Fri 3rd, Sat 4th, Sun 5th & Mon 6th April - Easter edition

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 8:26 am

Morning.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 8:37 am

I wonder what Leanne Wood would have said to Farage if he'd said that planning permission should be prioritised for English speaking applicants in England ?

That's what Plaid councillors do for Welsh speakers, and the party argues for.

The Welsh government wants to reform the planning permission process, maybe removing the councillor vote which is notoriously corrupt in some areas, and leaving it to the experts - the planning officers who are trained in such matters. Plaid of course are up in arms about it.

Planning in Ceredigion has been a shocker, going back a long way.
Even Lib Dem MP Mark Williams, Welsh born and raised, referred to the local Welsh Tafia when we consulted him about a bizarre planning decision, one that went against the majority of local opinion and planning advice.

To go back to my original question, Wood would have [rightly] attacked Farage if he had argued to protect English speaking areas from immigrant influx via planning. Yet she leads a party that wants immigrants treated less well if they are English.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 8:45 am

Did last night's performance by Sturgeon shoot the "scary SNP" Crosby fox? My gut says it did. If that was the Tories hope to get English voters to choose them over Labour it bombed.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 8:50 am

StephenDolan wrote:Did last night's performance by Sturgeon shoot the "scary SNP" Crosby fox? My gut says it did. If that was the Tories hope to get English voters to choose them over Labour it bombed.

I think the big loser last night was Alex (sorry I have forgotten his name).

Much of Sturgeon's support is left leaning, not sure what swing voters think of her, or the SNP. However I suspect the Tory attack line will be blunted.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 8:54 am

A brief visit because I said I'd give onebuttonmonkey's request some thought. Rather than one long post I shall spilt this into three, the first being just the result of some musings as I put the world to rights from the comfort of my bed. The second some thoughts on drug legislation because that is what I believe underscores the difficulties we have with legal highs and the third on immigration and integration too for that matter. My thoughts may be outdated in some way having grown up with thankfully diminishing racist attitudes toward me over the years. I appreciate I can come across as self-centred, which is never my intention, it's just that my own views have been forged by personal experience. It's relatively easy to be honest about oneself but I often refrain from putting others out there, particularly if identifiable. What they choose to say about themselves is up to them, but I prefer not to adopt the manners of the village gossip or tabloid journalist.

Forget putting the world to rights, some passing thoughts on last night. I think Cameron achieved his goal, especially when you look at how promptly the right wing media were to portray Miliband as a failure. Did they see the same as I? Surely so but what does that matter? As for Cameron's relatively standing back from the fray, he was allowed to repeat his lies with very little challenge. Unfortunately much of the public are unaware of the realities when constantly bombarded by the propoganda. There was a moment when I thought everyone was going to attack him, I can't remember which of the ladies' comments it was, but there was a slight murmur or laughter from the audience. 'And weren't they mute for the main part, probably under strict guidance. Farage performed his role admirably, that is deflecting attention from Cameron. 'And as the pundits would have it, the ladies did well but threaten to split the left wing vote. I suppose I should mention Clegg too who, as is often the case with LibDems, can talk sense but knowing of his Orange Book credentials (even Tory background) plus his achievements in government, i.e. enabling the Tories, why should anybody listen?

One final thought why on earth is Joey Essex being pushed forward for his punditry. As likeable as he may come across, I find his ignorance intolerable, some may find it endearing. It may be that he's the clever one and knows exactly what persona he is selling. Whatever it has made me rethink my efforts to oust my Tory incumbent. True to form I did find some displacement activities, not least sorting my office and some system maintenance, several machines, but have been looking at my proposed Index of Incompetencies. What it has shown me however is that there are many others out there who have already done similar and seem better versed at it than I (maybe some links later). Yeah I may be chickening out so may have yet another trait in common with Fat Dave, but have decided that I'm going to take a more local stance and use whatever influence I can on a face-to-face basis. The other common trait is knowing a little about a lot but nothing about much, maybe that is a more apt signature.

Watever the merits of social media and for all our good intentions I sometimes feel that posting on fora such as this on the G is merely preaching to the converted. After all the right wing shills seem just as vociferous, if not moreso and never temper their views. Ernst and RebeccaRiots (is it?) are doing their bit on the doorstep, onebuttonmonkey is showing himself on telly and others of you have attended meetings or whatever. My lads still lived with me before the last election and had a large social circle, after-parties of up to thirty odd would regularly descend on our house; many others would visit too. Without wishing to appear vain, many came to see me as much as my sons. Unfortunately my influence then was toward the LibDems and look where that got us. I did used to attend public meetings with councillors and the police too so perhaps my voice is better employed ousting our incumbent. As I once said, I was impressed by Mark Todd but he was standing down last election although I did speak with his replacement on the telephone. Perhaps I should get to meet him too, if he has the time of course. Finding out who he is and something about him would be a start.

Anyway it may mean less of an appearance here, no bad thing and a sigh of relief from the rest of you, with many more conversations locally. Got other stuff to do so my other two posts shall appear as and when.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 9:22 am

Good morning all - thanks yahyah for kicking us off.......a four-day Daily Politics thread, eh? With luck, it'll run into many pages and all, no doubt, full of praise for Our Glorious Ronsealed Fishpointer General's very very sincere Easter Message......

I watched the first half-hour of the debate last night and abandoned it thereafter. I really don't think it will change hearts and minds from what I saw and what I've read since.
I just don't see the relevance of having the Greens or Plaid there, as they are not likely to be "kingmakers" of any real import; Sturgeon was good, but all I think she could do was reassure worried potential Labour voters that the SNP wouldn't cause too much trouble if some sort of alliance is on the cards after the election.
Farage was as we'd expect - although he seems to have outdone himself with the HIV comments.

What was needed - as was originally planned many moons ago - was a proper 2 or 3 way debate with the parties of government or the parties likely to be in government.
Cameron put a stop to that with his stroppy demands, and as a result we have been denied a real debate between the men who would be PM and democracy has suffered.

What little I saw of Cameron gave me the impression of a man running scared. His face was like dough, his lips thin, his demeanour un-relaxed, and all he could do was repeat the usual mantras (lies included).
I gather from various reports that his performance did not improve later, so perhaps it's just as well I didn't watch any more of it. I was particularly annoyed that he used the expression "better than this" in his introductory statement.
It appears to me that if he can't be Ed he'll copy him - and as Ed has set his agenda for the past few years, no wonder.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 9:29 am

& did you see Cameron almost purring with delight when Ed was being attacked from the left ?
He was going to respond to Ed at one point, but held back smirking when he saw Sturgeon jump in to have a go at Ed.

Also, Ed had a poor start but relaxed as he went on, you missed that Ephie but can understand why you gave up on it.

Will be back later with some toasted hot cross buns and a dose of bromide for all those who think Leanne Wood is somehow sexy.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 9:34 am

utopian dreams - there are quite a few of us here campaigning on this election and other issues.

Many of us are involved with local government, party political campaigning, all sorts; Rebecca Riots knows more about badger culling than anyone I've read anywhere; Giselle is a doughty champion of our NHS; I've been involved with disability for 20-odd years and drug/alcohol issues for more than 10 - I have no doubt forgotten someone here who does something very useful! I think we are all doing our bit in various ways.

I appreciate that there are times when I agree that we're preaching to the converted - but we argue a lot, and I'm not the only person who has got into arguments here about tribalism etc. but the important thing is that we learn from each other.
Plus, we get a lot of visitors here and I have seen several posts in other places that treat FTN and our discussions with considerable respect.
Someone who has left us (hopefully temporarily) is of the view that we are quite influential. I have no idea if this is true!

Don't stay away too much - I value your posts, and you make me think. Which is never a bad thing!

Post by **adam** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 9:35 am

yahyah wrote:
Will be back later with some toasted hot cross buns and a dose of bromide for all those who think Leanne Wood is somehow sexy.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 9:40 am

I wasn't looking at you Adam !
Some drooling on Cif.

I'm just one of those people who think intelligence is vital in sex appeal, could not fancy a thick man, and poor Leanne isn't that bright.

The Plaid knives are already out for her, she won't last long after the election if the party polls no better than predicted. They thought they could do an SNP, try and appeal to Labour voters in their heartlands but they've lost the more conservative Nat farmers who don't like socialism.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 9:45 am

New policy announcement from Labour. They're pledging to restore access to judicial reviews that the Coalition decided to limit on the last day of Parliament.

Tories and Lib-Dems restricting the ability of the public to question their actions? How very New Politics of them...

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr ... ew-changes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:00 am

Something for a giggle.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/th ... ers-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:10 am

Spacedone PLEASE!

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:14 am

Jim McGovern MP has quit as an MP for Dundee West and won't be seeking re-election now.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/ ... p-1.859389" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article says it's due to health reasons and the wishes of his family. Electoral Calculus has the SNP chances of winning the seat at 85% so that might have made up his mind. Quiting now and giving Labour no time for a replacement pretty much gifts the seat to the SNP regardless.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:15 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:Spacedone PLEASE!

I was waiting for someone to react to it before posting again

We're safe now, 668 posts.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:16 am

from murdoch twitter reported in Graun live blog wrote:UK debate. Great performances by SNP Sturgeon and UKIP Farage, Cameron sort of ok, Milliband not, Clegg pathetic. May not count in May

Thanks Murdoch, your tragic adulation for the British Establishment does not go unnoticed.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:17 am

Yeah, Dundee West is maybe *the* most likely SNP gain of the election.

As for last night, certain newspapers have distinguished themselves with outright invented propaganda which wouldn't be out of place in Putin's Russia

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:23 am

Just like to say thank you to all for commentary on 'debate' yesterday
And Pk for picture from Guardian of Cameron playing "Whack a Prole"
Showed it to kids last night, who literally rolled around floor laughing.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:29 am

The Libbing Dead have a nice new campaign thingie.

"£825 tax cut delivered to working families. Promise kept"

TUC - the impact of cuts on working families claiming in-work benefits has cost them £18 Billion.
On average, they have lost half their benefit top-ups and are demonstrably worse off.

The report that information comes from is here - http://www.tuc.org.uk/BenefitCutsHouseholdType.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It lists every single change to social security since 2010 and there are masses of them.
Many people, from all types of households, have lost money in real terms,pensioners included.

Altogether, the cost to claimants over this Parliament is in excess of £30 Billion.

However, the "savings" made by government are offset by - extra spending on in-work benefits for people taking low-paid, self-employed, ZHC, or
part-time jobs (£1BN); extra spending on Housing Benefit and LHA (£5BN); extra spending on various schemes and programmes (£15BN so far with more to come); plus costs borne by LAs and other agencies dealing with homelessness, court cases for council tax arrears and so on, increased ill-health, and the effects of sanctions.

According to the TUC report, this will continue under Universal Credit, which will not improve the situation for anyone who claims it.

Thus all the changes and all the vanity projects have a been a waste of time and money. All that has happened is that many more people are even poorer that they were already, no real savings have been made, and this is set to continue if the Tories get back into office.

As all this "reform" has done nothing to address the issues it was claimed it would address, the only conclusion any sane or sensible person can arrive at is that this is an ideological attack on the concept of social security.

But I think most of us here know that. The problem is convincing the electorate - but as time goes on, it is more likely that there are very few people whose lives are not touched by these things. Hopefully they will understand this by polling day....

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:34 am

The first section of the G election liveblog this am is a decent and reasonably brief summary of the debate for those who didn't watch.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 10:38 am

StephenDolan wrote:Did last night's performance by Sturgeon shoot the "scary SNP" Crosby fox? My gut says it did. If that was the Tories hope to get English voters to choose them over Labour it bombed.

The trouble is that the SNP are giving different messages.
Sturgeon gives a speech saying Ed is delusional,will not rule out including another referendum in the SNP 2016 manifesto,demanding greater borrowing,which no doubt won't be Scotland's debt,if they go Indy,busy calling labour red Tories while suddenly taking their policies,Swinney demanding FFA but keep Barnet, and of course Salmon's saying he will write a labour budget.Sturgeon won't even be in Westminster.
If the SNP really want to work with labour for the good of the whole uk,which I doubt,they should treat Ed with a little respect,stop demanding,demanding and belittling and just maybe remember that if they he 50 MPs there are. 600 non SNP MPs from the ruk.
I read the Scotsman every day,and there is no way the SNP are acting with the good of the Uk in mind.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:13 am

Morning all.

I caught bits of the debate last night, quite a mess. The stand out bits were when Ed said to Cameron on the NHS that during 13 years of Labour they took waiting times from 18 months to 18 weeks but under him they were going back again. Also when Clegg said to Miliband that he should apologise for the financial crash and Miliband said he has apologised for not regulating the banks enough. Ed got a round of applause for that and Clegg looked silly. Best bit, though, was probably Cameron and Clegg squabbling like an old married couple.

Re OneButtonMonkey's question on immigration. One point about the EU is the point of allowing in the ex-communist states that Farage thinks was a mistake. I look at Ukraine and wonder if we would have that situation sitting on our borders as close as Austria and Germany if we hadn't embraced them. The idea is to drag these states up to Western European standards and the whole anti-immigrant sentiment is just panic half way through a long term strategy that makes us all safer and a stronger more cohesive Europe that can hold its own in the world.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:28 am

Some quick snaps from Sky News, who were playing their debate version of Top Trumps:

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:29 am

The most important thing about last night is the change in voting intention. Here is what ComRes found:

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:31 am

bill greig ‏@scotexpress46 · 16m16 minutes ago
Bookies William Hill decide Miliband was the debate winner and pay out on him.

Morning all.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:39 am

good-morning, everyone
I didn't watch the program last night but read everyone here & some G commentary as well.
I'm grateful for your company
xx
cJA

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:40 am

utopiandreams wrote:
One final thought why on earth is Joey Essex being pushed forward for his punditry. As likeable as he may come across, I find his ignorance intolerable, some may find it endearing.

I don't find it intolerable. I think it's one of the results of having no political education in schools. As old as I am, I can still remember not knowing what to do in the ballot box. I can still remember not really knowing what each party was offering & what effect they would have on my life. I can still remember not knowing what tactical voting meant & how sometimes it makes sense to vote for the party you least want in an attempt to get rid of the governing party.

Joey Essex speaks for many young people who have no clue about this stuff. I commend him for putting his lack of knowledge out to public opprobrium - it takes a brave or a foolish person to do that but whichever he is, his quest will help others find answers to questions they may not have known beforehand.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:43 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
bill greig ‏@scotexpress46 · 16m16 minutes ago
Bookies William Hill decide Miliband was the debate winner and pay out on him.
Morning all.

Surprising wasn't it.

William Hill BettingVerified account
‏@WillHillBet
Results of the #leadersdebate for Performed Best. Votes: Miliband 238, Cameron 236, Farage 235, Sturgeon 225, Clegg 106, Bennett 56, Wood 25

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 11:49 am

pk1 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
bill greig ‏@scotexpress46 · 16m16 minutes ago
Bookies William Hill decide Miliband was the debate winner and pay out on him.
Morning all.
Surprising wasn't it.

William Hill BettingVerified account
‏@WillHillBet
Results of the #leadersdebate for Performed Best. Votes: Miliband 238, Cameron 236, Farage 235, Sturgeon 225, Clegg 106, Bennett 56, Wood 25

It is making that Telegraph front page look dafter by the minute, and it was pretty risible from the off.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:05 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
pk1 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Morning all.
Surprising wasn't it.

William Hill BettingVerified account
‏@WillHillBet
Results of the #leadersdebate for Performed Best. Votes: Miliband 238, Cameron 236, Farage 235, Sturgeon 225, Clegg 106, Bennett 56, Wood 25
It is making that Telegraph front page look dafter by the minute, and it was pretty risible from the off.

I'm still wondering when the Sun thought Miliband "lost it". I don't remember him losing his temper, but I didn't see it all. The heckling woman was interesting. I quite like the fact that she couldn't just sit there and say nothing as Cameron shamelessly using his disabled son and "our boys" in the forces to garner votes when he's withdrawn money from the disabled and abandoned ex-soldiers to live on the streets. I winced myself when he brought up Ivan yet again.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:07 pm

Equally risible is the Torygraph claim that the audience "turned on" Miliband. Pure propaganda.

Post by **adam** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:07 pm

The guardian daily politics (daily general election?) blog has deleted a btl thread started by a UKIP poster with a 'sorry mrs British, we can't afford to cure your cancer because we have to give the drugs to Johnny African' scene, which I actually think is a bit of a shame - I know it's just someone anonymous on a message board but there is a pattern emerging of UKIP making nasty racist statements and then not withdrawing them or apologising for them but just somehow denying they were said.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:08 pm

Good morftertoon.

One of the several things which puzzled me about last night's 7-way thing -

Whilst I've noted that people have commented on the moderator, Julie Etchingham, looking like Anne Robinson (which she did) why was she also dressed as a dentist? Was it because someone had told her that getting a straight answer out of David Cameron would be like pulling teeth?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:12 pm

Willow904 wrote:
I'm still wondering when the Sun thought Miliband "lost it". I don't remember him losing his temper, but I didn't see it all. The heckling woman was interesting. I quite like the fact that she couldn't just sit there and say nothing as Cameron shamelessly using his disabled son and "our boys" in the forces to garner votes when he's withdrawn money from the disabled and abandoned ex-soldiers to live on the streets. I winced myself when he brought up Ivan yet again.

26th Sept 2010

He didn't lose his temper. What Tom Newton-Dunn refers to as 'losing his temper' was when Ed was trying to make an intervention & was being spoken over. TND last night on Sky News tried very hard to 'suggest' this particular clip "might make it onto the TV & become one of the more memorable moments of the debate" in a (hopefully ignored) blatant plea to Sky News.

Yes, although the thud just after she had spoken was a tad alarming !

Quite.

Post by **adam** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:17 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morftertoon.

One of the several things which puzzled me about last night's 7-way thing -

Whilst I've noted that people have commented on the moderator, Julie Etchingham, looking like Anne Robinson (which she did) why was she also dressed as a dentist? Was it because someone had told her that getting a straight answer out of David Cameron would be like pulling teeth?

That would have been better to watch.

[youtube]bOtMizMQ6oM[/youtube]

She had to avoid everyone else's colour on a rainbow stage somehow. I do wonder whether she was told by the control room how badly she was handling things in the first free for all, although I also wonder if someone got message to Farage how bad he looked. I'm not sure he'd care, though.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:18 pm

Hot stuff !

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/ed ... ly-hot-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:18 pm

Not unlike Ed, Etchingham improved after a slightly shaky start. She certainly put La Burley to shame, no question.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:25 pm

Full fact have fact checked the 10 main claims made last night.

The claim about apprenticeship numbers has a striking graph:

Numbers starting apprenticeships are up. Those 1.9 million new apprentices represent better qualified youngsters, right?

Not necessarily. The biggest increase was for those over 25, who made up 40% of new apprentices since 2010.

https://fullfact.org/2015/apr/10_claims ... bate-41361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:27 pm

Post no. 2. As I sit in my eldest's house I may as well ponder on the legal high's topic. I'm feeding their cats, unlike mine who only have access to the rooftops and roof-terrace these are free to come and go as they please. Nevertheless they're as soft as .. something anyway, and I like to give them some company whilst their family is away. They've gone to wherever Broadchurch is filmed. My son did mention the ridiculous price that is charged for rental of the wooden building where the fictional murder took place. I didn't pay it much attention so am unable to repeat, even the location for that matter; perhaps I should get better informed. Not that they're renting such shack I should point out. Before getting to the point this somewhat reminds me of another aside.

Some time back I used to be close mates with a guy who bought and sold antiques, amongst other activities, he also had a unique avenue to the world of television. Anyway I was reminded of him because he often used to rent pieces of antiquity to TV companies for the making of period dramas. Of course they have their own props, but the fees he charged for their rental were scandalous. He would make several times their value and still have the article to sell. Sometimes the TV company bought them if there were likely to be a follow-up series so he didn't always have to seek a buyer. Excuse me while I fuss the cats...

Anyway as I say I really know nothing of legal highs but feel they are or have only become a problem because of the ridiculous Misuse of Drugs Act (1971 I think, albeit there may have existed differing forms both before and since). I do however know something of being on the opposite side of the fence, makes a change from sitting on one I suppose. How or why Nixon was able to take a lead on such matters given America's past history of Prohibition, I haven't a clue. Sorry a cat has just jumped onto my laptop... shall pick this up later.

Again this is going to be another of my rambles and somewhat disjointed, particularly as it shall follow my usual practice of rushing things out. No matter what I do I always seem to be in a hurry; there are never enough hours in the day. So please accept my lack of focus, including typos should I not proof-read, although you do have the honour of my internally vocalising, which does reduce mistakes. You may be lucky and one or two pearls of wisdom may be hiding between the lines. On the other hand you may just do as I and waste another few minutes of your life.

First as Prohibition proved, no matter what the law dictates, decent people shall use drugs for recreational purposes. Make it illegal and criminals will step in to supply; therein lies the first and probably paramount reason for decriminalisation. Just look at its effect in Latin America for example; gang warfare, murder and corruption, similar stories in the East where factions use the trade to fund their battles or terrorism and also the territorial disputes between supply chains in North America or Europe for example. It's a mess and all because people want to get high.

Sorry for yet another dig at our fish-pointer general but since it is known that he consumed and then with tales of Georgie-Boy, it maddens me that such people still refuse to face reality or ask the necessary questions. Okay I've mentioned booze before and believe that on the whole it is more problematic than most drugs. Nevertheless it is the most socially acceptable and is taxed accordingly. Less acceptable nowadays is perhaps tobacco, which is similarly taxed, maybe moreso, but there is nothing whatsoever to favour it on health matters. Firstly should decriminalisation or even legalisation follow perhaps one area must be confronted, primarily in America, and that is liability and the ridiculous suing practices. As long as I can remember cigarettes have been known as cancer sticks, yet some who nevertheless choose to indulge have managed to sue tobacco companies for damages. Possibly as a result of such practice, tobacco companies have wasted vast sums on so-called research and propaganda to portray otherwise. What a complete waste of money when education or treatment could have been funded.

I appreciate that limiting excess and education is not conducive to the drinks and tobacco companies' interests, but neither was it for me as a computing consultant. The more I educated the less my paid work. I've heard it said that drinks and tobacco companies disapprove of the decriminalisation of drugs, but in my view companies have to move on whether their product be affected by competition or changing views or fashion. So who is better placed than drinks and tobacco conpanies should recreational drugs be allowed? Of course there are pharmaceutical companies too and no doubt some of the criminal cartels should they seek to make an honest living. I'm sure some bootleggers managed it after prohibition. Yada yada...

Anyway the main point of decriminalisation is reduction of harm. Primarily taken out of the hands of criminals dangerous or those cut with dangerous substances are removed from the market. Tax revenues can also be collected to combat any ill effects. As I've previously stated they are not without problem, either by cost or over-indulgence, but that is no excuse for total lack of control. Neither id the cost of prohibition wothwhile, both a waste of resources and damaging to otherwise honourable citizens. I could go on but enough for now. Sorry if no nuggets for use regarding legal highs, onebuttonmonkey. There was more in mind but this has already become rather long, maybe something else shall come to mind that I shall post if it be of any specific value.

Post by **adam** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:34 pm

More success for the academies programme.

Telford school put in special measures by Ofsted

The school, previously known as Sutherland Business and Enterprise College, converted to become an academy school in April 2013.

When it was last inspected by Ofsted back in 2010 it was rated “good” and described by inspectors as a “fast improving school”.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:50 pm

So. A disturbed nights sleep. I dream a lot, but never about politics or politicians. Last night broke the duck.

I can't remember what the dream was about but somehow I was in a rowing boat. Cameron, wearing only his underpants and socks and shoes was rowing. That woke me up!

Re last night's debate.
It was a strange experience trying to put their comments down as they were said.
It was like being one step removed. Like a first time voter with no preconceptions and the odd sentiment or statement rising above the generalities and occasional shouting each other down which is all these debates seem to produce.

I only listened on my earphones. Visual would have been too distracting, so I still couldn't tell you what Leanne Woods looks like.

This morning, thrusting aside nightmarish images of Dave in his blue and while striped jockey pants and navy socks, a few things have stuck in my mind.

Farage's outburst about immigrants with HIV coming here and having immediate access to very expensive drugs. A repugnant statement and Leanne Woods to give her credit had a go at him about it, but even in the cold light of day, I reckon it won't have done him any harm among those who've already decided to vote for UKIP. It neatly took in three of their beliefs. Gays, immigrants and access to welfare and NHS without having paid enough in.

Cleggs performance.
If I didn't know just how the LibDems have behaved, he'd have impressed me.
He got rattled when Ed said he'd gone back on his word about student fees, and blamed Labour for not leaving enough money.
Cameron broke in and said how he and Clegg had sat in cabinet agreeing on what needed to be done and Clegg had been happy enough at the time [or words to that effect] But again you needed to know Cleggs record to join up the dots.

Sturgeon will have won a lot of fans. She was clear, concise, attacked Farage, attacked the Tories, cosied up to Ed by saying if SNP held the balance they'd never agree to anything that would harm the NHS. They believed in it, with free prescriptions etc. And she'd hold Miliband to all the pledges he was making. Very cleverly done. Again I'll say, why is she letting Salmond stick his oar in? She's excellent.

I think Bennett was very brave knowing the stage fright she gets so perhaps I am being more generous than normal.
The Green agenda was laid out very clearly and concisely. Free university, and free care for everyone over 65 must have resonated. She got in about the environment and was the only one. So that will have resonated with undecideds who have green issues at the top of their list.

Cameron was Cameron but trotting out some awfully old mud to sling at Ed and butting in at every opportunity.
Ed pointed out how much he was carping on about the past. It was all about the next five years. Prodded about where the cuts were going to be, he wouldn't say and talked over them when the women protested about how the cuts were already too severe,

Woods comment about Labour reducing funding [can't remember exactly. Was it for NHS?] was I suppose her attempt to tempt Labour voters into the Plaid camp. She said Wales was responsible for the NHS, which, as it was Bevan's brainchild is sort of technically true. However we English did have a bit to do with it.

And there was Ed. Too polite at first when all three women rounded on him and shouted him down. Can't remember what for.
He did okay. He didn't shine but that's just a personal observation, because I know all his election pledges. I know he'll carry them out, and I will vote for him. His point in being there was to get Labours message across to the don't know and undecided. And hopefully he did that.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 12:50 pm

ephemerid wrote:... I was particularly annoyed that he used the expression "better than this" in his introductory statement.
It appears to me that if he can't be Ed he'll copy him - and as Ed has set his agenda for the past few years, no wonder.

I noticed that too, ephemerid, and more than once. Ed used similar once or twice as did somebody else, well at least one but I don't remember who. Yep that was one of the soundbites that I liked from Ed, which he never went on to claim for himself. I have noticed its reappearance in the last few days but now it seems everybody wants it.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:02 pm

adam wrote:The guardian daily politics (daily general election?) blog has deleted a btl thread started by a UKIP poster with a 'sorry mrs British, we can't afford to cure your cancer because we have to give the drugs to Johnny African' scene, which I actually think is a bit of a shame - I know it's just someone anonymous on a message board but there is a pattern emerging of UKIP making nasty racist statements and then not withdrawing them or apologising for them but just somehow denying they were said.

I once made a comment mentioning how people used to spit at my mother and father in the street during the fifties, adam. She was a blue-eyed blonde and he an Anglo-Indian. Somebody responded with words to the effect of what does that tell you then, given his/her other posts it was blindingly obvious what they meant. I was a little surprised that said comment was not moderated, not that I would have reported them. Nevertheless I was pleased it were not because rather than besmirch me it showed them up for what they were.

Edit replaced belittle with the more appropriate besmirch.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:05 pm

Willow904 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
pk1 wrote: Surprising wasn't it.

It is making that Telegraph front page look dafter by the minute, and it was pretty risible from the off.
I'm still wondering when the Sun thought Miliband "lost it". I don't remember him losing his temper, but I didn't see it all. The heckling woman was interesting. I quite like the fact that she couldn't just sit there and say nothing as Cameron shamelessly using his disabled son and "our boys" in the forces to garner votes when he's withdrawn money from the disabled and abandoned ex-soldiers to live on the streets. I winced myself when he brought up Ivan yet again.

When you're only listening you realise how much the sound is blanked out.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:11 pm

I bet Alex Salmond is pissed off today.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:16 pm

PorFavor wrote:I bet Alex Salmond is pissed off today.

Who?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:17 pm

A little fun...
Ed Miliband takes the Cosmo Quiz

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/reports/a ... osmo-quiz/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:18 pm

ohsocynical wrote:So. A disturbed nights sleep. I dream a lot, but never about politics or politicians. Last night broke the duck.

I can't remember what the dream was about but somehow I was in a rowing boat. Cameron, wearing only his underpants and socks and shoes was rowing. That woke me up! ....

Thanks for your outline of the debate, ohsocynical, for which I must congratulate you. However I am amused by the above. Funnily enough I too had a dream of being in a rowing boat with him, fully clothed thankfully. We were on the Mersey and the boat was hit by the ferry. He floundered but I refused to help. The following morning the Mersey Ferry's ghastly new paint job was all over the media. I don't remember the ennobled artist's name but I felt a little peeved that I've known many gifted people who never had their breaks. Who the fuck was he? Sorry he may be alright for all I know, but I'm unfamiliar with him or his work. I did wonder if and how much he was payed for such.

Edit: just to say he had designed the cover of Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Still don't remember his name though. There is always Google should I be bothered.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:19 pm

Now don't get mad at me, but my brain has suddenly popped up with this conclusion about the message Sturgeon was trying to get across.

'Don't worry. I'll be firm but gentle with him.' [Ed]

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 03 Apr, 2015 1:22 pm

Just spotted this in Paul Lewis' money column in the Radio Times.
He's giving tax advice.

''If you are married [or civil partnered] and one of you has an income below £10,600, then they pay no tax and can transfer up to £1,060 of their personal tax allowance you.
But they can only do this if your income is less than £42,385 in the tax year so you don't pay higher rate tax.

It can only be done online at the moment by registering at gov.uk, search for married allowance.
The transferred tax allowance could save the tax paying partner £212 this year and more in the future.''

This would benefit my husband as my small company pensions are too low for tax so he will be registering for it.

But...why has this not been made more public ?

If you can only apply by registering online that will disadvantage a lot of people who may not have easy access to the net.

Am ringing HMRC to ask when it was introduced and why it is only an online thing.
Wish me luck, I may be some time on the phone.