Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[JamesT]

No, I don't buy that argument I'm afraid.

Where does it stop, after all? Should the individual have to pay privately for alcohol-related diseases? For diseases related to eating too much fatty foods or sugar? For cancer induced by sunburn? All these things were arguably "caused" by decisions made by the individual, but to me that seems a very brutal way of running things.

I'd be careful with that argument. Even disregarding where it leads (let's ban horse riding?), with the current levels of cigarette taxation plus smokers' convenient habit of dying fairly quickly and being less likely to be obese, smoking is a massive net positive for the NHS.

My comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it was in response to the claim that smoking is solely a matter of individual choice and the state should have nothing to do with it. Clearly the state does have an interest in whether people smoke or not.

 

[Egg Centric]

My comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it was in response to the claim that smoking is solely a matter of individual choice and the state should have nothing to do with it. Clearly the state does have an interest in whether people smoke or not.

Thats fine but the conclusion it should encourage smoking to avoid paying out pensions etc is basically inescapable, so it's not a pro ban argument

 

[BeccaOnATrain]

I feel like they're a bit late on this smoking ban. Aren't most kids vaping these days anyway?

 

[birchesgreen]

I think this "cigarette ban" is just a bit of a smoke screen from other stuff.

 

[takno]

I feel like they're a bit late on this smoking ban. Aren't most kids vaping these days anyway?

But this is the first time the tobacco industry has had an alternative model in place. It would be unthinkable for a Tory leader to suggest it before that

 

[GS250]

No idea how that government is still in power! I expect a massive landslide win by the opposition party.

It will be a win by default if they did get a majority. They would get in simply because they aren't the Tory Party. Nothing from the Labour Party has remotely appealed to me thus far. No radical policies like Rail Nationalisation although I suspect they will have to be strong when it comes to defence spending. Most of the shambolic cuts were under the Tories anyway to be fair.

I still reckon a Lib-Lab coalition is the likely outcome. Will it affect me? Probably not. Will it affect the majority on here? Probably not.

I really think we're at the crossroads of how the World is governed anyway. Technology, environmental issues and the mass movement of people would suggest we're heading for a 'fairer' World eventually. However, who loses out (to pay for the genuine World poor) is looking more and more likely like being Mr bang average like the majority of us on here.

I think this "cigarette ban" is just a bit of a smoke screen from other stuff.

Very good if intentional!

 

[DC1989]

Let's be honest with the state of the country, even things getting worse at a much slower rate would be a result !

 

[Yew]

I think they're planning to ban fags because people are giving up smoking anyway. They won't go after vaping (although I do hope they'll at least try and ban disposable vapes) and won't go after booze. They get lots of money from lobbying groups that want vaping (much of them being the same tabacco companies), gambling, drinking, oil consumption etc. I think cigarettes are likely considered an acceptable loss to give the appearance of doing something.

And it's highly unlikely they'll do it anyway. It's another soundbite.

It does seem like we see lots of "closing doors that are already swinging shut to appear decisive".

 

[najaB]

I think this "cigarette ban" is just a bit of a smoke screen from other stuff.

Of course it is.

 

[Yew]

You should say the unspoken bit. The point others raised was not taking an existing right away from people here. The government has no legal or moral duty to maintain the rights of immigrants from what they enjoyed in their home country.

Surely is this is a popular law that has majority support, there would be no objection to this?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I see your argument and it's the same argument many make. However I do tend to disagree on the appropriateness of it. For one thing, is is it a slippery slope? Could the same arguments not potentially be used to ban alcohol, which can cause all manner of health problems? Similarly fatty or sugary food.

I suspect the main difference would be that alcohol is only really harmful if consumed in large quantities: Plenty of people consume small quantities of it and get pleasure from that without causing any noticeable harm. Ditto fatty or sugary food - and there you also have the issue that I believe a small amount of some types of fat is now considered important for health (even though an excessive amount is detrimental). On the other hand for cigarettes, any amount is harmful.

But realistically, no-one to my knowledge is remotely proposing that we ban alcohol or fatty or sugary food, so that seems to me like a strawman argument. Almost all political decisions come down to a judgement call about whether the good of doing X outweighs the harm of doing X: That's inevitable because pretty much every political decision will have some unintended bad side effects. If people think the balance goes one way for one thing (smoking), that doesn't mean they are going to make the same decision for other completely different things.

 

[The Ham]

I suspect the main difference would be that alcohol is only really harmful if consumed in large quantities: Plenty of people consume small quantities of it and get pleasure from that without causing any noticeable harm. Ditto fatty or sugary food - and there you also have the issue that I believe a small amount of some types of fat is now considered important for health (even though an excessive amount is detrimental). On the other hand for cigarettes, any amount is harmful.

But realistically, no-one to my knowledge is remotely proposing that we ban alcohol or fatty or sugary food, so that seems to me like a strawman argument. Almost all political decisions come down to a judgement call about whether the good of doing X outweighs the harm of doing X: That's inevitable because pretty much every political decision will have some unintended bad side effects. If people think the balance goes one way for one thing (smoking), that doesn't mean they are going to make the same decision for other completely different things.

Indeed.

Also, I suspect that given there's many way around it, the ban on sales of cigarettes based on age isn't likely to actually impact all that many people.

Plenty of people manage to buy things which aren't all that readily available. Yes there's an added cost (for example travel costs,. shipping costs, etc.) however for those who wish to do it they will afford that costs.

For those for whom it is now a significant barrier to easy access (for example older kids buying cigarettes and selling them at £1 a go when they've paid far less than £40 for a pack of 40 to those under age in the school playground isn't likely to happen as widely, given those under age can't just wait, say, 10 months until they can buy them legally) there's a good chance there'll not bother with the effort of starting.

Whilst there's likely to be more restrictions brought in as time passes, it's going to be something which impacts on a smaller and smaller number of people, so fewer people will be overly bothered by those changes.

Having said that, it does appear the story of thing which isn't necessarily that helpful in reducing the numbers smoking (in that a lot fewer people do it then before - and as a percentage of the population is reduced further) so why go to the effort of making significant changes.

Bring in rules limiting the number of places you could buy or marginally increase the age to 18 or 21 (over time) could bring about a lot of the benefits without being so controversial.

 

[31160]

How can anybody with a modicum of intelligence look at what passes for a government and vote for this shower with a clear consence absolutely baffles me

 

[david1212]

How can anybody with a modicum of intelligence look at what passes for a government and vote for this shower with a clear conscience absolutely baffles me

Time will tell overall how many vote for them but for some rather than with a clear conscience it will be because they consider them to be the least worst option from those likely to have enough presence to have any influence. Unless a major change IMO the next general Election is effectively is a two horse race so a vote for any other could result in the third rather than second choice winning. Compared to when he was first leader Starmer does not now criticise everything without stating an alternative approach/proposal but he still seems weak on the latter in detail e.g. how will he propose to resolve the rail and health service disputes, how will he restructure rail in general.

 

[Egg Centric]

Time will tell overall how many vote for them but for some rather than with a clear conscience it will be because they consider them to be the least worst option from those likely to have enough presence to have any influence. Unless a major change IMO the next general Election is effectively is a two horse race so a vote for any other could result in the third rather than second choice winning. Compared to when he was first leader Starmer does not now criticise everything without stating an alternative approach/proposal but he still seems weak on the latter in detail e.g. how will he propose to resolve the rail and health service disputes, how will he restructure rail in general.

I don't personally care really. I am about as natural a tory voter as any 36 year old could be (well the traditional tory party anyway and only cause we lack a proper liberal party - and it scares me as well that I have to caveat that age thing because they are hated in my age group for what they've allowed to happen to housing, even if labour "started it") but I will be voting to get tories out because you need to send a signal that what they have been up to is simply unacceptable. Even if labour are even worse for a bit!

Also maybe labour will legalise weed which would be nice.

 

[brad465]

Well, that conference achieved a lot:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1710045938494943265

Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 45% (=) CON: 24% (=) LDM: 11% (=) RFM: 8% (=) GRN: 7% (=) SNP: 4% (+1) Via @YouGov, 4-5 Oct. Changes w/ 26-27 Sep.

 

[farleigh]

How can anybody with a modicum of intelligence look at what passes for a government and vote for this shower with a clear consence absolutely baffles me

People with a modicum of intelligence will vote Labour.

Those with more than a modicum of intelligence might not

 

[brad465]

The Rutherglen by-election result has been declared: Labour thumped it, while the Tories did so badly they lost their deposit:

https://twitter.com/Bradley4652/status/1710094809191321746

Rutherglen and Hamilton West parliamentary by-election, result: LAB: 58.6% (+24.1) SNP: 27.6% (-16.6) CON: 3.9% (-11.1) LDEM: 2.9% (-2.2) GRN: 2.0% (+2.0) REF: 1.3% (+1.3) Labour GAIN from SNP.

The size of the winning margin will I expect weaken the arguments the Tories try to use about Labour needing to do deals with the SNP.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I thought it was 500 or less votes for you to lose the deposit and the conservatives got 800 odd

This seat has swung backwards and forwards between Labour and SNP so I wouldn't read too much into it but as somebody who has absolutely zero time for the SNP I'm glad it's out of their hands, apologies for off topic

 

[Alex C.]

I thought it was 500 or less votes for you to lose the deposit and the conservatives got 800 odd

This seat has swung backwards and forwards between Labour and SNP so I wouldn't read too much into it but as somebody who has absolutely zero time for the SNP I'm glad it's out of their hands, apologies for off topic

I believe it's 5% of the vote share

It's certainly a nice warm up to the Labour conference. I was also surprised to see Labour are the fairly clear bookies favourites in both the by-elections upcoming in Tamworth and Mid-Bedfordshire, given the majorities at play.

 

[SteveM70]

I thought it was 500 or less votes for you to lose the deposit and the conservatives got 800 odd

It’s 5%

 

[jfollows]

Between 1918 and 1985 the deposit was £150 but was lost if candidates received less than 12.5% of the vote; from 1/10/85 the deposit was increased to £500 but the required vote share was lowered to 5%. In 2017 47.5% of candidates lost their deposit (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/lost-deposits/). But the £150 as introduced in 1918 equates to about £8,000 today, adjusting for inflation. So the number of candidates standing and losing their deposit will keep on increasing unless the amount is radically increased.

 

[306024]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that smoking be prohibited, just the retail sale. If you have them then you can smoke them.

Surely this has been tried before?

If Jim Hacker couldn't implement it the current leader has no chance. The whole episode is worth watching, if only to see how truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[PsychoMouse]

No radical policies

That's exactly why Labour will win.

The most sensible thing to do right now, and what they are doing, is top keep their mouths shut while the Conservative continue to dig their own graves.

Labour needn't say a thing till election campaigning starts and manifestos get published.

 

[Yew]

That's exactly why Labour will win.

The most sensible thing to do right now, and what they are doing, is top keep their mouths shut while the Conservative continue to dig their own graves.

Labour needn't say a thing till election campaigning starts and manifestos get published.

I want a government that implements policies that I agree with, not one that wears a particular colour of Rosette...

 

[PsychoMouse]

I want a government that implements policies that I agree with, not one that wears a particular colour of Rosette...

And you will find out which one you agree with the most when they publish their manifestos.

 

[dangie]

And you will find out which one you agree with the most when they publish their manifestos.

They say you know politicians are lying when they open their mouths.
You also know politicians are lying when they publish their Manifestos.

The point of a manifesto is to get the party into government.
It doesn’t mean they will carry it out……

 

[PsychoMouse]

They say you know politicians are lying when they open their mouths.
You also know politicians are lying when they publish their Manifestos.

The point of a manifesto is to get the party into government.
It doesn’t mean they will carry it out……

Which is exactly why it's right for Labour to not open their mouths.

 

[nw1]

People with a modicum of intelligence will vote Labour.

Those with more than a modicum of intelligence might not

Expand on that?

Contradicts the observation that most university towns are more Labour than non-university towns of similar size.

 

[birchesgreen]

Expand on that?

Contradicts the observation that most university towns are more Labour than non-university towns of similar size.

Woke brain washing or something