UK politics, Truss me, I really am that mental.

[BigFatCoward]

So the cabbage is back spouting her mouth off, Trump makes the world safer, Farage should be a tory MP and her new book is full of swivel eyed lunacy apparently. 

She really is the gift that keeps on giving. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68823526

Also some Tory MPs don't approve of a smoking ban for newly legal people for 'reasons' I suppose. 

[mormont]

Truss has always been a grifter, she's just trying desperately now to horn in on the Trump gravy train.

[Heartofice]

Truss likes to appear to be an purist and an ideologue, but the opposite is true. There isn't a position she won't take if it means it will advance her career. She might have some sort of point about the impartiality of the civil service, but it doesn't help her point if they played a part in preventing her doing what she wanted to do.

I get the sense however that she has had some sort of breakdown after stepping down. There are more than a few whiffs of persecution complex about her now, a lot of bitterness in the way she talks. Ok she admits to making mistakes, but not really on the big fundamental mistakes.

Also, the smoking ban is surely a stupid idea in the first place? I hate smokers and would for everyone to stop, but aren't we already at a point where smoking is dying out anyway? It seems pretty rare to see someone actually smoke a cigarette these days. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Also, the smoking ban is surely a stupid idea in the first place? I hate smokers and would for everyone to stop, but aren't we already at a point where smoking is dying out anyway? It seems pretty rare to see someone actually smoke a cigarette these days. 

Just a point of clarification here - which smoking ban are you referring to? I looked up the law in the UK and that’s the first I’d seen about the “raise the legal age every year” law being proposed by the PM. Presumably you don’t want the 2007 law reversed?

I think the idea of raising the legal age for smoking every year is actually a pretty good idea. The argument against is the usual “it won’t work”.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Just a point of clarification here - which smoking ban are you referring to? I looked up the law in the UK and that’s the first I’d seen about the “raise the legal age every year” law being proposed by the PM. Presumably you don’t want the 2007 law reversed?

I think the idea of raising the legal age for smoking every year is actually a pretty good idea. The argument against is the usual “it won’t work”.

Yeah its essentially saying nobody born after 2009 can ever buy a cigarette, so it is a ban for those people. As I said, I'm hugely anti smoker, but even I think the law is mostly just completely unnecessary. 

[kissdbyfire]

I suppose being anti slavery is frowned upon now. 

 

 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah its essentially saying nobody born after 2009 can ever buy a cigarette, so it is a ban for those people. As I said, I'm hugely anti smoker, but even I think the law is mostly just completely unnecessary. 

Agreed.  Prohibition of drug possession has not been notably successful.  All that happens is that distribution of the product passes into the hands of criminals.

And, it’s quite illiberal.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Agreed.  Prohibition of drug possession has not been notably successful.  All that happens is that distribution of the product passes into the hands of criminals.

And, it’s quite illiberal.

It just seems like an area where the government doesn’t really even need to intervene. Smoking has been going down with young people and I’d bet that trend will continue.

So if society is pretty much achieving this result on its own, why do we need the government to step in and take a much harder step?
 

 

Edited April 16 by Heartofice

[SeanF]

Just now, Heartofice said:

It just seems like an area where the government doesn’t really even need to intervene. Smoking has been going down with young people and I’d bet that trend will continue.

So if society is pretty much achieving this result on its own, why do we need the government to step in and take a much harder step?
 

 

Vaping has just become a lot more popular than smoking, with younger people.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Truss likes to appear to be an purist and an ideologue, but the opposite is true. There isn't a position she won't take if it means it will advance her career. She might have some sort of point about the impartiality of the civil service, but it doesn't help her point if they played a part in preventing her doing what she wanted to do.

I get the sense however that she has had some sort of breakdown after stepping down. There are more than a few whiffs of persecution complex about her now, a lot of bitterness in the way she talks. Ok she admits to making mistakes, but not really on the big fundamental mistakes.

Also, the smoking ban is surely a stupid idea in the first place? I hate smokers and would for everyone to stop, but aren't we already at a point where smoking is dying out anyway? It seems pretty rare to see someone actually smoke a cigarette these days. 

Truss is quite lacking in self-awareness.  

[mormont]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Agreed.  Prohibition of drug possession has not been notably successful.  All that happens is that distribution of the product passes into the hands of criminals.

And, it’s quite illiberal.

While this evening’s tally shows quite a few Tories have an issue with the measure on that latter principle, or at least think there are votes in that stance n, mostly they’re content with the usual ‘liberty for me, not for thee’ position.

As for supply, since your ‘dealer’ only needs to be someone born before 2008, there seems no space for organised criminal involvement.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Truss is quite lacking in self-awareness. 
 

https://x.com/number10cat/status/1780228873247948916?s=61&t=VAHy5UztwfQqm4Pp6VIw0w

Edited April 16 by mormont

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

While this evening’s tally shows quite a few Tories have an issue with the measure on that latter principle, or at least think there are votes in that stance n, mostly they’re content with the usual ‘liberty for me, not for thee’ position.

As for supply, since your ‘dealer’ only needs to be someone born before 2008, there seems no space for organised criminal involvement.

https://x.com/number10cat/status/1780228873247948916?s=61&t=VAHy5UztwfQqm4Pp6VIw0w

“Liberty for me but not for thee, “ is, I think, a common position.  Think of the fairly big minority who wished to ban nightclubs for good, during the pandemic.  There was a pollster interviewed on Radio 4 this evening, who said that 30%+ will automatically agree with the government when they say they want to ban something.  So long as it’s not something they themselves care about.

Edited April 16 by SeanF

[mormont]

31 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 Think of the fairly big minority who wished to ban nightclubs for good, during the pandemic.  

Since this is the first I’ve heard of them, and I work in an organisation that has a nightclub, I’m thinking they were not that big of a minority.

[Heartofice]

I’m imagining a point in the future where gangs of 50 year olds are hanging outside newsagents asking 51 year olds to go in and buy them a packet of fags.

[BigFatCoward]

I love headlines like this, how many Crumpets do you have to eat that their dropping in price makes a tangible difference to your finances, and i say this as a person that buys a lot of crumpets (kids love them, we probably go through 6-8 packs a month). 

UK inflation falls as meat and crumpet prices drop

[BigFatCoward]

Also, how is this not a thing already?  Can you imagine hitting your kid (and my 2 year old is a total arsehole). Or because nobody does it, do we need to not bother banning it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68827782

 

Edited April 17 by BigFatCoward

[Which Tyler]

I'm sure I'm far from the only person surprised that it hasn't been illegal for at least 20 years.

[Heartofice]

38 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Also, how is this not a thing already?  Can you imagine hitting your kid (and my 2 year old is a total arsehole). Or because nobody does it, do we need to not bother banning it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68827782

 

It's surely socially unacceptable to do it now anyway, and I would suspect that the people who smack their kids will not be too worried about the law. 

There are times with young children, though that you cannot just sit them down and discuss why what they did was wrong. I used to think parents who scream at their kids were just awful, and yeah they are if they do it all the time. There is a point where kids need to understand that they have REALLY done something wrong. 

[SeanF]

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It's surely socially unacceptable to do it now anyway, and I would suspect that the people who smack their kids will not be too worried about the law. 

There are times with young children, though that you cannot just sit them down and discuss why what they did was wrong. I used to think parents who scream at their kids were just awful, and yeah they are if they do it all the time. There is a point where kids need to understand that they have REALLY done something wrong. 

Edited April 17 by SeanF

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

There are times with young children, though that you cannot just sit them down and discuss why what they did was wrong. I used to think parents who scream at their kids were just awful, and yeah they are if they do it all the time. There is a point where kids need to understand that they have REALLY done something wrong. 

I can't think of a single thing that hitting a kid would improve the situation.  Using force to grab/restrain them when they are danger is absolutely sometimes necessary, but what behaviour would result in hitting someone?

Edited April 17 by BigFatCoward