Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
One of the nice things about Japan Rail (private company, trains run on time, at reasonable cost, without public subsidy) is that with rare exceptions [*], there's no bullshit with the pricing. The price is the price, regardless of when you travel and when you buy the ticket. There isn't even a discount for getting a return ticket. If a company offers to pay for your travel expenses, you don't even bother telling them what you paid; You just fill in their form saying where you came from, and they wire you the fare.
I get the argument for encouraging people to travel off-peak, but I wonder whether the benefit is really worth all the extra admin and confusion, especially when you account for the cognitive load of the passenger working out when to travel and which ticket to buy.
[*] For example I can get a slightly cheaper Shinkansen ticket by buying the previous day for a particular train using JR's god-awful mobile app, but that's the exception, and it doesn't apply to the regular (slower) commuter trains at all.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
That would be the drug dealers self-justification. Someone will supply the heroin. We might as well get the profit from it. Not a comfortable argument.
Actually, it's an excellent argument. If the state regulated the supply of heroin, the quality would become assured, users could be monitored, a huge dent would be put in organised crime and meaningful education could be given to users and at-risk groups. And the state gets taxes on top.
Dealing in arms at least has the potential to give a small amount of influence over those countries that buy them. With no world government to regulate, that's as good as it gets. The alternative is to put people out of work, lose influence to other - possibly hostile - powers in the region concerned, and make no difference on the ground to those at the sharp end. But hey - some activist gets to feel good.
Quite right. To me the case for state-supplied heroin seems incontrovertible. Sadly, no politician would ever propose it for fear of being labelled the druggy's friend. (Dave seemed to be toying with this idea before he became leader, but backed off.)
Actually, it's an excellent argument. If the state regulated the supply of heroin, the quality would become assured, users could be monitored, a huge dent would be put in organised crime and meaningful education could be given to users and at-risk groups. And the state gets taxes on top.
They should put the British government in charge of the heroin business. They'd bollocks up the administration and the marketing so badly that nobody would want to buy it any more.
Quite right. To me the case for state-supplied heroin seems incontrovertible. Sadly, no politician would ever propose it for fear of being labelled the druggy's friend. (Dave seemed to be toying with this idea before he became leader, but backed off.)
I wonder if they're just being too cautious, though. It's also quite striking that in the US, hardly any politician will stand up for drug liberalization for fear of incurring the wrath of the voters, but somehow when the voters actually get to vote on the specific issue the ballot propositions keep passing.
One of the nice things about Japan Rail (private company, trains run on time, at reasonable cost, without public subsidy) is that with rare exceptions [*], there's no bullshit with the pricing. The price is the price, regardless of when you travel and when you buy the ticket. There isn't even a discount for getting a return ticket. If a company offers to pay for your travel expenses, you don't even bother telling them what you paid; You just fill in their form saying where you came from, and they wire you the fare.
I get the argument for encouraging people to travel off-peak, but I wonder whether the benefit is really worth all the extra admin and confusion, especially when you account for the cognitive load of the passenger working out when to travel and which ticket to buy.
[*] For example I can get a slightly cheaper Shinkansen ticket by buying the previous day for a particular train using JR's god-awful mobile app, but that's the exception, and it doesn't apply to the regular (slower) commuter trains at all.
Swiss railways are the same, you get discounts if you book for a specific train, a normal ticket which allows travel on any train is the same cost a month before or a minute before, whatever time of day.
As for the comment on them being slow, they run at about 200kph, which is faster than most UK services. I've read that they are bringing in 300kph trains in a few years for select services that have long straight track sections. But the main reason they are slow is not the trains, but the track which has loads of turns because of all the mountains and valleys.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
That would be the drug dealers self-justification. Someone will supply the heroin. We might as well get the profit from it. Not a comfortable argument.
Actually, it's an excellent argument. If the state regulated the supply of heroin, the quality would become assured, users could be monitored, a huge dent would be put in organised crime and meaningful education could be given to users and at-risk groups. And the state gets taxes on top.
Dealing in arms at least has the potential to give a small amount of influence over those countries that buy them. With no world government to regulate, that's as good as it gets. The alternative is to put people out of work, lose influence to other - possibly hostile - powers in the region concerned, and make no difference on the ground to those at the sharp end. But hey - some activist gets to feel good.
What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
But, Mr. Herdson, what do you think will happen in the Italian and Swedish elections?
Mr. 43, better yet, imagine a democratic Iran. People are right to say regime change could make things worse, but it could also make things better, and the argument (which you've not made but I've seen elsewhere) that the Iranians should tolerate oppression because it brings stability is less than convincing.
1. Italy will end up with some social-democrat-led coalition, not a million miles from what it has now. Sweden I don't know much about (ask NickP!)
2. Given the choice between sandwiches and freedom, people will invariably choose sandwiches. The trick with reform is to keep the factories and shops open. i don't think the Iranians should 'tolerate' oppression but nor do I think it's realistic in any country with no history of the full freedoms needed to make democracy work, to jump straight to what the likes of Western Europe has. If democracy were introduced today to Iran, the result would probably be much like when Egypt tried: the Islamic parties would dominate because they'd be so much better organised. Before introducing democracy, Iran needs to build up the mentality of a free civil society.
An interim non-Islamic dictatorship would probably be a necessary step. The risk of trying to run before you can walk is that you trip up, fall flat on your face and become sceptical of the whole idea of running. Though of course the risks there are that the regime finds 'reasons' to prolong a the temporary interim stage into something permanent, while replicating the repression and corruption of most dictatorships.
Italy will not end up with a social-democrat led coalition. The ruling social democratic PD party is already trailing 6% behind Five Star in the latest poll and Berlusconi will not put Renzi back in power either
It's almost beyond doubt now that Theresa will lead the Tories at the next general election. There's no one willing or able to challenge her and she's not going anywhere. In fact, I can't see her giving up the leadership ever.
She won't, party members want her to stay until Brexit and the transition period is completed and not beyond, though given polling shows she does as well if not better than most alternatives and Labour is still polling nowhere near enough for a working majority there is no need for her to go anytime soon
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
Sharing intelligence with Russia, since that's where they would get their arms from if we (the west in general) stopped selling to them.
They already buy arms from Russia (S-400 deal) and, given how utterly corrupt the KSA is, plenty of intel will be ending up in Moscow.
Well they've supposedly started cleaning house, so let's see how it goes.
I'm also not sure that the new administration will go ahead with it either. They seem to value the relationship with the US much more than the previous one.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the U2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/
What % support his other policies like 100% death duties, nationalising Harvey Nichols and no limits on immigration ?
A large majority would oppose the first and last and a majority the second too though technically he has proposed none of those just reversing Osborne's IHT cut, renationalising the railways and key utilities and trying to put controls on free movement while staying as close as possible to the single market
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Perhas a better analogy would be 18th Century slave traders then.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the U2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/
What % support his other policies like 100% death duties, nationalising Harvey Nichols and no limits on immigration ?
A large majority would oppose the first and last and a majority the second too though technically he has proposed none of those just reversing Osborne's IHT cut, renationalising the railways and key utilities and trying to put controls on free movement while staying as close as possible to the single market
I guess my main point is that legalisation is sweeping the USA but yet there is almost no discussion of it in the Uk.
Mr. Divvie, I posted this in reply to Mr. Ace's insightful and wise comment. I repost it for you to answer, if you wish:
"Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?"
If Ruth Davidson were in favour of a regime that executes homosexuals and makes the hijab mandatory for women would you refrain from remarking upon it?
Edited extra bit: I posted this at the same time as you actually replied to the above.
Show me the Conservative MP who has made the case for Saudi Arabia at an event commemorating the nation's founding (or founding of current political governance structure) and I'll happily condemn them.
I'm not aware of Ruth's position on Iran or Saudi (or for that matter the DUP), but outside 'No to Indy Ref II', what other consistent positions does she have?
Here's Tessy not making the case for Saudi Arabia.
Here's Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to SA not commemorating the nation's founding (or founding of current political governance structure).
'On the occasion of Saudi National Day, I am reminded of the great history of Saudi Arabia. Today, the Saudi people can rightly proud of their nation, of their history and their developments. Saudi Arabia is a strong nation, an important player in the world and a close friend and partner of the UK. I am looking forward to celebrating the anniversary of 100 years of relations between our two Kingdoms in December this year.'
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
They are going to buy the bombs from someone, better us than Russia.
As I said typical Tory, profit first whether by murder or any other cause
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the stprofit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Perhas a better analogy would be 18th Century slave traders then.
18th Century slave-traders were carrying out a legal activity. And the LibDems have had legalisation of cannabis al la California for a while.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi profit.
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Amazed that Corbyn hasn't called for legalisation in the Uk - could be the policy that projects him over the top.
Only 32% support legalised cannabis in the U2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/
What % support his other policies like 100% death duties, nationalising Harvey Nichols and no limits on immigration ?
A large majority would oppose the first and last and a majority the second t
I guess my main point is that legalisation is sweeping the USA but yet there is almost no discussion of it in the Uk.
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
How? Do Russian bombs do significantly less damage?
What are the hypothetical bad things that the Saudis might be doing if it were not for the stern, moral lessons handed out with our bombs?
Sharing intelligence with Russia, since that's where they would get their arms from if we (the west in general) stopped selling to them.
What, Sunni, Wahabist, surreptitiously-ISIS-supporting KSA would start holding hands with Assad supporting, Iran-allied Rooshia if we didn't sell them toys? It's a theory I guess.
Of course just over a year ago PB Tories in one of their regular fits of hysteria were suggesting that we team up with Putin and Assad to exterminate the greatest threat to Western democracy since, well, the last one, so anything's possible.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?
you would be happy for your children to be murdered as long as a profit was being made, get a grip. I have higher morals and would prefer not to have blood on my hands by association with these murderers.
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
How? Do Russian bombs do significantly less damage?
You dullard , who cares about Russian bombs, it is the lack of morals that you are happy to have children murdered as long as you make the profit rather than the Russians. Tories really are sick.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?
you would be happy for your children to be murdered as long as a profit was being made, get a grip. I have higher morals and would prefer not to have blood on my hands by association with these murderers.
That's extremely unfair.
It's only other people's children that Tories don't mind getting pasted.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?
Because we would not be doing the murdering, bit like being with your pal when he rapes someone and you use the excuse that you were better holding his jacket than a stranger.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
How? Do Russian bombs do significantly less damage?
You dullard , who cares about Russian bombs, it is the lack of morals that you are happy to have children murdered as long as you make the profit rather than the Russians. Tories really are sick.
Children would be getting murdered either way. War is hell and we operate in the real world.
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?
Because we would not be doing the murdering, bit like being with your pal when he rapes someone and you use the excuse that you were better holding his jacket than a stranger.
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of bhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Perhas a better analogy would be 18th Century slave traders then.
18th Century slave-traders were carrying out a legal activity. And the LibDems have had legalisation of cannabis al la California for a while.
I would draw a distinction between decriminalisation for personal use, and legalisation.
Personally, I wouldn't take it any further, I hate the damage that drugs do.
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Would hesitate to call an ounce for personal use small.
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at present
Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.
And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
Better, worse or about the same as a government currently making ng the case for the Saudi regime?
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone.
If there are global sanctions (eg Apartheid South Africa, today's North Korea) then absolutely selling weapons and breaking the sanctions would make you a party.
If a nation is in the global marketplace and has lots of nations they can purchase arms from then unilaterally refusing a sale achieves nothing in preventing the sale and simply harms ourselves.
What good does that achieve?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
Almost certainly yes.
Because they would be using Russian bombs instead?
Because we would not be doing the murdering, bit like being with your pal when he rapes someone and you use the excuse that you were better holding his jacket than a stranger.
Are Tesco's murdering people by selling tobacco?
They do not sell it to children and trying to equate something stupid like that that speaks a thousand words. Anyone with any morals would prefer not to be involved in murdering other people's children and would not use the excuse that the Russians would do it as justification to line their pockets. Tories whinge about Russian involvement in Syria but the UK does it the coward's way by just making a profit.
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.
They do not sell it to children and trying to equate something stupid like that that speaks a thousand words. Anyone with any morals would prefer not to be involved in murdering other people's children and would not use the excuse that the Russians would do it as justification to line their pockets. Tories whinge about Russian involvement in Syria but the UK does it the coward's way by just making a profit.
They don't sell it to children as its illegal to sell it to children, just as its illegal under International Law to sell to nations under sanctions.
If we don't make legal sales then that just provides more finances to those nations that will make the legal sales to do as they please. That doesn't leave anyone any better off.
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at present
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.
I quite like the commute, it is the best chance I get to read the newspaper. Working at home also requires a lot of self discipline because of the distractions and I also like to keep work and home life separate, though I am not anti home working for those who do find they work productively doing it
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at present
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDs
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.
Agree with that. However, I would say that we now have the opportunity to study a number of different systems of de-crim in societies reasonably similar to our own (Potugal, Holland, Uruguay, Canada, as well as various different US States' legislation.) There is, therefore the option of studying these experiments, and producing evidence-based legislation here. Not holding my breath, mind.
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.
Not to mention hours of "conversations" with tedious people.
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.
I quite like the commute, it is the best chance I get to read the newspaper. Working at home also requires a lot of self discipline because of the distractions and I also like to keep work and home life separate, though I am not anti home working for those who do find they work productively doing it
I have an office and find it easy to focus. Though it is horses for courses as some people cannot handle it all. I find I get much more work done and much less distraction. Biggest drawback for me is doing too many hours as you do not have a strict cutoff to go home I tend to put in too many hours.
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at present
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDs
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
It isn't for everyone by any means and there are issues of isolation and being part of the team/firm which need to be resolved but I did a study for a local authority and showed that if they could get 10% of their admin staff to work from home they could close one of their main buildings at a saving of several millions of pounds. Multiply that and imagine the current commercial space which could be freed up for residential redevelopment.
It's something a Government committed to house building and home ownership should be actively promoting and indeed leading by example.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.
Not to mention hours of "conversations" with tedious people.
Indeed but there's still huge cultural resistance in far too many organisations to the concept. The idea seems to be if you're in the office you're working and if you're at home you're skiving. Now, the fact that being on the Internet at work does happen (low productivity anyone ? Just kidding) doesn't matter because you're visible and you might be working.
Yes, you're right, but I don't think you go far enough. Active promotion and leading by example won't cut it if management is mostly against it. They will find a million ways to frustrate it. Instead, I don't see any alternative to a statutory right, with tribunals to enforce it. Even then, it will be untidy of course, but I think the gains will be worth it.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
There is a psychological aspect to this too. Most managers love the office. It is the environment they thrive in. They love the socialising, the banter, they work better with it and assume everyone else does. Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home. But we tend not to end up in Management...
Home working is fine provided you have family and enough friends and hobbies and groups you belong to to make up for the lack of human interaction. Proper checks also need to be made to ensure security breaches etc are avoided from those working at home e.g. time limited access through fobs.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Working at home is great , saves hours of tedious travel to work.
I quite like the commute, it is the best chance I get to read the newspaper. Working at home also requires a lot of self discipline because of the distractions and I also like to keep work and home life separate, though I am not anti home working for those who do find they work productively doing it
I have an office and find it easy to focus. Though it is horses for courses as some people cannot handle it all. I find I get much more work done and much less distraction. Biggest drawback for me is doing too many hours as you do not have a strict cutoff to go home I tend to put in too many hours.
Yes at least with traditional office working hours you know you have a start and end time
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at present
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDs
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.
Gay marriage probably only passed because the LDs were in a coalition government (more Tory MPs voted against it than voted for it) so yes a coalition government containing the LDs and a shift in public opinion would probably be required for it
Should parliamentary time be squandered pandering to pot-heads? One or two more important issues to sort out.
That's no way to talk about Lib Dem Peers!
How many thousands of amendments will they put down on the EU withdrawal bill with no real democratic mandate to justify their 104 seats there based on their party's current support.
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at present
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDs
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.
Gay marriage probably only passed because the LDs were in a coalition government (more Tory MPs voted against it than voted for it) so yes a coalition government containing the LDs and a shift in public opinion would probably be required for it
Gay marriage passed because equal rights for gays is an idea whose time has come. Name the liberal democracies that don't allow gay marriage please.
Well decriminalised in 18 out of 51 US states, not quite sweeping, but as that poll shows there is clearly less demand fir legalisation in the UK than the USA
Things are moving fast - once Brexit is out of the way I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a hot topic of conversation.
If only 32% support decriminalisation in the UK there is simply not the demand for it at present
Nick Clegg's LDs polled over that at one point in 2010 - opinions can change..
Yes and Nick Clegg's LDs did not win the 2010 election did they nor would they have had a majority even if they got 32% though if anyone is going to push cannabis decriminalisation it will be the liberal party ie the LDs
All sorts of minority opinions have become law because some individual or group has campaigned strongly enough on it. FWIW, I think you're right that it won't happen any time soon because there'll be blowback from the likes of the Mail and for once it won't just be reactionary ranting but there will be genuine health arguments about greater usage (these, it could be argued, might be offset by greater reliability of supply but the point is that there is a credible case to be made).
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.
Gay marriage probably only passed because the LDs were in a coalition government (more Tory MPs voted against it than voted for it) so yes a coalition government containing the LDs and a shift in public opinion would probably be required for it
Gay marriage passed because equal rights for gays is an idea whose time has come. Name the liberal democracies that don't allow gay marriage please.
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
I can count the number of return train journeys I've taken on a couple of limbs (note- I'm not from Norfolk). The last time I considered taking the train down to that shittole London, the quoted price was well North of 300 quid for me and my lad. I declined the chance to spend an hour on a train amongst the plebs and bunged 40 quid worth's of petrol in the car and spent 90 minutes on the M1 instead.
To mangle a quote that Thatcher never said, "anyone on a train paying 550 quid a month to go to that shittole London needs to have a word with themselves"
£300? Not doubting you, obvs, but you must have spent a lot of time trying to find the most expensive ticket available.
It was short notice and travelling at peak times. Just done a quick google and the same journey tomorrow would still cost 254 quid. I'd still use the car!
Yes fair enough if it's on the spur of the moment it'll cost you. I suppose that's how they structure it, whatever the increase. As to taking a car on the M1? I hate it. Depending on which side of the county you're on, the A1 is a better bet 10/10 times IMO.
The A1 is good now from Catterick down to Peterborough All three laned motorway..However surprisingly crap near London still roundabouts and no upgrading to motorway status .
They can't do much about the Black Cat until they sort out what's happening with the A428. The whole thing needs a bypass: it's mad to think that some houses near Sandy have front doors that open out directly onto the A1 dual carriageway ...
If the A1 South of Peterborough were a building, it would surely be a Grade 1 listed historic monument by now. It really does just feel like driving back into the 1950s in places, especially through some of the Hertfordshire new towns. And some of the OK Diners and olde worlde service areas extend further north up to Doncaster as well. It's all pretty damn weird tbh.
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Margaret Thatcher once famously took David Cameron to task for not being further behind in the polls. She was referring of course to the fact that she was massively behind in the polls between elections but then went on to win the 83 and 87 elections -and her successor, Major did the same in 92. Cameron himself was 12 points behind in the polls but then went on to win in 2015.
Corbyn Labour should be worried about four things. 1). No opposition has ever gone on to form a government without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls. 2). Despite his much vaunted 40% in 2017, this was brought about largely by piling up votes in seats Labour already holds. He is very very bad at winning Tory marginals in Middle England. 3). Theresa May is unpopular and wounded, yet the Tories continue to be level pegging with Labour between elections, holding up in the 40s. What will happen when the Tories have a new and better at fighting elections leader in 2022? 4). A very large number of older Tory voters did not turn out to vote in 2017, angry at a Tory manifesto which attacked their interests, and convinced that Corbyn was no threat. Suppose as is likely that those older voters turn out in their legions in 2022?
Corbyn wont be PM in 2018, or 2019 or 2020 either. But he had better work out fast how to get to 15 points plus in the polls. Otherwise the song will be "No! Jeremy Corbyn"
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Also selling them the bombs to kill innocent children, real charmers. Best they can say is somebody else would sell them bombs if we didn't.
Best they can say is that it provides productive jobs, a secure income etc to our own citizens. You'd rather another nation got that wealth?
That's still not making the case for Saudi Arabia's regime though.
I would rather not be labelled with being party to murdering innocent people for money. It is totally wrong.
We're not murdering anyone...
What good does that achieve?
You seen the state of Yemen from Saudi dropping British bought bombs indiscriminately, murdering and starving innocent civilians and children. You may think that making a profit justifies that , personally I think it is abhorrent and typical of Tories who are in general heartless sh**s, especially if it makes them a profit.
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would they have failed to buy bombs elsewhere? Yes or no?
If we had refused to sell Saudi any bombs would Yemen be better off? Yes or no?
The drug dealers and pimps defence...
Perhaps we should be better than that.
Last I checked drug dealers and pimps are criminals, equivalent to sanction-breakers not legal trade.
Cannabis now legal in California for personal use and in small amounts.
Would hesitate to call an ounce for personal use small.
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.
Legalise and regulate makes the most sense from both a utilitarian and moral perspective, IMO. Which is why it won't happen for some time yet...
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Rob Hayward is someone very well worth listening to.
Margaret Thatcher once famously took David Cameron to task for not being further behind in the polls. She was referring of course to the fact that she was massively behind in the polls between elections but then went on to win the 83 and 87 elections -and her successor, Major did the same in 92. Cameron himself was 12 points behind in the polls but then went on to win in 2015.
Corbyn Labour should be worried about four things. 1). No opposition has ever gone on to form a government without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls. 2). Despite his much vaunted 40% in 2017, this was brought about largely by piling up votes in seats Labour already holds. He is very very bad at winning Tory marginals in Middle England. 3). Theresa May is unpopular and wounded, yet the Tories continue to be level pegging with Labour between elections, holding up in the 40s. What will happen when the Tories have a new and better at fighting elections leader in 2022? 4). A very large number of older Tory voters did not turn out to vote in 2017, angry at a Tory manifesto which attacked their interests, and convinced that Corbyn was no threat. Suppose as is likely that those older voters turn out in their legions in 2022?
Corbyn wont be PM in 2018, or 2019 or 2020 either. But he had better work out fast how to get to 15 points plus in the polls. Otherwise the song will be "No! Jeremy Corbyn"
And speaking of the sainted Margaret, funds at the Graun must really be getting stretched and accountants must be buzzing as they have put up a textbook clickbait article by one of the staffers praising one of Grantham's most famous natives (as we're also talking about the A1).
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Oh yes there is.
In 2014 Labour’s lead was 11% in London and the most recent YouGov has Labour 24% ahead.
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.
Not entirely true. In 1991 Labour had a 3% lead over the Tories and in 2000 the Tories a 2% lead over Labour in the local elections. In 1996 Labour had a 14% lead over the Tories and in 2009 the Tories a 15% lead over Labour in Blair and Cameron's final local elections.
Opposition parties generally need a more than 10% lead in local elections to be sure of forming the next government
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Oh yes there is.
In 2014 Labour’s lead was 11% in London and the most recent YouGov has Labour 24% ahead.
Given the Tory lead in seats in Wandsworth and Westminster means Labour needs 10 to 15 gains in both to win control even that swing may not be enough
Theresa May could lose more than half her London boroughs in crucial elections in May, one of the Conservative party’s most respected experts reveals today.
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe. ... Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
Key term 'could' and no specific polling evidence there. The Jewish vote will boost the Tories in Barnet and Labour would need to take about 15 seats at least to win Wandsworth and Westminster.
Local elections have virtually no relevance to national politics or a party's chance of winning a general election at all. Neil Kinnock's Labour, and William Hague's Tories both did extremely well in local elections just prior to landslide general election defeats.
No they didn't. Kinnock did modestly in the 1983-7 election (the best of the set being Labour's win in 1985 by 7%, which is low for a mid-term election). He did better in 1987-92 but even there, the biggest lead (on a gigantic turnout) was 11% in 1990, on an election dominated by the Poll Tax - an issue which was dumped by the Tories by the time of the general election. In any case, you weren't talking about that parliament.
Hague chalked up some impressive totals of gains during 1998-2000 but that was off the back of a truly catastrophic cycle for the Tories from 1994-96. In terms of vote share, he lost two of the three and won the last one by only 2%, with a vote share of less than one-third (the Lib Dems polled some 26%).
In each case, the underlying weakness of the opposition was clear for those prepared to look for it.
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather than a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriage
Toby Young must surely regret accepting the appointment to that Universities-R-Us thing. All his embarrassing past pronouncements are getting dredged up making him look a bit of an arse.
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriage
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriage
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage
Would hesitate to call an ounce for personal use small.
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.
I would disagree. The RCPsych review here on the link between cannabis use, poor school performance, poor work performance, mental health etc is here and quite evidence based:
Decriminalisation without legalisation means that youngsters are safe from prosecution, but as a civil rather than criminal act, be directed towards drug rehab and counselling rather than a criminal record. Obviously these would need to be adequately resourced.
While being permanently stoned may make Brexit Britain more tolerable, it would not improve the countries prospects.
Toby Young must surely regret accepting the appointment to that Universities-R-Us thing. All his embarrassing past pronouncements are getting dredged up making him look a bit of an arse.
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriage
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage
I don't think you're right. Cameron was always a liberal leader and he would have likely still proposed gay marriage even without the Lib Dems which would have been passed with opposition votes.
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriage
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage
I don't think you're right. Cameron was always a liberal leader and he would have likely still proposed gay marriage even without the Lib Dems which would have been passed with opposition votes.
He would not have risked splitting the party in such a way without the buttress of the Coalition at that time
Who passed gay marriage? In Canada a Liberal government, in the UK a LD Tory coalition, in France and Spain Socialist governments, in Australia a Liberal government only after a referendum and in the US the Supreme Court only legalised it under a liberal Democratic President. Most western conservative parties supported civil partnerships but held the view marriage was a religious institution (a plurality of Tory MPs backed the 2004 Civil Partnerships Bill for instance)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that in Australia the "Liberals" are the equivalent of the UK's Conservative Party. They are centre-right, like the Irish government that also put forward their referendum too to legalise it.
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
In Australia the Liberal PM held a referendum rather thsn a direct Parliamentary vote first as so many Coalition MPs opposed gay marriage, in Germany even Angela Merkel did not vote for gay marriage
How the right-wing governments in Australia and Germany legalised gay marriage is considerably less important than the fact they did. If Cameron had proposed instead a referendum on gay marriage it would have passed overwhelmingly by a landslide too like it did in Ireland and Australia.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
You are ignoring the fact most conservative parliamentary representatives voted against gay marriage, as was the case in the UK where a plurality of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage too. Had there been a Tory majority in 2010 gay marriage would likely not have come in in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament and the government would have stuck to civil partnerships.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage
I don't think you're right. Cameron was always a liberal leader and he would have likely still proposed gay marriage even without the Lib Dems which would have been passed with opposition votes.
Regardless of how and why it was implemented, what is extraordinary is how uncontroversial it has now become. Only the political fringe now opposes it. This has held true everywhere it has been introduced.
The latest poll today gives Labour a tiny lead and a projected seat tally of 290. So despite the unpopularity of May's government, the best that Corbyn Labour can be projected for between elections is to be 36 seats short of a majority, and unable to carry out its programme even if were to to come to office.
Compare that with similar polls between elections which gave Kinnock and Miliband double digit leads and projected majority government seat tallies of 350 plus.
As Andrew Rawnsley pointed out in the Observer yesterday, Corbyn and his gang should stop doing hubristic laps of honour after the defeat in 2017, stop taking the electorate for granted by declaring himself prime minister by Christmas 2017, oops sorry that's 2018, and start working out how a 73 year old Marxist demagogue is going to win 60 Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022.
Quite right. To me the case for state-supplied heroin seems incontrovertible. Sadly, no politician would ever propose it for fear of being labelled the druggy's friend. (Dave seemed to be toying with this idea before he became leader, but backed off.)
The Swiss introduced it quite a while back - you have to be a registered addict but any GP can prescribe it. When they introduced it, burglary rates (already low) dropped massively. Some years later, an evangelical group organised a referendum to try to reverse the change. They were defeated - the Swiss are by no means radical, but they're open to new ideas that actually are shown to work. You don't bankrupt yourself, you don't need to become a criminal, you don't need to trade with a criminal and the person you do deal with (your GP) can gently suggest ways to come off it (whereas a criminal dealer will encourage you to take more).
I was told it doesn't happen for crack since apparently a crack addict needs several doses per day, and the GPs and pharmacies would be overwhelmed.
SeanT's view on this issue would be genuinely interesting.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42532776
I get the argument for encouraging people to travel off-peak, but I wonder whether the benefit is really worth all the extra admin and confusion, especially when you account for the cognitive load of the passenger working out when to travel and which ticket to buy.
[*] For example I can get a slightly cheaper Shinkansen ticket by buying the previous day for a particular train using JR's god-awful mobile app, but that's the exception, and it doesn't apply to the regular (slower) commuter trains at all.
As for the comment on them being slow, they run at about 200kph, which is faster than most UK services. I've read that they are bringing in 300kph trains in a few years for select services that have long straight track sections. But the main reason they are slow is not the trains, but the track which has loads of turns because of all the mountains and valleys.
And I say that reluctantly, as I am usually in favour of freedom and free enterprise and against ambulance-chasing lawyers.
I'm also not sure that the new administration will go ahead with it either. They seem to value the relationship with the US much more than the previous one.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/19/support-for-legal-pot-not-so-high-Britian/
Anyway, I must be off. May end up perambulating in precipitation. *sighs*
Of course just over a year ago PB Tories in one of their regular fits of hysteria were suggesting that we team up with Putin and Assad to exterminate the greatest threat to Western democracy since, well, the last one, so anything's possible.
Many others, like myself, find the "Hello Jeff how was your weekend?" distracting and hard work. The more introverted would be more productive at home.
But we tend not to end up in Management...
It's only other people's children that Tories don't mind getting pasted.
1 or 2 days a week home working is more plausible for most than home working full time
Personally, I wouldn't take it any further, I hate the damage that drugs do.
Tories whinge about Russian involvement in Syria but the UK does it the coward's way by just making a profit.
If we don't make legal sales then that just provides more finances to those nations that will make the legal sales to do as they please. That doesn't leave anyone any better off.
Decriminalising use while keeping supply illegal is the worst of all worlds, other than the political one where the supplier remains 'bad' but the customer remains morally neutral (and with votes). Either go the whole hog, legalise and regulate, or keep the entire industry illegal - but apart from the hypocrisy, the side-effects of a half-and-half solution are likely to be worse than either of the other two if effectively administered. You'd think the US might have learned something from prohibition.
@dixiedean:
Agree with that.
However, I would say that we now have the opportunity to study a number of different systems of de-crim in societies reasonably similar to our own (Potugal, Holland, Uruguay, Canada, as well as various different US States' legislation.)
There is, therefore the option of studying these experiments, and producing evidence-based legislation here.
Not holding my breath, mind.
However, I could well see any of the main parties passing the necessary legislation in the right mood. A Lab-LD coalition stands most chance in theory but in practice, it could equally well be a liberal / libertarian Conservative administration. But not before the next election at the earliest.
How many thousands of amendments will they put down on the EU withdrawal bill with no real democratic mandate to justify their 104 seats there based on their party's current support.
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1402678
And further...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/nov/27/lancaster-services-m6-listed-status
Elections analyst Lord Hayward told the Standard that the Tories face likely defeat in two councils and the “fight of their lives” to cling on to three others which were previously seen as safe.
...
Margaret Thatcher’s former local borough, Barnet, is likely to be taken by Jeremy Corbyn’s resurgent Labour party. Since its creation in 1965 the borough has never been controlled by Labour.
The Conservatives look certain to be beaten in Kingston by the Liberal Democrats, who have grown stronger in the area.
Even more alarming for Tory campaign chiefs, they could lose control of Westminster and Wandsworth...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-london-councils-in-spring-elections-reveals-tory-election-expert-a3729901.html
Corbyn Labour should be worried about four things. 1). No opposition has ever gone on to form a government without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls. 2). Despite his much vaunted 40% in 2017, this was brought about largely by piling up votes in seats Labour already holds. He is very very bad at winning Tory marginals in Middle England. 3). Theresa May is unpopular and wounded, yet the Tories continue to be level pegging with Labour between elections, holding up in the 40s. What will happen when the Tories have a new and better at fighting elections leader in 2022? 4). A very large number of older Tory voters did not turn out to vote in 2017, angry at a Tory manifesto which attacked their interests, and convinced that Corbyn was no threat. Suppose as is likely that those older voters turn out in their legions in 2022?
Corbyn wont be PM in 2018, or 2019 or 2020 either. But he had better work out fast how to get to 15 points plus in the polls. Otherwise the song will be "No! Jeremy Corbyn"
Which is why it won't happen for some time yet...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/
In 2014 Labour’s lead was 11% in London and the most recent YouGov has Labour 24% ahead.
"The shadow transport secretary says he was forced to cancel an event as part of protests against rail fare increases - after his train broke down."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-42541650
Opposition parties generally need a more than 10% lead in local elections to be sure of forming the next government
In Germany like Finland it was the centre-right led government that legalised it.
Iceland's Parliment legalised gay marriage unanimously with no MP against it.
Hague chalked up some impressive totals of gains during 1998-2000 but that was off the back of a truly catastrophic cycle for the Tories from 1994-96. In terms of vote share, he lost two of the three and won the last one by only 2%, with a vote share of less than one-third (the Lib Dems polled some 26%).
In each case, the underlying weakness of the opposition was clear for those prepared to look for it.
The idea we needed the Lib Dems in government to give equal rights to a minority that have been granted equal rights in all western liberal democracies globally under both left and right wing governments is utterly absurd.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/948197088847908864
Tory lead becomes a Labour lead.
Italy and Japan and Switzerland and Northern Ireland also still do not have gay marriage
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)
GRN: 1% (-1)
UNCROSSSOVEEEERRRR
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme=mobile
Decriminalisation without legalisation means that youngsters are safe from prosecution, but as a civil rather than criminal act, be directed towards drug rehab and counselling rather than a criminal record. Obviously these would need to be adequately resourced.
While being permanently stoned may make Brexit Britain more tolerable, it would not improve the countries prospects.
Only the political fringe now opposes it.
This has held true everywhere it has been introduced.
NEW THREAD
Compare that with similar polls between elections which gave Kinnock and Miliband double digit leads and projected majority government seat tallies of 350 plus.
As Andrew Rawnsley pointed out in the Observer yesterday, Corbyn and his gang should stop doing hubristic laps of honour after the defeat in 2017, stop taking the electorate for granted by declaring himself prime minister by Christmas 2017, oops sorry that's 2018, and start working out how a 73 year old Marxist demagogue is going to win 60 Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022.
I was told it doesn't happen for crack since apparently a crack addict needs several doses per day, and the GPs and pharmacies would be overwhelmed.
SeanT's view on this issue would be genuinely interesting.