The Labour Government

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.
Until it kicks off
 
This is something I can support tbh.


I would have had ot burnt

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
 
But what about those whose mental health and general health be made even more worse due to becoming forced social outcasts even more.

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


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.

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.

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.

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

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.

It's not a minor issue. There is no safe level of smoking.
 
It does cost the NHS over £2 billion shame the govt doesn't use the £8.8 billion in taxes it receives eh?
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?

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:-)

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.


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.

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.


Or is just another convenient small demographic that the govt can pick on.

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:
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.
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?
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.