Jump to content

The Politics Thread 2019


David

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

Are all smokers single folk who live on their own?

I assume not, but when they are alone (unless you are claiming smokers are always accompanied) I would like them to have the option of smoking if they so wished. 

For the record, I absolutely hate smoking. Can't imagine why anyone would want to do it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour 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

 

Or in short … JC has blobbed it mate.

The worst Tory Govt shambles ever, beyond belief pants ……..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

… and he has still blobbed it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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. 

I think that his problem will be that the majority will not want the red flag over Downing Street while the politburo are in meeting nationalising everything in site. A very scary thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

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.

image.thumb.png.93f437130611c8df4032d9e8b271c3c7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I assume not, but when they are alone (unless you are claiming smokers are always accompanied) I would like them to have the option of smoking if they so wished. 

For the record, I absolutely hate smoking. Can't imagine why anyone would want to do it.  

Perhaps not always accompanied but have you ever been in a room where someone has smoked? The air is polluted, their clothes are polluted, the smoke doesn't just evaporate, it lingers.

I'm putting myself in the position of me as a kid. Both of my parents smoked 40 tabs a days. I had no choice or say in the matter, They would also always make sure they had cigarettes even if it meant we had no food in the fridge.

You compare it alcohol? I can guarantee that if my mam and dad were raving alcoholics or class a drug addicts, the social services would intervene and we'd be taken away from our parents and put in a safer, healthier environment.

Poor people make stupid decisions and prioritise stupid things. If poor people couldn't easily access cigarettes then kids would be better off and healthier.

http://ash.org.uk/category/information-and-resources/health-inequalities/

Read that, tell me who benefits from such high taxes on something which is literally killing the poor more than it's killing the rich and all the while the rich get richer by producing and taxing the product which kills so many.

Anyone would think governments/tobacco production firms across the globe were comfortable with so many poor people dying early while still contributing a huge amount in taxes on the product that's killing them. I'll say again 83% of the cost of a packet of cigarettes goes to the government in taxes.

So yes, for the sake of the next generation and the one after that, ban commercial tobacco production. Make it illegal to smoke.

If as you say people still want to smoke, they'll find a way, the same as they have with cannabis for example which kills nowhere near the same amount of people. If I were in charge there is no way on gods green earth tobacco and cigarettes would be produced on such a massive massive scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

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.

I've no doubt that he is clever, and like you I find plenty to agree with in some of the stuff he says (not the lobster crap though). What I  specifically don't like is the way he manipulates his audience to tap into their fears and encourage their anger. I don't see him offer solutions, or ways to reassure/help those people overcome their fears. Too much of it is just nastiness and singling out "enemies". The fact that he's a professional psychologist leads me to believe he knows exactly what he is doing, and has gotten himself very rich as a result...nice

I like the sound of this guy though

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/magid-mep-greens-eu-parliament-racism-brexit-party-nigel-farage-a8987886.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

I've no doubt that he is clever, and like you I find plenty to agree with in some of the stuff he says (not the lobster crap though). What I  specifically don't like is the way he manipulates his audience to tap into their fears and encourage their anger. I don't see him offer solutions, or ways to reassure/help those people overcome their fears. Too much of it is just nastiness and singling out "enemies". The fact that he's a professional psychologist leads me to believe he knows exactly what he is doing, and has gotten himself very rich as a result...nice

I like the sound of this guy though

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/magid-mep-greens-eu-parliament-racism-brexit-party-nigel-farage-a8987886.html

on the first bolded part, Maybe this is where I'm not clever enough to understand but I don't really hear that in any of the lectures I've watched.

On the second bit, hasn' t he made his fortune by doing exactly that? He wrote a self help book called the "12 rules of life" didn't he? I'm not sure what that is if it isn't something trying to help reassure/overcome their fears (or lack of confidence/purpose/identity)

I thought it was a best seller (3 million copies worldwide) with many people claiming it had transformed their lives for the better?

Or have I got that wrong as well?

I'm not as big a fan of him as you might be thinking, I just watched a lot of hours of his lectures (I watched more lectures than I did his talks), while putting myself through some pretty painful days of youtube videos, and I only did that so I could better understand other people's point of view.

I'll have a look at that link in a bit, unless you tell me it's about Farage being a good bloke, if it's that and you were being ironic, let me know so I can save myself some time and not click through ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

I'll have a look at that link in a bit, unless you tell me it's about Farage being a good bloke, if it's that and you were being ironic, let me know so I can save myself some time and not click through ?

No - it's about the ex-mayor of Sheffield, now an MEP for the Green Party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

Perhaps not always accompanied but have you ever been in a room where someone has smoked? The air is polluted, their clothes are polluted, the smoke doesn't just evaporate, it lingers.

I'm putting myself in the position of me as a kid. Both of my parents smoked 40 tabs a days. I had no choice or say in the matter, They would also always make sure they had cigarettes even if it meant we had no food in the fridge.

You compare it alcohol? I can guarantee that if my mam and dad were raving alcoholics or class a drug addicts, the social services would intervene and we'd be taken away from our parents and put in a safer, healthier environment.

Poor people make stupid decisions and prioritise stupid things. If poor people couldn't easily access cigarettes then kids would be better off and healthier.

http://ash.org.uk/category/information-and-resources/health-inequalities/

Read that, tell me who benefits from such high taxes on something which is literally killing the poor more than it's killing the rich and all the while the rich get richer by producing and taxing the product which kills so many.

Anyone would think governments/tobacco production firms across the globe were comfortable with so many poor people dying early while still contributing a huge amount in taxes on the product that's killing them. I'll say again 83% of the cost of a packet of cigarettes goes to the government in taxes.

So yes, for the sake of the next generation and the one after that, ban commercial tobacco production. Make it illegal to smoke.

If as you say people still want to smoke, they'll find a way, the same as they have with cannabis for example which kills nowhere near the same amount of people. If I were in charge there is no way on gods green earth tobacco and cigarettes would be produced on such a massive massive scale.

Quite simply parents shouldn't smoke around kids.  If they feel the need to smoke they should smoke in a room that children don't frequent.  In the past, sadly, people seemed completely unaware of the dangers of passive smoking.  Nowadays there is no such excuse. 

I've no desire to defend the tobacco industry, an industry i have nothing and want nothing to do with.  I'm rather defending personal freedoms of an individual to risk damaging their own health if they think it's worth it.  And I'm against a controlling nanny state, which thinks it must save us from ourselves and control what we put into own bodies.  They should not have the right to do that as far as I'm concerned. 

I still don't see how you think it's fair for a government to ban private tobacco smoking and yet allow alcohol consumption.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronnieronalde said:

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.

He appears not to understand his own arguments much of the time.  I pity the unfortunate evolutionary biologist who has had the misfortune of listening to his nonsense about lobsters or the climatologist who has heard his illogical meanderings on climate change.   And lets not get started on his obscure brand of religious mysticism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronnieronalde said:

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.

That assumes we live in a meritocracy with a level playing field, which we do not. 

It also assumes that the only satisfactory outlet for using your abilities is gaining wealth, power and status in excess of others, which it is not. 

Finally, you assume that everyone is content to be ruled over by someone else, which we are not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Quite simply parents shouldn't smoke around kids.  If they feel the need to smoke they should smoke in a room that children don't frequent.  In the past, sadly, people seemed completely unaware of the dangers of passive smoking.  Nowadays there is no such excuse. 

I've no desire to defend the tobacco industry, an industry i have nothing and want nothing to do with.  I'm rather defending personal freedoms of an individual to risk damaging their own health if they think it's worth it.  And I'm against a controlling nanny state, which thinks it must save us from ourselves and control what we put into own bodies.  They should not have the right to do that as far as I'm concerned. 

I still don't see how you think it's fair for a government to ban private tobacco smoking and yet allow alcohol consumption.  

I'm not totally against the banning of alcohol,, I've seen the harm that can cause an individual at very close quarters.

I just don't think everything can be fixed in one fell swoop, I think things need to be fixed in phases and for me tobacco production on such a massive scale is basically mass killing just under a different name.

I'm also not totally against private tobacco smoking if that person could guarantee that it's not impacting anyone else. 

I'm against mass production of tobacco. If it were less readily available less people would buy it, you must see that?

https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/problem/toll-us - tobacco causes more deaths than alcohol, driving, AIDS. murders, suicides and illegal drugs combined. Again it's US focused.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15370764 - people with lower intelligence levels are more likely to smoke, drink and be obese. They're also more likely to be poor.

Let's be honest here, you've either got to be addicted to them or you've got to be really silly topay £13.00 for a box of 20 anythings that says clearly "this product kills".

So without being too simplistic about it, it's the poor and the stupid who are more likely to die from smoking and on top of that they're being taxed to the hilt for voluntarily killing themselves (and others) early.

You mentioned earlier that you should be allowed to harm yourself but if you do something to harm others then the government has the right to intervene.

Let's just say hypothetically your name is not Highgate, it's Phillip Morris.

You don't think the government should intervene in the harm he's causing others? If Phillip was producing cigarettes for his own consumption, fair play to him, smoke away. He's not, he's producing cancer on a stick and he's making it available to anyone and everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, McRainy said:

That assumes we live in a meritocracy with a level playing field, which we do not. 

It also assumes that the only satisfactory outlet for using your abilities is gaining wealth, power and status in excess of others, which it is not. 

Finally, you assume that everyone is content to be ruled over by someone else, which we are not. 

1) you're right, we don't

2) not true at all, there is such a thing as doing something for the greater good and not for money or power (I'm about to embark on such a journey myself). Surely there MUST be more people out there who aren't in it just for themselves? I'm especially talking about our leaders here, politicians, teachers, SOCIAL workers, civil SERVANTS. 

Somewhere along the line everything and everyone has become about money and commercialisation. What's in it for me, not what can I do for others.

3) I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying there are people who are naturally (or who learn how to be) better leaders, better plumbers, better teachers, better anything and everything and surely it's those people who we want to be at the top of their tree, for us to have access to, to use as "service providers" and for others to learn from? I'm not talking about anyone "ruling" over anyone.  I'm talking about talent and hard work reaching the top - something I don't think happens enough right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoSRiQuk6Zw - skip to 1.35. That probably explains it better than I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

I'm also not totally against private tobacco smoking if that person could guarantee that it's not impacting anyone else. 

I'm against mass production of tobacco. If it were less readily available less people would buy it, you must see that?

You mentioned earlier that you should be allowed to harm yourself but if you do something to harm others then the government has the right to intervene.

You don't think the government should intervene in the harm he's causing others? If Phillip was producing cigarettes for his own consumption, fair play to him, smoke away. He's not, he's producing cancer on a stick and he's making it available to anyone and everyone.

I think we can reach some middle ground here.  It seems you are not for banning smoking entirely then.  It's the tobacco industry that you are targeting.  You say that they are deliberately harming others and profiting from it.  That's a perfectly valid point. 

It's for that reason that I've often thought that drug use itself should not be a crime but the selling of drugs should be (including that of Mr. Morris).  That would not violate the harm principal.  Therefore we can ban the commercial selling of tobacco/nicotine and simply allow people to grow their own tobacco or and smoke it privately.  Problem solved?

Of course to be consistent the same would have to do same with alcohol, and I don't want to have to brew my own every time I want a beer! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

there is such a thing as doing something for the greater good and not for money or power

I think you've just undermined your own argument for needing to live in a hierarchy  

 

36 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

there are people who are naturally (or who learn how to be) better leaders, better plumbers, better teachers, better anything and everything and surely it's those people who we want to be at the top of their tree, for us to have access to, to use as "service providers" and for others to learn from? I'm not talking about anyone "ruling" over anyone.  I'm talking about talent and hard work reaching the top 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the 'top'. In a market system wouldn't that generally mean the most highly rewarded, with the highest status, most influence etc?

What if we didn't measure or evaluate people in that way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Of course to be consistent the same would have to do same with alcohol, and I don't want to have to brew my own every time I want a beer! 

It has more merit to the idea than you think. No more John Smiths, and good honest brews. I'm in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McRainy said:

1) I think you've just undermined your own argument for needing to live in a hierarchy  

 

2) Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the 'top'. In a market system wouldn't that generally mean the most highly rewarded, with the highest status, most influence etc?

What if we didn't measure or evaluate people in that way? 

This is going to be a pretty weird answer really, as it's a selfish viewpoint. Unfortunately I can't control the whole "market system" I can only control the way I feel. I'm certainly not going to be able to change the world. It's my own idealistic approach.

1) I'm not so sure you're right there. Just maybe we have different expectations of a hierarchy. My job when I'm at the top? Assuming I got there based on talent and hard work, I've got 2 options, I can keep all of my knowledge and experience to myself and do well while "protecting" my own position and deliberately trying to keep those "below me" below me   ( Performance = 1 x 100% = 6-8 x 50%)  or I can teach 6-8 people what I know and have 6-8 people improve -(Performance = 6-8 x 80%, even if my own results dip to 85% as a I focus on teaching, the improvement in results overall is huge.

My role as leader is to grow the next leader or even to give them the tools they need to go and open a similar company on their own. Somewhere in that team of 6-8 I should have hired someone bright enough to be better than me. I'm still at the top of the hierarchy until such a time as someone better comes along.

2) depends how you interpret highly rewarded? Example, I'm about to do something where I'll pay myself a maximum of 30k a year no matter how successful it is, I could go elsewhere and earn 50-60k plus bonuses but that's not the kind of "reward" I'm looking for these days. I'm happy earning what I can comfortably "survive" on and to try to use my influence and status  to improve things for more than just me.  The top for me doesn't mean being the highest paid, not everyone will buy into that so for others "top" will mean earning top market rates. I'm fine with that if they're exceptional talents

I can ask them to take the same wage as me but if they have different commitments and priorities or are at different stages of their career then I'll pay what they're worth.

30k is around national average and for the type of project I'm taking on (community based - improving life of children below the poverty line) it wouldn't be right for me, to be swanning around earning 100k while then asking others to exchange their time/expertise for a fraction of that.

If you know my views on the third sector and the salaries they pay themselves, you'll see I've been consistent with these views and this approach.

I'm aware that to attract "top" talent normal market conditions would mean I'd have pay some of my employees more than I'm earning but that's my choice and I can't force or expect others to feel the same kind of passion for the cause.

I do believe some jobs you should go into it not for the money but for the personal satisfaction. I think we already have some of those type of people (nurses would be a classic example). I just wish we had a lot more.

Does that make any sense at all? I've even bored myself to death there ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

Does that make any sense at all? I've even bored myself to death there

Absolute sense - and if everyone had those same ethics the world would be a lot better place. Sadly it seems that a large majority of people at the top have either got there through privilege and not hard work, or by selfishness and intend to remain selfish in order to stay there.

A lot of us work in companies where the CEO probably earns more in a year than we will earn in our entire working life. At which point you think - can it really be about the money for these people, or is it just about the power that it gives them?

As much as I slated Mel Morris at the time for cosying up to Theresa May at the last election - as rich people go, he puts enough of it back into the community to be OK in my book (not just the club either - I know he has bought specialist equipment for the Royal Derby Hospital as well amongst other things)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...