ukip on the rise

1 Dec 2012

Quote by Max777
What choice did non smokers have before the smoking ban? The only choice we had was either to go into a pub full of smoke or not to. There were not any pubs that enforced a voluntary ban on smoking.

There were plenty of pub/restaurants around here Max that because of the restaurant attached, you could go in that part and not be able to smoke. There was usually seated areas where you could have a drink away from tha main hub of smokers. In the summer you could have even gone out into the pubs garden if you wanted to avoid the smoke and many did. In fact there was nearly alway a way for a patron to go into the garden without even entering the pubs premises, so there were choices.

Quote by Max777
I'm with Too Hot all the way on this one. If it has to come down to choice between those who smoke and those who don't, let's opt for the healthy option. Why should I have to suffer the effects of passive smoking just to enjoy a pint?

Healthy option Max? Crossing the road is in many parts of the country not a healthy option with all the car and bus fumes. Shall we ban them as well? That highlighted bit above Max is the important word........choice. Surely both sides should have a choice? Where was the smokers choice? To stay in a corner in the garden huddles around a little heater? Ok Max that is fine , but the other choice is as I have stated above, that non smokers had a choice to also go into the garden. I feel that the smoker out there is vilified as being lepers of society, and yet successive Governments continue to issue even more anti smoking laws, whilst happily taking millions in tax off of them. Is that not just typical double standards?
I as I have also said Max am not a smoker, but I shall defend the rights of those that want to smoke. There choices have been forcibly removed by legislation..........democracy eh? Choices eh Max? Where?

1 Dec 2012

Quote by Max777
Not so because if the ban was rescinded tomorrow, virtually every pub, if not all, would revert to smoking. Non smokers would again have no choice.

Why would ' virtually every pub ' revert back then Max? Do you know something I don't?
I was in favour of a smoking ban but certainly not a blanket ban, made by anti smoking lobbyists with views such as Too Hot has on here.
Non smokers now are forced outside whilst the non smokers sit cosily inside. If there was not a blanket ban pubs and pub chains could have made the decisions based on what their customers want. As long as there were pubs that suited both sides, that would have been the correct choice Max.
People and Governments are such hypocrites. I hate gas guzzling 4x4's and it makes me laugh when people by one and never ever take it off road. But whilst they are gas guzzlers and so obviously bad for the environment, I do not scream to ban them. Of course the Government tax them to the hilt but people still have that choice to drive them wherever they like, even into the heart of London where they cannot park them.
There are just so many double standards. Like MP's voting to remove the rights of smokers and yet allowing their fat arses to continue to smoke in the very House where they voted on the ban. A bit like them voting to increase the unit price of alcohol and then going into their cosy posh eateries in the House and getting subsidised drinks. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites Max. Those fat lazy MP's want to take away people's choices and yet continue to give themselves the choices they have taken away from the general public.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by kiwi
Like the lib-dems (whom I actually support generally), they are a party that never expects to be in power, so they can make all the claims they like.

Hummm
Wasn't that their problem over Student Loans? They promised the earth not expecting to have to deliver but then fate took a hand and they ended up in Government.
Welcome to the forums!

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

What choice did non smokers have before the smoking ban? The only choice we had was either to go into a pub full of smoke or not to. There were not any pubs that enforced a voluntary ban on smoking.

There were plenty of pub/restaurants around here Max that because of the restaurant attached, you could go in that part and not be able to smoke. There was usually seated areas where you could have a drink away from tha main hub of smokers. In the summer you could have even gone out into the pubs garden if you wanted to avoid the smoke and many did. In fact there was nearly alway a way for a patron to go into the garden without even entering the pubs premises, so there were choices.

Quote by Max777
I'm with Too Hot all the way on this one. If it has to come down to choice between those who smoke and those who don't, let's opt for the healthy option. Why should I have to suffer the effects of passive smoking just to enjoy a pint?

Healthy option Max? Crossing the road is in many parts of the country not a healthy option with all the car and bus fumes. Shall we ban them as well? That highlighted bit above Max is the important word........choice. Surely both sides should have a choice? Where was the smokers choice? To stay in a corner in the garden huddles around a little heater? Ok Max that is fine , but the other choice is as I have stated above, that non smokers had a choice to also go into the garden. I feel that the smoker out there is vilified as being lepers of society, and yet successive Governments continue to issue even more anti smoking laws, whilst happily taking millions in tax off of them. Is that not just typical double standards?
I as I have also said Max am not a smoker, but I shall defend the rights of those that want to smoke. There choices have been forcibly removed by legislation..........democracy eh? Choices eh Max? Where?
Having separate areas within the same room doesn't work. Smoke drifts!
So let me understand your logic. You believe smokers should take precedence and the non smokers should have to seek out smoke free areas?

1 Dec 2012

As a smoker (still rolleyes

) I'm in favour of the ban on smoking in pubs and clubs etc....

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Not so because if the ban was rescinded tomorrow, virtually every pub, if not all, would revert to smoking. Non smokers would again have no choice.

Why would ' virtually every pub ' revert back then Max? Do you know something I don't?
I was in favour of a smoking ban but certainly not a blanket ban, made by anti smoking lobbyists with views such as Too Hot has on here.
Non smokers now are forced outside whilst the non smokers sit cosily inside. If there was not a blanket ban pubs and pub chains could have made the decisions based on what their customers want. As long as there were pubs that suited both sides, that would have been the correct choice Max.
People and Governments are such hypocrites. I hate gas guzzling 4x4's and it makes me laugh when people by one and never ever take it off road. But whilst they are gas guzzlers and so obviously bad for the environment, I do not scream to ban them. Of course the Government tax them to the hilt but people still have that choice to drive them wherever they like, even into the heart of London where they cannot park them.
There are just so many double standards. Like MP's voting to remove the rights of smokers and yet allowing their fat arses to continue to smoke in the very House where they voted on the ban. A bit like them voting to increase the unit price of alcohol and then going into their cosy posh eateries in the House and getting subsidised drinks. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites Max. Those fat lazy MP's want to take away people's choices and yet continue to give themselves the choices they have taken away from the general public.
Because pubs would make the commercial decision to allow smokers. I would have no objection to pubs allowing smokers if there was an equal ratio of non smoking/ smoking pubs but that would never happen so in my opinion the current ban is the correct and sensible option.

1 Dec 2012

I certainly won't be voting for them !

1 Dec 2012

popular policies, lets look at some of the others not mentioned shall we
:arrow: Health
• maintains the existing principles of the NHS
• restores free eye and dental checks
:arrow: plan to reduce taxes, end Employer’s National Insurance and in merging income tax and national insurance into a flat rate income tax, plus abolishing the existing 40% and 50% income tax brackets
:arrow: Scrap Pension Protection Fund and National Pensions Savings Scheme
:arrow: Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP
:arrow: A 25-year programme of building nuclear power stations
One thing that seems to be a theme, not carefully selected but just items on their first few 'policies' page, is
- cutting taxation
- increasing spending
Now it's been a few years since I studied Economics but they don't seem to add up
:doh:
though perhaps the more enlightened ones could clarify, without resorting to spouting party rhetoric (which we can all see/hear on the sound bite driven TV and Radio) ?

1 Dec 2012

I guess you heard of H.
Fascinating reading.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by Max777
Having separate areas within the same room doesn't work. Smoke drifts!

So do car fumes and bus fumes, and smokey smelly coaches do. Are you saying we should ban all cars in favour of people who don't have a car? People who live in built up areas like I do around here, have children who have a higher level of asthma related illnesses. Now no actual evidence to suggest they are caused by fumes from cars, but logic would say they play a massive part.

Quote by Max777
So let me understand your logic. You believe smokers should take precedence and the non smokers should have to seek out smoke free areas?

No not entirely.
Are you saying that all non smokers should take precedence over smokers in any situation? I bet I know the answer to that one. For me all the time they are legal, and the Government take huge amounts of tax revenue from smokers, then I believe that smokers should be treated more fairly and not to be ostracised like naughty dirty people with a filthy habit into the nearest corner.
You have a choice Max if you do not want to go into a smoking environment, do you not? When pubs had smoking in them, did any single person force you into one of those pubs? Your argument holds some water Max of course it does, but why does the smoker have to pay massive amounts of tax on a product that is legal to buy and legal to smoke? The Government want the revenue, but on the other hypocritical hand they want to force people into holes to use the product they take tax on.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by Max777
Because pubs would make the commercial decision to allow smokers.

Well if that were true Max, then there is a huge market for smoking pubs from a commercial point of view. But the Government have stopped free enterprise in favour of health, but still allow people to make the choice to buy them and pay the huge tax on them, but you better not dare smoke them anywhere in a public place.
Where has the choice gone from a smokers point of view Max? Why should a smoker pay over £5 on a packet of cigarettes in tax that costs on average, and then be told where to smoke them? That is like them saying you can pay for petrol but only drive on certain roads, or at certain times of the day. If smoking is this hated detestable disgusting and unhealthy thing, why not ban them? Oh right yes for tax revenue reasons. Can you not see how ironic that is Max?

1 Dec 2012

Quote by HnS
popular policies, lets look at some of the others not mentioned shall we
:arrow: Health
• maintains the existing principles of the NHS
• restores free eye and dental checks
:arrow: plan to reduce taxes, end Employer’s National Insurance and in merging income tax and national insurance into a flat rate income tax, plus abolishing the existing 40% and 50% income tax brackets
:arrow: Scrap Pension Protection Fund and National Pensions Savings Scheme
:arrow: Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP
:arrow: A 25-year programme of building nuclear power stations
One thing that seems to be a theme, not carefully selected but just items on their first few 'policies' page, is
- cutting taxation
- increasing spending
Now it's been a few years since I studied Economics but they don't seem to add up
:doh:
though perhaps the more enlightened ones could clarify, without resorting to spouting party rhetoric (which we can all see/hear on the sound bite driven TV and Radio) ?

I am certainly not enlightened but from what I have read UKIP plan to cut bureaucracy and waste. Now from where I am sitting it certainly is not rocket science to know this country's waste is astronomical in terms of waste from Whitehall in particular.
I am sure that billions could be saved in wastage from Government departments, and certainly wanker Quangos and the like. Whether the savings made would allow UKIP to carry out it's promises I am unsure. I am not an economist but then Government economists get it wrong all the time. I am also sure HnS that there are cleverer people than me and you sitting in the other parties, who if UKIP were wrong be able to rip their policies apart. Have you heard any of them do this? As I cannot find a single reference to their policy structures from say the Tory party.
What I do see from recent by elections and public polls, is that UKIP could very well end up taking votes away from the Tory's and end up gaining some kind of power. As if you believe the media the Liberals will get dumped at the next election, as they have proved to be even less trustworthy in what they say, than any of the other parties put together. The Lib Dems I believe are a spent force, and that UKIP will take a heck of a lot of votes when the next General election comes around.
What they preach makes a lot of bloody sense to me, and the last few days it has proved to also be the case with other voters.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Having separate areas within the same room doesn't work. Smoke drifts!

So do car fumes and bus fumes, and smokey smelly coaches do. Are you saying we should ban all cars in favour of people who don't have a car? People who live in built up areas like I do around here, have children who have a higher level of asthma related illnesses. Now no actual evidence to suggest they are caused by fumes from cars, but logic would say they play a massive part. .
I thought there was a blanket ban on dirty old smelly diesel burners in London dunno

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Having separate areas within the same room doesn't work. Smoke drifts!

So do car fumes and bus fumes, and smokey smelly coaches do. Are you saying we should ban all cars in favour of people who don't have a car? People who live in built up areas like I do around here, have children who have a higher level of asthma related illnesses. Now no actual evidence to suggest they are caused by fumes from cars, but logic would say they play a massive part.

Quote by Max777
So let me understand your logic. You believe smokers should take precedence and the non smokers should have to seek out smoke free areas?

No not entirely.
Are you saying that all non smokers should take precedence over smokers in any situation? I bet I know the answer to that one. For me all the time they are legal, and the Government take huge amounts of tax revenue from smokers, then I believe that smokers should be treated more fairly and not to be ostracised like naughty dirty people with a filthy habit into the nearest corner.
You have a choice Max if you do not want to go into a smoking environment, do you not? When pubs had smoking in them, did any single person force you into one of those pubs? Your argument holds some water Max of course it does, but why does the smoker have to pay massive amounts of tax on a product that is legal to buy and legal to smoke? The Government want the revenue, but on the other hypocritical hand they want to force people into holes to use the product they take tax on.
This discussion has nothing to do with car emissions. We are discussing smoking I public places. I am saying exactly that, that non smokers should have precedence over smokers when it comes to smoking in public places. Non smokers do not impact on smokers health by not smoking, whereas non smokers suffer the effects of passive smoking. The health of staff working in pubs also has to be taken into consideration.
Taxation on cigarettes is another matter and again has no relevance in what I'm discussing here. Smokers have the choice to not buy cigarettes and therefore not pay the tax.
Pubs are much more pleasant places to visit since the smoking ban and it can't be any coincidence that many countries are following suit and banning smoking in public places.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Because pubs would make the commercial decision to allow smokers.

Well if that were true Max, then there is a huge market for smoking pubs from a commercial point of view. But the Government have stopped free enterprise in favour of health, but still allow people to make the choice to buy them and pay the huge tax on them, but you better not dare smoke them anywhere in a public place.
Where has the choice gone from a smokers point of view Max? Why should a smoker pay over £5 on a packet of cigarettes in tax that costs on average, and then be told where to smoke them? That is like them saying you can pay for petrol but only drive on certain roads, or at certain times of the day. If smoking is this hated detestable disgusting and unhealthy thing, why not ban them? Oh right yes for tax revenue reasons. Can you not see how ironic that is Max?
Ironic? Not as far as I understand the definition of the word! The choice smokers have is to smoke or not to smoke and therefore to pay the tax or not.
We may well, in the not too distant future, be restricted to driving upon certain roads at certain times, or else pay additional tolls.

1 Dec 2012

As another side of the coin....non smokers have a choice too. They could have chosen to not go into pubs or clubs etc.
I am certainly not convinced at all about a total blanket ban based on the freedom of choice. No choice now for the smoker and I understand your views as you are obviously a non smoker, and that IS relevant Max.
Next Governments will be taking our right to eat fatty foods, on the same health grounds whilst getting subsidised fatty foods served to them in their plush subsidised eateries. I am also unconvinced entirely about passive smoking, but that is another debate for another day.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
As another side of the coin....non smokers have a choice too. They could have chosen to not go into pubs or clubs etc.
I am certainly not convinced at all about a total blanket ban based on the freedom of choice. No choice now for the smoker and I understand your views as you are obviously a non smoker, and that IS relevant Max.
Next Governments will be taking our right to eat fatty foods, on the same health grounds whilst getting subsidised fatty foods served to them in their plush subsidised eateries. I am also unconvinced entirely about passive smoking, but that is another debate for another day.

There still is a choice for smokers. They can still go to the pub for a drink but have to smoke outside. Most smokers I know seem quite happy with this situation.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
As another side of the coin....non smokers have a choice too. They could have chosen to not go into pubs or clubs etc.
I am certainly not convinced at all about a total blanket ban based on the freedom of choice. No choice now for the smoker and I understand your views as you are obviously a non smoker, and that IS relevant Max.
Next Governments will be taking our right to eat fatty foods, on the same health grounds whilst getting subsidised fatty foods served to them in their plush subsidised eateries. I am also unconvinced entirely about passive smoking, but that is another debate for another day.

Just be grateful you don't live in Australia which has the most stringent non-smoking rules.
If I understood a news item correctly today, it will be (or is proposed to be) illegal for all people born in or after year 2000 to smoke.
Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it :lol2:

1 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
I am certainly not enlightened but from what I have read UKIP plan to cut bureaucracy and waste. Now from where I am sitting it certainly is not rocket science to know this country's waste is astronomical in terms of waste from Whitehall in particular.
I am sure that billions could be saved in wastage from Government departments, and certainly wanker Quangos and the like. Whether the savings made would allow UKIP to carry out it's promises I am unsure. I am not an economist but then Government economists get it wrong all the time. I am also sure HnS that there are cleverer people than me and you sitting in the other parties, who if UKIP were wrong be able to rip their policies apart. Have you heard any of them do this? As I cannot find a single reference to their policy structures from say the Tory party.
What I do see from recent by elections and public polls, is that UKIP could very well end up taking votes away from the Tory's and end up gaining some kind of power. As if you believe the media the Liberals will get dumped at the next election, as they have proved to be even less trustworthy in what they say, than any of the other parties put together. The Lib Dems I believe are a spent force, and that UKIP will take a heck of a lot of votes when the next General election comes around.
What they preach makes a lot of bloody sense to me, and the last few days it has proved to also be the case with other voters.

Star,
Whitehall wastage, that age old issue and whilst valid at the end of the day there will still be loads of civil service salaries to be paid in administering whatever policy from whichever Government is in power and decides to do.
As for the Tories, then already a 'minority', hence the current Coalition, but with their own long running internal issues and splits. Maybe correct re the Lib Dems, Clegg certainly hasn't done them any favours nationally electorally.
Taking those 2 points together then currently UKIP and other smaller parties will win more votes at by-elections at this time, or should that be pick up dis-affected Tory and Lib Dem votes ?
However a few years yet to a general election and sure plenty of twists and turns from all the parties between now and then.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by HnS
Star,
Whitehall wastage, that age old issue and whilst valid at the end of the day there will still be loads of civil service salaries to be paid in administering whatever policy from whichever Government is in power and decides to do.

No party in recent years either wanted or dared to look at the Welfare bill and the escalating cost of it. For many it was a massive vote loser to take away people's benefits and cut the Welfare bill, but the Tory.s have with hardly a whimper from anyone. The same could be done with the huge wastage's in other areas that are spilling money overboard. Will the UKIP big wigs do it? Your guess is as good as mine, but the chance and the money is there if any party dare to tackle it.

Quote by HnS
As for the Tories, then already a 'minority', hence the current Coalition, but with their own long running internal issues and splits. Maybe correct re the Lib Dems, Clegg certainly hasn't done them any favours nationally electorally.

The Lib Dems wil lose all power at either the next election, or if something drastic happens and an early election is called. Disillusioned Tory voters along with Lib Dem voters could make the UKIP party a party to be reckoned with, and without a doubt could be the next party to form the coalition.

Quote by HnS
Taking those 2 points together then currently UKIP and other smaller parties will win more votes at by-elections at this time, or should that be pick up dis-affected Tory and Lib Dem votes ?

That is a true enough point HnS, but will the Lib Dems suddenly gain in popularity? Somehow I think not.

Quote by HnS
However a few years yet to a general election and sure plenty of twists and turns from all the parties between now and then.

Oh without a doubt, but I feel the Libs have run out of their twists now, and they will get the biggest bloody nose of their political life, when the next election comes around. I think UKIP will only increase in popularity.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by Steve
As a smoker (still )

still steve ffs smackbottom

1 Dec 2012

UKIP ought to do well at the next GE I think, measured as a percentage of poll.
They appeal to the various disaffected groups of voters.
However due to the ridiculous flaws in our existing electoral process it is unlikely that this will translate into seats. Sad really we could do with some new thoughts and faces.

1 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
However due to the ridiculous flaws in our existing electoral process it is unlikely that this will translate into seats. Sad really we could do with some new thoughts and faces.

Agree with you there Ben.

2 Dec 2012

Seem to have drifted into arguing over the smoking ban which is a little off the original topic as pretty sure that's not the reason for any growth, but . . . as a smoker who was opposed to the ban for my own selfish reasons Max is correct though, the moral right of the none-smoker not to breathe in toxic by-products takes precedence over that of the smoker creating them, can't be argued otherwise. The smoker's right to inflict that can't possibly take priority. And I enjoy going out to smoker's areas when I'm out, they're very sociable places and I've had some real good convos with interesting people I wouldn't otherwise have engaged with which is a massive, unforeseen bonus.
Anyways, agree with you Ben, Parliament could do with a healthier, broader mix of opinion beyond the two and a bit main parties. Wouldn't necessarily want UKIP to influence things too much given their main agenda but special interest and minority parties do highlight issues perhaps not given sufficient priority by the governing parties. There's a need for more of it.

For many it was a massive vote loser to take away people's benefits and cut the Welfare bill, but the Tory.s have with hardly a whimper from anyone

Real long-term savings from this massive assault on the poor with its yet to play out unintended consequences yet to be realised or proven I think Star but it's going through with general popular consent because the politics of envy and the entitlements of the supposed not-so-deserving poor has been so well played. So effectively that people are happy to see their own safety net and that of those they may consider the more deserving poor dismantled wholesale so long as it means the lowering of the lifestyle of the undeserving relative to themselves. Or so it seems to me anyways. Turkeys voting for Xmas, they may regret it if circumstances change and they suddenly need the safety net they're letting go.

2 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Seem to have drifted into arguing over the smoking ban which is a little off the original topic as pretty sure that's not the reason for any growth, but . . . as a smoker who was opposed to the ban for my own selfish reasons Max is correct though, the moral right of the none-smoker not to breathe in toxic by-products takes precedence over that of the smoker creating them, can't be argued otherwise. The smoker's right to inflict that can't possibly take priority. And I enjoy going out to smoker's areas when I'm out, they're very sociable places and I've had some real good convos with interesting people I wouldn't otherwise have engaged with which is a massive, unforeseen bonus.

Living near a very busy roundabout in London where traffic is heavy seven days a week, cars and others constantly belching out toxic fumes, children around here with a higher than national average asthma levels, and the Government do nothing, and yet decide to protect the non smokers in pubs. Many people around here have not a choice or a chance of moving away. As GnV mentioned earlier about legislation to keep heavy polluting vehicles out of London is correct, but I live on the borderline of that congestion zone. Imagine that if you will. Max wants rights to be able to go into a pub and not breathe in other people's smoke, where are my rights and the rights of my neighbours not to breath in daily amounts of toxic car fumes?

For many it was a massive vote loser to take away people's benefits and cut the Welfare bill, but the Tory.s have with hardly a whimper from anyone

Quote by neilinleeds
Real long-term savings from this massive assault on the poor with its yet to play out unintended consequences yet to be realised or proven I think Star but it's going through with general popular consent because the politics of envy and the entitlements of the supposed not-so-deserving poor has been so well played. So effectively that people are happy to see their own safety net and that of those they may consider the more deserving poor dismantled wholesale so long as it means the lowering of the lifestyle of the undeserving relative to themselves. Or so it seems to me anyways. Turkeys voting for Xmas, they may regret it if circumstances change and they suddenly need the safety net they're letting go.

Of course the safety net should be there, but Government figures on welfare cheats cannot be ignored. Billions of pounds every year is being lost to incompetence and fraud. Check the Government's figures on people who were long term sick, who failed to turn up for their assessments Neil.
But on the other hand of course it could also be seen as Turkeys voting for Xmas. But doing nothing is surely not the answer either?

2 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Seem to have drifted into arguing over the smoking ban which is a little off the original topic as pretty sure that's not the reason for any growth, but . . . as a smoker who was opposed to the ban for my own selfish reasons Max is correct though, the moral right of the none-smoker not to breathe in toxic by-products takes precedence over that of the smoker creating them, can't be argued otherwise. The smoker's right to inflict that can't possibly take priority. And I enjoy going out to smoker's areas when I'm out, they're very sociable places and I've had some real good convos with interesting people I wouldn't otherwise have engaged with which is a massive, unforeseen bonus.

Living near a very busy roundabout in London where traffic is heavy seven days a week, cars and others constantly belching out toxic fumes, children around here with a higher than national average asthma levels, and the Government do nothing, and yet decide to protect the non smokers in pubs. Many people around here have not a choice or a chance of moving away. As GnV mentioned earlier about legislation to keep heavy polluting vehicles out of London is correct, but I live on the borderline of that congestion zone. Imagine that if you will. Max wants rights to be able to go into a pub and not breathe in other people's smoke, where are my rights and the rights of my neighbours not to breath in daily amounts of toxic car fumes?

For many it was a massive vote loser to take away people's benefits and cut the Welfare bill, but the Tory.s have with hardly a whimper from anyone

Quote by neilinleeds
Real long-term savings from this massive assault on the poor with its yet to play out unintended consequences yet to be realised or proven I think Star but it's going through with general popular consent because the politics of envy and the entitlements of the supposed not-so-deserving poor has been so well played. So effectively that people are happy to see their own safety net and that of those they may consider the more deserving poor dismantled wholesale so long as it means the lowering of the lifestyle of the undeserving relative to themselves. Or so it seems to me anyways. Turkeys voting for Xmas, they may regret it if circumstances change and they suddenly need the safety net they're letting go.

Of course the safety net should be there, but Government figures on welfare cheats cannot be ignored. Billions of pounds every year is being lost to incompetence and fraud. Check the Government's figures on people who were long term sick, who failed to turn up for their assessments Neil.
But on the other hand of course it could also be seen as Turkeys voting for Xmas. But doing nothing is surely not the answer either?
Do you drive Star? If so, what do you do about your exhaust emissions?

2 Dec 2012

Living near a very busy roundabout in London where traffic is heavy seven days a week, cars and others constantly belching out toxic fumes, children around here with a higher than national average asthma levels, and the Government do nothing, and yet decide to protect the non smokers in pubs. Many people around here have not a choice or a chance of moving away. As GnV mentioned earlier about legislation to keep heavy polluting vehicles out of London is correct, but I live on the borderline of that congestion zone. Imagine that if you will. Max wants rights to be able to go into a pub and not breathe in other people's smoke, where are my rights and the rights of my neighbours not to breath in daily amounts of toxic car fumes?

Not a particularly good analogy, a bit apples and oranges. Transport requirements are not especially well served by public infrastructure for many as yet making a car a necessity for some, distribution of the deemed-to-be necessities in life inevitably means ever greater numbers of trucks and vans. An instant ban on traffic is hardly practical. What you do do is penalise emissions higher than is strictly necessary and strive for fuel efficiency until cleaner sources of energy become properly and widely available to limit the damage done as far as possible. That's sensible, but it's not the same as the simple choice made in favour of none-smokers over smokers. Impossible to opt out completely leaving no carbon footprint whatsoever even if you use public transport exclusively. Still a constributor indirectly.

Of course the safety net should be there, but Government figures on welfare cheats cannot be ignored. Billions of pounds every year is being lost to incompetence and fraud. Check the Government's figures on people who were long term sick, who failed to turn up for their assessments Neil.

Fraud as a percentage of the total welfare bill is relatively small and a bit of a red herring IMO. Of course fraud should be addressed to minimise it as far as is possible, as should swinging the lead. It is a fact though that sickness benefit has been used in the past to obscure the real unemployment figures when it suited with benefit offices steering borderline cases towards sickness benefits instead of JSA, which would account for why so many are now being found not to be quite so ill that they cannot work at all. Also true that appeals against the ATOS Work Capability Assessments are upheld in nearly half the cases where the genuinely sick have been wrongly declared fit for work so keep that in mind. The savings in the end may not be as great as has been suggested perhaps?

2 Dec 2012

Quote by Max777
Do you drive Star? If so, what do you do about your exhaust emissions?

Max you are using the reverse psychology approach, which is a bit of a weak debating tool. Yes I drive and of course by driving I am contributing to the fumes, blah blah blah. I presume that was your point Max?
My exhaust emissions are helped by catalytic converters and the like, but that only takes away a percentage of the emissions. When you have a million cars a day going past my building and stopping in rush hour times to go around the roundabout, how much difference does it make to the residents lives?
On one hand because you do not smoke you seem to think it is fine for smokers to be targeted in the way they have been, and that you demand to be able to go into any pub you deem fit to, and enter a non smoking environment because you do not smoke. Yet you ask the question about do I drive a car, as some kind of excuse to defend the right of the car driver to pollute.
Fags and passive smoking, against cars and pollution. Is there a difference Max? Of course there is as smokers are a much easier target to force legislation onto with regards to second hand dangers. Of course you drive as well but would be the first to scream if the Government targeted where you could or could not drive your car Max. But unlike smokers who have no choice, the car driver has all the choices to pollute and damn the consequences it would seem.
Have a got that right Max?

2 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Fraud as a percentage of the total welfare bill is relatively small and a bit of a red herring IMO. Of course fraud should be addressed to minimise it as far as is possible, as should swinging the lead. It is a fact though that sickness benefit has been used in the past to obscure the real unemployment figures when it suited with benefit offices steering borderline cases towards sickness benefits instead of JSA, which would account for why so many are now being found not to be quite so ill that they cannot work at all. Also true that appeals against the ATOS Work Capability Assessments are upheld in nearly half the cases where the genuinely sick have been wrongly declared fit for work so keep that in mind. The savings in the end may not be as great as has been suggested perhaps?

The highlighted bit Neil neither of us know the details, but we would both agree that a saving of over 50 million pounds minimum is a rather large saving. I read that somewhere about a month ago on the savings made on people who have opted to either not get reassessed or who have had their benefits stopped as a Doctor has deemed them fit to work. That is as far I can remember was a yearly saving.
Of course manipulating figures to suit an argument happens everywhere Neil, even on this very site. The site states nearly one and a half million members which to a new member seems like that amount actively use the site. We know that not to be the case and so the figures are used to drum up business. Everyone does It Neil, it is not right of course but it is used to try and win debates, and on occasions make money.

2 Dec 2012

What is all this bollocks about smoking and benefits? UKIP are a one trick maybe two trick pony. The one trick is being anti europe. The two trick is being anti immigration.
Their appeal is to the tory far right voters and the self proclaimed "I am not a racist but..." brigade.