You seriously think this will ever be rolled back if it’s not working?
OK, so now we won't try anything new because if it doesn't work the government will be to scared to put things back how they were before?
Anything else we shouldn't try in case it causes problems and the government is too scared to roll it back? Legalising weed? Safe injection spaces?
Tobacco is the only drug that has to get children addicted to its product. As an industry it simply will not survive if it has to rely on adults taking up the habit. Any other drug people can and do start using at any age. I tried mushrooms for the first time a couple of years ago and it was great. I'd happily do it again.
I tried smoking regular cigarettes in my 20s and it was shit and I never smoked again.
Tobacco has a unique business model and this scheme has a real chance of disrupting it.
Edit: oh, and here is some evidence that governments will have no problem rolling it back:
Tobacco is the only drug that has to get children addicted to its product.
Children are already banned from buying tobacco. If this statement is correct then it shows the existing policy of prohibition for under-18s has already failed. Or do you not regard 18-21 year olds as adults? I actually wouldn't be too bothered if they raised the smoking age to 21 and left it at that. It's the total lifelong ban for one age group I'm mostly against because it will create a new and growing black market. And if New Zealand are reversing it why are we copying them?
I actually wouldn’t be too bothered if they raised the smoking age to 21 and left it at that.
I wouldn't mind that either.
In addition I'd like to see the availability of tobacco reduced. Maybe something similar to the Scandinavian alcohol model where you can only buy strong alcohol from the government 'Vinmonopolet' shops.
And if New Zealand are reversing it why are we copying them?
The government literally came out and said the were reversing it because they didn't want to lose the tax revenue. Not because it wasn't working (yay for right wing governments!).
There won't be a black market for 19 year olds wanting to smoke as we now have vaping and smoking is not what is was. The 'beauty' of smoking is that you can just get them from a shop very easily. Once that is not so easy the 19 years olds won't bother.
Young people just don't smoke or drink to anywhere near the same levels as when I was in my prime 30 years ago.
amazingly the US being one of them!
Oregon, one of the US states that decriminalised the possession of small amounts of some drugs back in 2021, are reclassifying them again just 3 years later, while keeping some of the initiatives that allow folks to access rehabilitation centres and medical help for addiction. They're doing it as voters in places like Portland were getting massively fed up with the open dealing, massive spike in O/D in things like Fentanyl and Meth amongst their kids
They’re doing it as voters in places like Portland were getting massively fed up with the open dealing. massive spike in O/D in things like Fentanyl and Meth amongst their kids
Well the problem here is decriminalising use while criminalising supply. It's the worst of both worlds, increase demand but keep supply in the control of criminals. Hardly a surprise that people don't want gangland drug dealers on their street corners. Irregardless though, the US is heading in a more liberal direction on the drugs issue, which is quite something when a few years ago they were putting people away for life under the 3 strikes rule for dealing a bit of weed.
Dazh is right, (did I just say that?)
Remember when David Blunket reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, (shortly after a period of relaxation of law enforcement for possession in Lambeth / Brixton) a few years ago?
Synthetic cannabis (Spice and the like) filled the gap, leading to greater problems than had existed before, the synthetics being far more dangerous than the natural product. There's still an epidemic of its use in prisons.
The smoking ban created a market for vapes, which the kids seem to love and whilst once they used to have a naughty smoke behind the bike sheds, now they're puffing between lessons and not just the fruity flavours either, they are smoking cannabis oil and derived products, the use of which is becoming an increasing problem in schools.
Smoking is very bad for you, that much is obvious but deploying the legislative hammer can have other negative effects as well that are rarely taken into consideration.
Apparently the biggest factors relating to causing premature death is isolation and lonlness, more than any other specific health condition. I wonder what cumulative effect the closure of all those pubs, cafes and bingo halls after the ban came in had on overall health and mental wellbeing and shortened lives?
Ironically, just before jumping on here I was reading in the MEN. about Jillys / Rockworld shutting down in 2010, the owner attributing its demise to the smoking ban.
So this Rishi bloke, wot a plonker.
I’m no rightwinger (as you know)
Yer not much of a lefty either. You positions you espouse on here are pretty right wing to me. Libertarian right not fascist but right wing all the same
Yer not much of a lefty either.
You know it is possible to be 'on the left' without subscribing to the 'we know best, just do as we say' patriarchal bollocks that often comes from the socialist illuminati? Some of us are capable of thinking outside the outdated boundaries of 19th century revolutionaries.
You positions you espouse on here are pretty right wing to me.
You ought to be judging people's political views according to the country's political centre, not your own. Otherwise, you'd always consider yourself dead centre by definition.
Rishi is dropping his latest and conservative candidate into a boundary change constituency, good Twitter thread below, and below that her LinkedIn bio,
https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1751993396321767935?s=20
boys - you're getting boring...again.
dazh - if you were a real geordie your response to anyone who doesn't agree with you would be...see ya ootside an' I'm ganna kick ya **** heed in; none of this properly argued discourse you appear to favour.
Your polite socialist view wouldn't get you far in any of the pubs on Wallsend high street.
Your polite socialist view wouldn’t get you far in any of the pubs on Wallsend high street.
Absolutely true. Thankfully if I'm ever in a place like that I can switch in to pisshead geordie at the drop of a hat (see the football thread).
If you happen to find yourself stuck there...don't forget to include racist and sexist comments with multiple random insults when you talk to/with/at the locals.
You'll be accepted as one of their own.
I'm more than delighted that Wallsend is a very far distant sight in my rear view mirror.
It's not the place; it's the long entrenched (prejudiced) views of a chunk of the population that I'm happy to be away from - as I have been for a very long time.
It's possible that my views of Wallsend are, themselves, prejudiced.
Many years ago I had the *experience* of working with a bloke from Byker; spoke at machine gun speed in a thoroughly impenetrable form of geordie - slowed down x10 it still wouldn't make much, if any, sense
Tribal would not do him justice.
I think you and he share a (not uncommon) surname; you could be related!
somafunk
Full Member
Rishi is dropping his latest and conservative candidate into a boundary change constituency, good Twitter thread below, and below that her LinkedIn bio,https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1751993396321767935?s=20
Linkedin bio
Interesting and completely predictable once you read her unofficial bio that guy has tweeted, eh?
If only he really listened to the "will of the people" who no doubt would prefer an election sooner rather than later.
Molgrips
Imno lefty either
Dazh is tbe classic thinks he is on tbe left but is not hence tbe absurd suggestion of being barely middle class earning 3x tbe natioal average and being clueless about the real situation for the majority
Sorry dazh but " champagne socialist" is the closest you get
Sorry dazh but ” champagne socialist” is the closest you get
Well firstly even though I’m on the left I don’t describe myself as a socialist and never have. And secondly where in the rule book does it say that working class people or those on the left have to be poorly paid? I paid attention at school, made some astute decisions and had a bit of luck which put me where I am so not apologising for it.
Many years ago I had the *experience* of working with a bloke from Byker; spoke at machine gun speed in a thoroughly impenetrable form of geordie – slowed down x10 it still wouldn’t make much, if any, sense
Funnily enough I've just spent the last month getting to know a lad like that who was staying at my local pub as he was working locally. The Calder Valley is a very gay/trans friendly place so I had a very amusing conversation with him when I tried to explain to him the difference between sex and gender and that some of the lads behind the bar weren't born that way. It's an interesting exercise trying to penetrate decades of social conditioning and wiful ignorance and prejudice but I think I got there. (he was a nice lad actually behind the hard geordie persona, and I managed to get some of my old accent back)
Dont descibe yourself as socialist but on the left. Dinnae be ridiculous laddie.
The point about your wages and the quote was about showing how out of touch you are not that lefties need to be poor
I earned 6 figures at the end of my career.
Retired from it early, I no longer enjoyed it and didn't realise how stressful it was until I walked away. Now run 3 small businesses with the Mrs.
I take Orwell's stance, there is no Middle Class.
The Middle Class is a fallacy, created to keep the oiks in tow and ensure we have a good supply of Tory voters, people who think they are in a prosperous position but in reality only a few months wageslips from disaster.
That Debbie candidate up there, 6 years at Goldman Sachs too...
I've only one demand of Starmer when he becomes PM, I want an inquiry into Govt Corruption, that reports constantly every little illegal and/or immoral act it finds, and prosecutes immediately when it is identified that someone has broken the law.
In fact if he's to create a standalone court to get the prosecutions 'fast-tracked', sort it - and if they need juries, shout, as I'll be retired by then and more than happy to do it for a few months.
Unless we shut this down as soon as possible, ALL politicians will be tarnished - in fact I constantly hear "they're all the same", abet it is mostly from right-leaning folk as it dawns on them they've been screwed. But it needs nipping, and nipping ASAP.
I earned 6 figures at the end of my career.
Retired from it early, I no longer enjoyed it and didn’t realise how stressful it was until I walked away. Now run 3 small businesses with the Mrs.
I take Orwell’s stance, there is no Middle Class.
The Middle Class is a fallacy, created to keep the oiks in tow and ensure we have a good supply of Tory voters, people who think they are in a prosperous position but in reality only a few months wageslips from disaster.
I describe myself as a Champagne Socialist, mainly to wind up Tory voting friends & acquaintance's who are poor and/or earn bu99er all. If the country was structured and run to the policies they support they'd be one illness/accident/job-loss away from destitution.
Even the Torygraph are now calling for him to call a general election, stop this pointless purgatory and just get it over with
Even they have recognised that installing one of their favoured loon candidates would be a waste, and would rather get Kemi started with a clean slate as leader of the opposition.
Kemi is a rabid right wing loon.
Dont descibe yourself as socialist but on the left. Dinnae be ridiculous laddie.
The problem I have with socialism/socialists is that they have an authoritarian streak that puts a lot of fascists to shame. And authoritarianism is what I despise most of all, because it is the root of pretty much every evil in this world. You can however be a supporter of freedom and anti-authoritarianism and stil think the fruits of labour should be shared rather than concentrated in the top few percent. Individual rights and freedom and economic security and justice are complementary, but many traditional socialists don't seem to understand that.
The point about your wages and the quote was about showing how out of touch you are
Not that out of touch. A govt minister packed in his his £120k job and went back to the private sector because he couldn't afford his mortgage. 🙄
Kemi is a rabid right wing loon.
It tells you everything you need to know about the present Tory party that they are even seriously considering foisting someone as clearly insane as her on the country.
Mind you, they voted by a huge majority for Liz Truss
They not learnt much have they?
And I've heard... he's got a mobile phone! 😮
According to the BBC it's because it's jumping from £800 to £2k, I too was wondering what the rest of his outgoings are in order that a £2k pcm mortgage payment is unaffordable on £100k+ salary, especially given how generous MPs expenses are.
Private School Fees.
Big house, big energy bills.
Holidays.
As an ex-Minister he can probably earned a £100k a year for non-exec directorship for a few days a month.
Half a dozen of them and he's laughing.
According to the BBC it’s because it’s jumping from £800 to £2k,
I'm sure he still says hi to Liz and Kwasi when he sees them wandering about though. And I bet it's given him zero insight into the lives of the hundreds of thousands of other people who are falling out of fixed-rate mortgages into a similar situation, but without the option of staying in a 85K job, and just taking on a couple of directorships to make up the difference.
Sounds like his ex-missus has taken him to the cleaners though, which is funny.
He was left with financial overheads after a divorce from his wife, a lawyer from whom he separated in 2014. He is paying maintenance costs for his two children and their educational costs.
Quite easy to get yourself in a situation where most of your £100k is spoken for, especially if you have a big mortgage and you are on a single income i.e not living with someone earning a comparable sum. It's not necessarily a wise thing to have done, but it's easy. The difference is that it's probably your fault.
You can however be a supporter of freedom and anti-authoritarianism and stil think the fruits of labour should be shared rather than concentrated in the top few percent
There's a fundamental dichotomy there because people who make money, given freedom, will want to keep it to themselves. If you want to prevent that, you need some kind of authority in the picture.
If you want to prevent that, you need some kind of authority in the picture.
If you look at historical examples where economic equality was implemented by force they were obviously less than successful. Power and wealth go together, take one away and people exercise the other. So back in the old soviet days the guys at the top didn't have enormous wealth (initially at least) so they did everything they could to protect their power, and this resulted in gulags, famines, executions etc. Socialism in it's traditional form simply doesn't work. It isn't the only method of creating economic justice though, there are others.
If you ask me the solution to a lot of problems is to break the link between power and money. You could come up with all sorts of creative ways of doing this. Hand more power back to local people by empowering local authorities and delegating decisions as far down as possible via local forums and cooperatives. At the other extreme end you could even remove the vote from anyone who has wealth beyond a certain level, or weight the number of votes you have to income/wealth so the less you have the more votes you posess. Give people a choice, power or money, but not both.
I like it. Now remind which which party to vote for that is pushing this power or money thing?
He is paying maintenance costs for his two children and their educational costs.
And he needs to get ready for those private schooling costs going up after his party lose the next election. 🤞🏻
Or, you know, they could mix it in mixed school with our kids. Save more money than cancelling Sky.
Pretty sure that the ones with the power will then use it to get all the money.
Like so many Tory MP's, self-awareness doesn't seem to be something that overly bothers him.
He didn't stop to weigh up the optics of how it would look to the average voter of coming out and saying you can't get by on 120 grand a year in the economy that you have been instrumental in creating?
I was just about to post what binners said, there are many reasons to stand down, Tory MPs are the most practiced of practiced liars, why tell the truth about this, given the optics of it?
Isn't this why Sunak fasts? Feeling the pinch?
I've heard he can only heat his swimming pool 6 days a week now.
delegating decisions as far down as possible via local forums and cooperatives.
Yeah, no, bit of a flaw in your thinking there, look what happened last time when the decision making was pushed all the way down to the population, Brexit, the majority actively voted to make themselves poorer without stopping to think.
If you think national level politics is a storm of self interest and corruption it's way worse as you go down the political scale to the local level.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1752281504728707076
Labour now beating Tory (although not Tory+reform) in every age demographic except 70+ . And yet there was talk of abolishing the triple lock to fund tax cuts before an election.
At the other extreme end you could even remove the vote from anyone who has wealth beyond a certain level,
I've raised the point on here before. I like the idea, you can have money or a say in how things are run, but you can't have both, simply as your money insulates you from decisions and priorities others need to make
the solution to a lot of problems is to break the link between power and money.
Now remind which which party to vote for that is pushing this power or money thing
breaking the link between money and power is a means (not a very feasible one in my view). The aim of doing this is a fairer society. There are other means to achieve this, possibly more feasible, that starmer amongst others talks about. Sorry. Sorry.
interesting point through. A strong cohesive society with respect for law and societal structures (be they statutory or religious or whatever) is a way to contain the power of individuals (which they'll tend to use in their self interest making other's lives harder whether it's straightforwardly knicking their stuff or exploiting their work in a factory). It's a bit more nuanced than a simple authoritarian/libertarian continuum.
Replace the House of Lords with a Sortition based assembly.
breaking the link between money and power is a means (not a very feasible one in my view)
There are some things that very easy to do, such as banning lobbying or regulating it tightly to make it transparent. That would put a large dent in the power of the very rich and corporations. Another one is massively increasing the power of local authorities. Yes there is still corruption but councillors are much closer to their constituents than MPs and the level of corporate influence at local levels is less than national. Also I've mentioned it before but removing the vote from the over 70s is not entirely undoable (if unlikely right now). I'm sure there's plenty other stuff, it doesn't need a revolution, just some leadership, vision and courage amongst politicians and voters receptive to some change.
Another one is massively increasing the power of local authorities. Yes there is still corruption...
Corruption? Do you not read 'Rotten Boroughs' in Private Eye? Have you been paying attention to whats presently going on with the freeport in Teeside?
Its all-party too, not just the Tories. If you want to see endemic corruption then just look at somewhere like Liverpool. Talk to anyone who has any dealing with the mafia that run the council there. You'd be hard pushed to find a more bent administration in a South American backwater.
If you think that devolving more power and money to people like them will lead to more accountability then you're absolutely delusional
If you think that devolving more power and money to people like them will lead to more accountability then you’re absolutely delusional
It would need reform obviously to make it much more accountable and transparent. Something that shouldn't be too difficult to do I would have thought in this age of the internet. Honestly if we can't stamp out corrutption in organisations such as councils then we might as well give up now. 🤔
Not that you surprise me with your defeatist outlook. Most of the party you go out canvassing for are currently engaged in an exercise of telling voters that everything is way too difficult or too expensive to change much so they really shouldn't expect a lot.
such as banning lobbying or regulating it tightly to make it transparent
Of course, depending on who is in power this will be done in different ways. See Cameron/Greensill. New legal restrictions on lobbying were framed to make things harder for genuine not for profits to lobby, but created loopholes for Cameron and his mates to earn their dirty money. And his reward for his corruption is to be back in the government. Nice one Sunak... rub our faces in it.
Give people a choice, power or money, but not both.
Mate - money IS power.
Mate – money IS power.
Exactly. You have identified the problem.
It doesn't follow though that this must always be the case. We could easily start to break the links in any number of ways. As with most things related to politics and economics, they are only the way they are because we have designed them that way, and they can easily be designed differently.
We could easily start to break the links in any number of ways.
Don't be daft. As long as there's democracy, political power depends on voters and anyone with money can influence voters as much as they like. You can put rules in to prevent rich people gaining power but they won't work.
I'm not saying money gets you power, I'm saying that money IS power - they are just different words for the exact same thing.
But its not an all or nothing choice. It's degrees, I'm pretty sure everyone on here is aware that that organisations like Taxpayers Alliance are funded entirely covertly, no one has any idea where the money comes from. So, change the rules, you want to lobby MPs? Fine, you can, but you have agree to be totally transparent about your sources of funding and submit to annual audits that'll be made public.
It's admitting that money has an undue influence and committing to do something about it to balance the scales.
Yes, we can do things to balance the scales but the more we do that the more that tends towards authoritarianism - telling people what they can and can't do with their own money - and that's something dazh is also against, paradoxically.
I am in favour of strict rules on what people can do with their money, but I realise that this is not compatible with libertarianism. The issue is that you can't force this on people in a democracy - and it doesn't even work well elsewhere - you have to get people to WANT these rules in place. The reason that Scandinavian countries are more social democracies is that they were always more equal. In other words, they aren't more equal because of their politics; they have those politics because they're more equal.
The UK was very unequal several centuries ago, and it slowly moved towards real democracy. For the past 40 years that democratic trend has been reveresed as the extremely wealthy have exerted more background control over polotics.
Having rules and transparancy about the funding and access the mega wealthy have to polotivs is libertarian, it frees the majority to have a political impacts with their votes, currently we only get to vote on the choices the wealthy want us to be offered.
they are just different words for the exact same thing.
Nonsense. Power is the ability to coerce someone else to do something (or not do it), or think a certain way. Yes money provides people/organisations with the means to exercise power, but if the people they're trying to influence refuse then they have no power. In that obvious case the two are not the same. The task in front of politicians is/should be to exercise that ability to say no to power when the only basis for that power is money. In any number of ways our political system could be based on this simple principle, and almost everything would be much better for working people.
Having rules and transparancy about the funding and access the mega wealthy have to polotics is libertarian
Sure. But politics isn't the only way to have power, and precisely because money is the same as power, rich people will still be able to influence things. Perhaps by preventing such laws from being passed...
In any number of ways our political system could be based on this simple principle
And yet it's not. Because the rich don't want it to be that way...
The task in front of politicians is/should be to exercise that ability to say no to power when the only basis for that power is money.
Uh huh. Then I invest some money into making sure the hopeful politician who will say yes to money/power gets elected instead of the person with principles.
Because the rich don’t want it to be that way…
Has binners hacked your account? Things might be tipped in the favour of the rich right now but that hasn't always been the case and it won't be in future. By all means shrug your shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done, but don't pretend it's some immutable law because it isn't.
That's because the tories are still better than that Labour who will just take all my money away and give it to scroungers
So over half the +70’s are planning to vote for the very policies that have got the country to a place that they all seem to hate.
Its because the LEFT control the media, schools, civil service etc and so the tories are limited in their ability to save us all from the all powerful left.
That’s because the tories are still better than that Labour who will just take all my money away and give it to scroungers
Who would you rather be given money?
A) Targeted investment in social support, education, infrastructure and health (the idea being the people that benefit from such support will go on to become net contributors to society, or at least not a loss).
B) Offshore all the money via elaborate tax and procurement scams at the expense of the public pocket (the idea being the people who benefit from such support will become more wealthy than they already are).
Who would you rather be given money?
mattyfez - I'm reading kerley's response as satire
Things might be tipped in the favour of the rich right now but that hasn’t always been the case
No? I mean, the Black Death probably tipped the balance a bit but that was a while ago.
By all means shrug your shoulders and say there’s nothing that can be done
I'm not saying nothing can be done. I'm saying that which needs to be done is not particularly compatible with a libertarian viewpoint. You need laws to prevent money leading to exploitation. I'm also saying that you can't simply roll out these laws, because the very power you are seeking to curtail will prevent it. The only way to do this is with permanent popular support for a more egalitarian viewpoint, and that is not simply a case of passing a few laws. I mean it is, but no party will do it without the popular support it needs. It's like saying the solution to being poor is to make more money. The solution isn't to change politicians' minds, you need to change the electorate's minds.
Things might be tipped in the favour of the rich right now but that hasn’t always been the case and it won’t be in future.
When was that then?
intheborders
Free Member
So over half the +70’s are planning to vote for the very policies that have got the country to a place that they all seem to hate.#CouldntMakeItUp
I can only think they love moaning about the NHS as a passtime and would be devastated if that subject was taken off the table?
There's only one subject left then and that's why they're are so many black/ brown people on TV?
On a more serious note, it's bemusing how *some* of the over 70's are so keen to vote for a party that's actively destroying social care and the NHS. Turkeys voting for Christmas.😑
Oh dear.
What I find incomprehensible it that top tier ministers are allowed to conduct business via uncontrolled/private whattsapp groups..in any other profession it would be gross misconduct, and immediate dismissal.
Imagine knowing there is a WhatsApp group known as Evil Plotters that only exists to throw you out of your job?
He's lucky he isn't in Russian politics I suppose?
What's even more absurd is that someone in the 'evil plotters' whatsapp group added someone who subsquently leaked all of the details of the 'evil plotters' dastardly plans!
There's a mole within the sacred circle of evil plooters!
God, it's like a bunch of pissed up 16 year old girls bickering about someone they don't like... it's utterly, utterly pathetic, and these people are 'running' the country?
What I also don’t get is the press referring to their ridiculous carry-on as Machiavellian?
Eh? My cat is considerably more cunning in the way it conducts itself. This lot are so stupid, they telegraph their next move with neon lights and fireworks. All you really need to do is look at who Michael Gove has been seen with lately.
They actually called their own WhatsApp group ‘ Evil Plotters’. Seriously? How very ‘Machiavellian’ of them. I’m presuming the icon for the group is a picture of Dick Dastardly s****ing? Like @Mattyfez says, this really is playground level stuff. And these are people who want to be taken seriously as some kind of government-in-waiting? What a bunch of clowns!
Every day, something else about this government turns up which can only be described using the term 'pathetic'. Or 'infantile'.
I think that reflects the general standard of the 2019 intake of absolute morons that rode in on Johnsons coat-tails
In more positive news, polling in my constituency is presently predicting our useless Tory MP being hoofed out and a hefty labour majority.
I suspect that will be replicated in a lot of constituencies that were quite shocked to discover they now had a Tory MP last time around.