he might have been doing drugs at the time. Can't believe I missed it.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 5,467

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?
    OK, but how does Boris get a pass for being a serial philanderer, liar, and I believe drug-taker in his youth?
    Senior MP's and indeed PM's have been serial philanderers in the past and it didn't do them a lot of harm.
    Widely known and accepted? Think not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 28,941
    IanB2 said:

    Vaguely related point, I'm surprised that Mordaunt has seemingly decided not to run.

    Perhaps lacks the support of her colleagues?

    She's still 65 on Betfair.

    She doesn’t look it.

    Too inexperienced to shoot straight for PM?
    I think so.

    She's left it far too late to declare. There are barely 33 hours left.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,716

    My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.

    Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.

    Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?

    If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.

    And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.

    It is already illegal to drive under the influence of, or even having taken, drugs. In addition, many employers prohibit working under their influence.
    It is: but my point is that there are also many other areas and careers where it is highly non-advantageous.

    In addition, AIUI routine, accurate and simple tests for all drugs have not been developed.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 28,941
    Can you imagine the stories if SeanT ever ran for Prime Minister?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 618
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:



    Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.

    In 2014 Gove brought in a new teachers code of conduct that sacked Teachers caught in possession of class A drugs.

    Considering how such convictions are a bar to many careers, why not politics too? Or is such experimentation fine for white middle class students, just not for the working class on the street corner?
    People who have used drugs now and again are no different from those who have drunk now and again, in some cases drink is a more harmful drug. We should tax and regulate.
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    It the hypocrisy that’s killing Gove and the Tory candidates, one rule for them while they preach another for us. It does not matter how long ago it was. It’s either criminal or it is isn’t.
    Lawmakers shouldn't be lawbreakers but are you suggesting anyone who has ever broken a law in the past should be barred from being a lawmaker for the rest of their life?
    If it’s a criminal offence for you and me, it should be for them too. That’s all I am saying. If it’s just a youthful mistake for them, then that has to be the case for others too.
    Is that not already the case?

    If he'd been caught 20 years ago it would have been a criminal offence for him too. While if you had made a mistake 20 years ago then that would be a youthful mistake by now too.
    Why does it make a difference whether he was caught then or confessed now? If it were another serious offence, would we just let it go? No.

    Remember the law states class A possession is a serious offence that carries up to 7 years imprisonment.

    Is it serious or not? The Tories generally argue it is, when they are not running for office. There’s the hypocrisy.
    The question that should be put to him is should the young Michael Gove have gone to prison for 7 years? If not why does he support locking up young black men for the same offence?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,606
    Mr. Above, is there a different sentencing policy for people who are young, black, and/or male, than for those of other demographics?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,514

    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?

    At this rate there won’t be a final 2 again - Boris will win by critical mass of MPs.

    Then lose vs the public.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,716

    My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.

    Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.

    Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?

    If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.

    And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.

    Compare and contrast; rules about being a commercial pilot. At the moment there are no 'rules' about having a skinful the night before leading a surgical team. Many years ago I knew a dentist who was regularly to be found sinking a gin or two in the local Conservative club at midday.
    To be fair, his hands were a lot steadier after lunch then before.
    During my adult life, I have seen rules on drinking at work become rather stricter. AIUI, it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are not placed in harm from other employees. That means that is someone is drunk or high, they have to act.

    This is made easier if you have a zero-tolerance policy.

    Unfortunately as Elon Musk shows, all too often there's one rule for the plebs, and another for the superstars.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,561

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:


    Foxy said:

    I
    I am quite anti drugs, having seen just too much of the destruction of peoples lives from drug use. I would support decriminalisation of possession, with compulsory treatment and beefed up addiction services. It should be treated as a health issue.

    But in 2014, Gove brought in a punitive code of conduct for teachers, despite his own usage.
    Gove wasn't using in 2014 was he? If he is that's very different to what's been said so far.
    If cocaine use should end a career in professions such as Teaching or medicine, why should politicians be exempt?

    If Gove had brought in a more tolerant and rehabilitive approch to discipline of drug use, that would have been a different kettle of fish.
    You said that it was for people who were using drugs while a teacher. If he was caught using drugs while a politician that'd be the same thing. Or did he bring in a policy that someone who had used drugs 20 years prior couldn't be a teacher?
    Can someone in the know clarify, because my understanding was that earlier convictions for drug use barred entry to the teaching profession?
    Anyone wanting to work as a teacher will need a clean PVG check and a previous conviction for drug possession would show up on that until it became a spent conviction in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The provisions under that Act are inordinately complicated but basically if you were fined for possession (likely for a first offence) then the conviction becomes a spent conviction after 2 years provided there is no other conviction in that time. There are a number of exceptions to that for various classes of offences but I can't see any relating to drugs. There is no obligation to disclose what is called a protected conviction so someone who was trying to be a teacher but had a conviction for an offence involving possession 20 years ago would not have a problem unless he or she volunteered the information themselves.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    TGOHF said:

    Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.

    Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?

    At this rate there won’t be a final 2 again - Boris will win by critical mass of MPs.

    Then lose vs the public.

    Yes, it does rather appear that the Tories will only remember that there is a wider electorate out there when it is too late.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,535
    edited June 9

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.

    Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.

    If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.

    Oh, wait...

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/06/03/why-michael-gove-should-not-be-conservative-leader/

    Is it wrong of me to be really enjoying watching him get his comeuppance in full glare of the world's media?
    OK, but how does Boris get a pass for being a serial philanderer, liar, and I believe drug-taker in his youth?
    Senior MP's and indeed PM's have been serial philanderers in the past and it didn't do them a lot of harm.
    Widely known and accepted? Think not.
    Lord Melbourne
    Lord Palmerston
    David Lloyd George
    Herbert Asquith

    Those are the ones that spring immediately to mind.

    There are others who were known to have mistresses but were not exactly serial philanderers - Wilson, Wellington.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282
    edited June 9

    Can you imagine the stories if SeanT ever ran for Prime Minister?

    He’d have to change his name? ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,535

    Can you imagine the stories if SeanT ever ran for Prime Minister?

    This on its own would be quite a start:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Millions_of_Women_are_Waiting_to_Meet_Yo.html?id=OR1OCxd8fNQC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,282

    My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.

    Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.

    Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?

    If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.

    And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.

    Compare and contrast; rules about being a commercial pilot. At the moment there are no 'rules' about having a skinful the night before leading a surgical team. Many years ago I knew a dentist who was regularly to be found sinking a gin or two in the local Conservative club at midday.
    To be fair, his hands were a lot steadier after lunch then before.
    During my adult life, I have seen rules on drinking at work become rather stricter. AIUI, it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are not placed in harm from other employees. That means that is someone is drunk or high, they have to act.

    This is made easier if you have a zero-tolerance policy.

    Unfortunately as Elon Musk shows, all too often there's one rule for the plebs, and another for the superstars.
    Lol @ “rather”! I started work in the 1980s and went from every manager having a drinks cabinet, lunch in the pub and being drunk in the afternoon being normal, to a complete ban on workplace drinking and a lot of frowning at off premises lunchtime drinking within the space of just a few years.
This discussion has been closed.