The Politics Thread 2019

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

3 hours ago, bcnram said:

I think the time has come for those who take up valuable NHS resources through smoking and drinking or eating stupidly pay their way or they won’t have the resources to deal with my ingrowing toenail. 

Many already do - it's National Insurance over a lifetime .  Plus the tax they already pay on some items .  What's your view on health tourism .  Great Ormond street are about to write off close to 85 million that they can't get back .  Do we refuse treatment in case we don't get this money at point of source.  How far do you take it .  What about if someone breaks a leg playing sport .  That's at there own risk .  Someone gats a brain injury after a night out from being set up on for no reason - there choice to go out .   if someone develops lung cancer from working in a bar for thirty years prior to the smoking ban-  do we refuse treatment as the risk of second hand smoke was known . Your proposed black and white system is unworkable .

[bcnram]

10 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Many already do - it's National Insurance over a lifetime .  Plus the tax they already pay on some items .  What's your view on health tourism .  Great Ormond street are about to write off close to 85 million that they can't get back .  Do we refuse treatment in case we don't get this money at point of source.  How far do you take it .  What about if someone breaks a leg playing sport .  That's at there own risk .  Someone gats a brain injury after a night out from being set up on for no reason - there choice to go out .   if someone develops lung cancer from working in a bar for thirty years prior to the smoking ban-  do we refuse treatment as the risk of second hand smoke was known . Your proposed black and white system is unworkable .

You are reading way to much into my post, don’t get stressed ?. Life is ok and the NHS in my limited experience is brilliant. I will have my ingrowing toenail done privately anyway. x

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

17 minutes ago, bcnram said:

You are reading way to much into my post, don’t get stressed ?. Life is ok and the NHS in my limited experience is brilliant. I will have my ingrowing toenail done privately anyway. x

No - not getting stressed .  Just putting a point over .  good luck with the toenail. 

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

No - not getting stressed .  Just putting a point over .  good luck with the toenail. 

GS not sure where you are going with this.  Are you advocating reducing tax on all products like cigarettes and alcohol?

[Highgate]

15 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

Tobacco for me is such a strange one. 

On no other product in the world it if was labelled "this product KILLS" or "this product causes lung cancer" would people go out and buy it in such high volume.

I've never seen anyone have a couple of mouthfuls of bleach everyday. FFS - if it kills (and it does) BAN it. Don't tax it. Stop making it.

Alcohol will have to be banned too then.  And fatty or sugary foods.  Will probably have to ban dangerous activities like swimming and driving too. 

We can't simply ban things that are dangerous to an individual in my opinion.  People must have the freedom to treat their own lives and bodies as they wish  It's when those activities directly harm other people that the government has a right to step in and impose laws.

So, let people smoke if they want to, it's their right as free citizens.  Just don't do it near me please ?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

GS not sure where you are going with this.  Are you advocating reducing tax on all products like cigarettes and alcohol?

No - Although there is a large disparity on the tax included at point of sale . This , I expect will close over the next twenty when the full effects of alcopops and jagerbombs come to light . At the minute it makes the exchequer money so they will allow it . My point is as posted .  You can't penalise someone for having a vice and then not penalise someone for having another when it come's to healthcare, if we penalised everything most people would only qualify to have an ingrown toenail done .-  unless of course it was due to ill fitting shoes.

[maxjam]

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-falls-into-fourth-place-in-new-opinion-poll-11756313

Sky run with Labour drop to 4th, but the real story should be how are the Tories still leading? 

Regardless of what happens with Brexit, politics and how politicians view and engage the public needs a radical overhaul - not gonna happen though cos that would mean diluting their power.  Bamfords.

[cstand]

19 hours ago, cstand said:

Convicted for financial misconduct Christine Lagarde is now head of the ECB this has to be fake news come on remainers tell me it's not true. But when you are spending vast amounts of other people's money does the EU actually care.  Oh well it's ticked the girl power box I suppose.

 

 I suppose she will bring her vast experience of banking skills to the top job at the ECB..................... well no she is a lawyer but famously said if it had been Lehman sisters and not brothers the bank would not have gone bust so being sexist on the right side of the fence gets you the top job. But being a fair man I have to listen to what fantastic news and exciting ideas she going to bring to the table. Well she going to continue  the policy of her predecessor of money printing.

 

[ronnieronalde]

6 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Alcohol will have to be banned too then.  And fatty or sugary foods.  Will probably have to ban dangerous activities like swimming and driving too. 

We can't simply ban things that are dangerous to an individual in my opinion.  People must have the freedom to treat their own lives and bodies as they wish  It's when those activities directly harm other people that the government has a right to step in and impose laws.

So, let people smoke if they want to, it's their right as free citizens.  Just don't do it near me please ?

I don't like being this harsh but... give over. What a ridiculous set of comparisons.

By the way, passive smoking has been causing death and illness for years as well. I've never seen anyone die because someone else eats 15 happy meals a week. I've never seen anyone die (from illness) because someone else drinks.

People who die driving or in driving related incidents die accidentally (on the whole).

As for swimming? really?

Man alive. I don't quite know how to answer this post without getting into arguing territory.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm - smoking deaths (in the US unfortunately but i's the only link I can find quickly) Notice 41,000 deaths each year from passive.

https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html - swimming deaths again on the whole purely accideental.

The reason smoking isn't banned is entirely down to money. I read a daming report yesterday which suggest that governments are happy for smokers to die prematurely as the cost to the NHS of someone dying at 40 from lung cancer costs less than someone who is a non-smoker who goes on to live until they're 80.

83% of the cost of a packer of fags here in the UK goes directly to the treasury in taxes.

[Stive Pesley]

9 minutes ago, maxjam said:

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-falls-into-fourth-place-in-new-opinion-poll-11756313

Sky run with Labour drop to 4th, but the real story should be how are the Tories still leading? 

Regardless of what happens with Brexit, politics and how politicians view and engage the public needs a radical overhaul - not gonna happen though cos that would mean diluting their power.  Bamfords.

Kind of ironic that Corbyn's strategy on Brexit has been to play the long game, but now that's starting to backfire as it drags on even longer before a General Election. This was always the danger of the strategy I think

Every voting intention poll now feels like more of a proxy 2nd referendum poll. 

The Tories are now back in front because a sizeable chunk of Farage supporters will love Boris and his hard Brexit demagoguery, and Labour are so low because their remainers are all heading over to the LibDems to "punish" Corbyn

 

[cstand]

8 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Kind of ironic that Corbyn's strategy on Brexit has been to play the long game, but now that's starting to backfire as it drags on even longer before a General Election. This was always the danger of the strategy I think

Every voting intention poll now feels like more of a proxy 2nd referendum poll. 

The Tories are now back in front because a sizeable chunk of Farage supporters will love Boris and his hard Brexit demagoguery, and Labour are so low because their remainers are all heading over to the LibDems to "punish" Corbyn

 

Corbyn is being punished for wanting Shamima Begum back and rightly so loads of folk I know in my union will not vote Labour due to him being a terrorist lover. 

[GboroRam]

9 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Kind of ironic that Corbyn's strategy on Brexit has been to play the long game, but now that's starting to backfire as it drags on even longer before a General Election. This was always the danger of the strategy I think

Every voting intention poll now feels like more of a proxy 2nd referendum poll. 

The Tories are now back in front because a sizeable chunk of Farage supporters will love Boris and his hard Brexit demagoguery, and Labour are so low because their remainers are all heading over to the LibDems to "punish" Corbyn

 

I think you're right about the long game. And I also think there's a second problem that selecting a horse and backing it now, will look like indecisiveness from the get-go. I presume the plan was to see how it goes, let the Tories foul up the actual EU Exit and come in and rise to power on the back of it. They get out of the EU, always Corbyn's preference, yet not take any negative press. Or, if public opinion truly turned significantly (which I would say it hasn't, not radically) then switch to a remain position at the last minute and pick up support from the disillusioned voters. That seems unlikely to happen in either case now, certainly not in the short term at least.

[Stive Pesley]

Just now, cstand said:

Corbyn is being punished for wanting Shamima Begum back and rightly so loads of folk I know in my union will not vote Labour due to him being a terrorist lover. 

And the award for this week's most pathetic and needless post goes to....drum roll

[GboroRam]

10 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

And the award for this week's most pathetic and needless post goes to....drum roll

Now now, there probably was a majority of people in the country would happily have stripped Shamima of her nationality, maybe would have happily shoved her off a boat in the middle of the ocean. It was fairly accepted common opinion.

I read a really interesting article from some organisation who work with deradicalizing individuals who were caught in the Isis movement, and they said she looked like a really good candidate to bring back from the brink. It's hardly surprising that she wasn't going to announce out loud that she didn't want to be there, considering other Isis members would be listening to every word. She gave very strong hints that she was out of her depth, wanted out and could have been worked with.

I understand 100% the sentiment of everyone who wanted her out of the country, but she's a British citizen. At the very least the rest of the world expected us to sort our own problem out, dealing with her as a British citizen rather than expecting some other country to step in and do something. What was intended to look like a show of strength actually turned into a show of weakness.

[Highgate]

28 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

I don't like being this harsh but... give over. What a ridiculous set of comparisons.

By the way, passive smoking has been causing death and illness for years as well. I've never seen anyone die because someone else eats 15 happy meals a week. I've never seen anyone die (from illness) because someone else drinks.

People who die driving or in driving related incidents die accidentally (on the whole).

As for swimming? really?

Man alive. I don't quite know how to answer this post without getting into arguing territory.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm - smoking deaths (in the US unfortunately but i's the only link I can find quickly) Notice 41,000 deaths each year from passive.

https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html - swimming deaths again on the whole purely accideental.

The reason smoking isn't banned is entirely down to money. I read a daming report yesterday which suggest that governments are happy for smokers to die prematurely as the cost to the NHS of someone dying at 40 from lung cancer costs less than someone who is a non-smoker who goes on to live until they're 80.

83% of the cost of a packer of fags here in the UK goes directly to the treasury in taxes.

Passive smoking is not being debated here. Yeah of course passive smoking kills...that's why it should always be banned in public areas.  And that's when the government should step in, as I pointed out, when others are at risk.  But you were in favour of banning it entirely it seems to me.  Which would prevent people from smoking in their own homes/cars/rooms or whatever.  In other words when people are only risking their own lives.  

Banning smoking entirely seems excessively controlling. And yes, swimming.  Lots of people drown.  Government's role is not to micro manage our lives.  If I want to harm myself...then it's my right to do it.  If i want do something that harms others then the government should have the authority to stop me.  This is a fairly straightforward freedom of choice position, and hence the (entirely apt in my opinion) set of comparisons above. 

[GboroRam]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Passive smoking is not being debated here. Yeah of course passive smoking kills...that's why it should always be banned in public areas.  And that's when the government should step in, as I pointed out, when others are at risk.  But you were in favour of banning it entirely it seems to me.  Which would prevent people from smoking in their own homes/cars/rooms or whatever.  In other words when people are only risking their own lives.  

Banning smoking entirely seems excessively controlling. And yes, swimming.  Lots of people drown.  Government's role is not to micro manage our lives.  If I want to harm myself...then it's my right to do it.  If i want do something that harms others then the government should have the authority to stop me.  This is a fairly straightforward freedom of choice position, and hence the (entirely apt in my opinion) set of comparisons above. 

You're making a very coherent argument for the legalisation of crack and heroin.

[ronnieronalde]

3 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Passive smoking is not being debated here. Yeah of course passive smoking kills...that's why it should always be banned in public areas.  And that's when the government should step in, as I pointed out, when others are at risk.  But you were in favour of banning it entirely it seems to me.  Which would prevent people from smoking in their own homes/cars/rooms or whatever.  In other words when people are only risking their own lives.  

Banning smoking entirely seems excessively controlling. And yes, swimming.  Lots of people drown.  Government's role is not to micro manage our lives.  If I want to harm myself...then it's my right to do it.  If i want do something that harms others then the government should have the authority to stop me.  This is a fairly straightforward freedom of choice position, and hence the (entirely apt in my opinion) set of comparisons above. 

Are all smokers single folk who live on their own?

[Stive Pesley]

6 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

Are all smokers single folk who live on their own?

No - you're thinking of Jordan Petersen fans ?

[Highgate]

39 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

You're making a very coherent argument for the legalisation of crack and heroin.

I do have a problem with banning any drugs actually.  I would rather deter drug use through education, and treat addicts medically instead of criminalizing then.  Although with crack and heroin the argument for banning is much stronger than it is with tobacco, which is surely more on a par with alcohol.  

Cannabis on the other hand should be legalized right now.  No justification for it's continued prohibition, in my view. 

[ronnieronalde]

2 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

No - you're thinking of Jordan Petersen fans ?

Blimey, if I'd have known Jordan Petersen deliberately mass produced something that caused cancer and death on an industrial scale, just to make money, I'd never have watched that first youtube video.

Pesky Canadian intellects, you can't trust them as far as you can throw them.

By the way, do you know which of his views I found intriguing?

His views on lobsters and their nervous system and his views on not destroying your partners self confidence just to win an argument. I've never understood why people need to make other people feel bad about themselves, so they can feel good. 

I also agree with him that us human's need to exist in a hierarchy, the better/cleverer/highly skilled leaders should always rise to the top and as a race we need that. As long as once they rise to the top they use their position for the good of the many and not the good of the few. That side of it is currently failing for sure.

His occasional nasty/narky way of being condescending to those who interview him, I'm not so keen on, in fact it was my dislike of that side of him that made me watch him in the first place.

He's possibly too clever for his own good and certainly too clever for me to fully understand, but I'd prefer to listen to a clever controversial person than an absolute dumbass controversial person.