The Labour Government

bluethrunthru said:
Maybe so in terms of public health and easing the burden on the NHS could be a good move however where it differs from smoking is 10 of us can sit around a table in a room and everyone has an alcoholic drink of their choice except one who has a tap water. The water drinker is not exposed passively to the rest of us drinking.
Click to expand...
Until it kicks off
 
urban genie said:
This is something I can support tbh.


I would have had ot burnt
Click to expand...

as its being done as part of a refurbishment it will doubtless go back up once the emulsion is dry. Sadly the Mail is so fucking toxic it can't see the real story that is why does every PM get an allowance (from us) to redecorate number 10 ? How many of us have worked in dismal settings with awful white strip lighting and have no say on it. As ever the R/W press go for the divisive angle rather than the actual story - proper small time reportage
 
urban genie said:
But what about those whose mental health and general health be made even more worse due to becoming forced social outcasts even more.
Click to expand...

Like smokers with schizophrenia or personality disorders? They probably already avoid beer gardens and don't lead the most socially active lives anyway.


urban genie said:
Banning things doesn't automatically help those that need it most, and allowing smokers an area to smoke in the company of others who are accepting of it doesn't mean forcing their habit on others.
Click to expand...

People in their company are getting harmful effects of passive smoking. Children who have parents who smoke, are more likely to pick up the habit.

urban genie said:
plenty of pubs now have designated area and no smokong areas in beer gardens, a complete ban won't necessarily mean someone will give up, but does ostracise them even more from society.
Click to expand...

They can get help and there's public services that provide support. Or they can vape.

urban genie said:
Just seems.starmer has found a now minor issue to be puritanicl about, I don't drive and don't want to breathe in car fumes, imagine if we baned cars in urban areas, which will be just as helpful for our health, no one would stand for it as the majority drive.
Click to expand...

It's not a minor issue. There is no safe level of smoking.
 
hilts said:
It does cost the NHS over £2 billion shame the govt doesn't use the £8.8 billion in taxes it receives eh?
Click to expand...
Those figures don't take into account money spent by central government or local services. And the cost to society is far greater.

There is a duty on tobacco because it's harmful. We don't want people to smoke just so we can continue collecting the duty. Why does the government pay for people's treatment to stop smoking? Surely we should encourage people to smoke instead?

hilts said:
Anyhow I suppose next.week we will all be behind banning sugar. Diabetes and obesity now that costs an eye watering amount, is there anything more disgusting than a fatty munching on a pie. Not as bad as someone putting a cigarette in their mouth. I mean it's hard not to throw up:-)
Click to expand...

Did we not have a sugar tax brought in for this purpose? I'm not sure we can put a tax on all food that is okay in moderation.


hilts said:
Week after maybe alcohol?

Maybe we can ban breathing in what with the state of air pollution although I believe it wafts in from China:-)

Just think how much the welfare budget would reduce if we all stop breathing.

Sometimes a can of worms can be opened and common sense goes out the window.
Click to expand...

It's the recognition that smokers often lack common sense. I've had people with COPD say that they wonder if quitting might do more harm than good.


hilts said:
Or is just another convenient small demographic that the govt can pick on.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't exist as a demographic. They only exist because of the pervasive evil of big tobacco. It's not a perculiar cultural tradition that needs to be maintained like Morris dancing. Its a disgusting harmful habit and we ought to do all we can to eradicate it.
 
Last edited:
I do wonder how many people opposing this on here smoke tobacco and how many opposue it because its nanny state and ultimately Starmer and don't actually care a jot about the health issues
 
Chippy_boy said:
Regards your 2nd paragraph, the impact of Brexit being greater than the loss to the economy from e.g. COVID, I would say is very debatable. The 2nd part about Truss is just complete nonsense, pure and simple. It's not even certain that the bond market crash was actually her fault, but even if it was, the impact in the scheme of things is trivial at most. Inflation rates were high and rising anway. World-wide inflation rates were shooting up, and yes if we accept that Truss messed up then she made it marginally worse. But to say that her actions had a bigger impact on the economy than COVID is just incorrect. All too easy for critics to blame her when in fact there were far bigger forces at play.
Click to expand...
Your post is inconsistent in its defence of Truss. You talk of her 45 days as a time of global uncertainty and instability economically (which is correct) and yet at that precise time, the worst time imaginable, she chose to be completely reckless with the economy. It’s akin to someone who has just been made redundant heading straight to the casino with their redundancy pay to gamble on the bandits.

To describe her impact as ‘trivial in the scheme of things’ completely underestimates her wholly negative influence on our standing and status in the world, which will have been more profound and enduring than a transient shift in the market. She encapsulated a nation that was in terminal decline and had royally fucked up, that was crippled by anachronistic political systems that enabled a person so lacking in any discernible qualities to lead a G8 country, to somehow rise to power because of a handful of elderly racists didn’t want a brown person as PM.

For a few short weeks we resembled a tin-pot basket case of a country, and to characterise that as ‘messing up’ is akin to saying Wayne Couzens didn’t do his police career any favours.

Are you not a critic of Truss? If not, what do you see as her qualities as a person?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Your post is inconsistent in its defence of Truss. You talk of her 45 days as a time of global uncertainty and instability economically (which is correct) and yet at that precise time, the worst time imaginable, she chose to be completely reckless with the economy. It’s akin to someone who has just been made redundant heading straight to the casino with their redundancy pay to gamble on the bandits.

To describe her impact as ‘trivial in the scheme of things’ completely underestimates her wholly negative influence on our standing and status in the world, which will have been more profound and enduring than a transient shift in the market. She encapsulated a nation that was in terminal decline and had royally fucked up, that was crippled by anachronistic political systems that enabled a person so lacking in any discernible qualities to lead a G8 country, to somehow rise to power because of a handful of elderly racists didn’t want a brown person as PM.

For a few short weeks we resembled a tin-pot basket case of a country, and to characterise that as ‘messing up’ is akin to saying Wayne Couzens didn’t do his police career any favours.

Are you not a critic of Truss? If not, what do you see as her qualities as a person?
Click to expand...
Her impact was 'trivial' because she immediately lost her job when everyone saw how shit she was. Her PMship was like Gary Neville's managerial career. Not that impactful in the grand scheme of things, but if he'd remained in charge for any longer, they would have been relegated.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Her impact was 'trivial' because she immediately lost her job when everyone saw how shit she was. Her PMship was like Gary Neville's managerial career. Not that impactful in the grand scheme of things, but if he'd remained in charge for any longer, they would have been relegated.
Click to expand...
We were relegated as a a nation under her blessedly short tenure. She is the John Benson of Prime Ministers.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
We were relegated as a a nation under her blessedly short tenure. She is the John Benson of Prime Ministers.
Click to expand...
Her direct impact on the numbers was minimal but the markets and the rest of the world were so gobsmacked by her actions that they reacted in a panic and UK became a laughing stock.
One appraisal I read suggested that if she had taken the markets into her confidence in advance (normal behaviour) and proceeded more slowly, her quiet revolution might have been successful.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Maybe so in terms of public health and easing the burden on the NHS could be a good move however where it differs from smoking is 10 of us can sit around a table in a room and everyone has an alcoholic drink of their choice except one who has a tap water. The water drinker is not exposed passively to the rest of us drinking.
Click to expand...

One can choose to sit inside the pub or a no smoking area, a wife cannot always avoid the fists of a drunken man, a person at a footy ground cannot avoid a drunk, a shop worker, a copper, a doctor, a tax payer.

All can be effected by someone using alcohol. I expect certain posters to try and pick and choose their logic in here because they jump in without contemplating the hypocrisy of their views.

Its unworkable nonsense for headlines and laughably hypocritical to boot. Pillocks do fall for these things though.
 
Last edited:
hilts said:
One can choose to sit inside the pub or a no smoking area, one wife cannot always avoid the fists of a drunken man, a person at a footy ground cannot avoid a drunk, a shop worker, a copper, a doctor, a tax payer.

All can be effected by someone using alcohol. I expect certain posters to try and pick and choose their logic in here because they jump in without contemplating the hypocrisy of their views.

Its unworkable nonsense for headlines and laughably hypocritical to boot. Pillocks do fall for these things though.
Click to expand...


Labour deflection so the voters don't notice the damage they are doing, a political tactic tried and trusted.

Failed in NZ didn't it? These pillocks haven't got a clue what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
Mr Kobayashi said:
Those figures don't take into account money spent by central government or local services. And the cost to society is far greater.

There is a duty on tobacco because it's harmful. We don't want people to smoke just so we can continue collecting the duty. Why does the government pay for people's treatment to stop smoking? Surely we should encourage people to smoke instead?



Did we not have a sugar tax brought in for this purpose? I'm not sure we can put a tax on all food that is okay in moderation.




It's the recognition that smokers often lack common sense. I've had people with COPD say that they wonder if quitting might do more harm than good.




They shouldn't exist as a demographic. They only exist because of the pervasive evil of big tobacco. It's not a perculiar cultural tradition that needs to be maintained like Morris dancing. Its a disgusting harmful habit and we ought to do all we can to eradicate it.
Click to expand...
Sugar alcohol exactly same argument

Tax on alcohol tax on sugar, why is an occasional drinker or sugar user paying tax on these ?

So by your logic we should put tax on all sugar then.

Piss pots and people who eat shit and drink crap however are well.known for their common sense. People can be very stupid it doesn't only affect smokers, pmsl at that one :-)

You're last paragraph just tells us your bias against smokers which seems strangely unhealthy if you pardon the pun, lots of things probably shouldn't exist as a demographic ,in my opinion but I'm not such a busy **** that I feel I have the right to enforce it on others.
 
Chippy_boy said:
So in your mind, willfully doing what the public do not want is OK for any government? Let's leave it there, I am sure we are not going to agree on this.

Regards your 2nd paragraph, the impact of Brexit being greater than the loss to the economy from e.g. COVID, I would say is very debatable. The 2nd part about Truss is just complete nonsense, pure and simple. It's not even certain that the bond market crash was actually her fault, but even if it was, the impact in the scheme of things is trivial at most. Inflation rates were high and rising anway. World-wide inflation rates were shooting up, and yes if we accept that Truss messed up then she made it marginally worse. But to say that her actions had a bigger impact on the economy than COVID is just incorrect. All too easy for critics to blame her when in fact there were far bigger forces at play.
Click to expand...

Another way of looking at Truss and Kwarteng's mini-budget that I have encountered is this:

1. 'Trussonomics' is a variant of 'Trickle-Down' economics, an economic theory that has never, ever (since the time of Reagan) produced the much anticipated 'growth'.

2. Presumably, it doesn't achieve the desired effect because many companies these days are entirely in thrall to their shareholders. So any extra profits that arise from cuts in taxation and deregulation will be paid to them rather than reinvested in the business to secure its long term future. Since the 1980’s, companies have been put under increasing pressure to deliver higher short-term profits, otherwise they may place themselves at risk of a hostile takeover from a Gordon Gekko-type – character.

3. In addition to the payment of higher dividends, the easiest way for the CEO of a company to enable these short-term profits to be made is simply to cut costs, something that can be achieved by reducing the workforce through redundancies, freezing salaries, lowering overheads (like paying for employee pensions, cutting investment in research & development, and selling off less profitable arms of the business). This ‘slash and burn’ approach was faithfully depicted in Oliver Stone’s movie. And by the time the company gets into trouble, the CEOs who enacted this policy will often have moved on.

4.To convey an impression of how serious this problem is, in the UK, the average period of shareholding, which had already fallen from 5 years in the mid-1960’s to two years in the 1980’s, plummeted to about 7.5 months by the end of 2007. Additionally, between the 1950’s and 1970’s (when Keynesian economic policies held sway), about 35-45% of corporate profits were given to shareholders in the form of dividends. But between 2001 and 2010, the largest US companies handed over 94% of their profits, while the top UK companies gave away 89% of theirs.

5. Tax cuts for the poorest do make sense, as they will tend to spend any additional income they have. The notion of tax cuts also has intuitive appeal because of this, causing this notion to be perceived as 'common sense'. Reform's proposal to raise the tax threshold in their manifesto may have resonated with potential voters for this reason. But any growth achieved by such cuts are more than offset by factors 2-4.

6. The financial markets these days are aware that 'Trickle-down' does not work (as encapsulated by the cover of the book depicted below), and so this is why Truss & Kwarteng's budget went down like a lead balloon.

1725000705123.png

7. So why did Truss support such a discredited theory? The only reason I can think of is psychological: she is an ideologue. Often, converts to faiths tend to be far more zealous than those who grow up in one, as if they have a point to prove. Truss was not always a Tory, so maybe she falls into this category.

One caveat: I am a complete dilettante when it comes to economics and it could very well be that much of the above explanation is flawed. So it is only offered tentatively.

But I thought it was worth putting out there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top