General politics discussion thread

[patiirc]

Good thing they're not thick cunts then, isn't it?

 

What ,you mean your quite happy being 'catered for by the those in charge being in loco parentis with a carte blache to do what the fuck they want because its 'good' for you? Or are you just happy quoting stuff back at us and emboldening it?

 

Checking a pack of fags to make sure its the right brand and telling the nation how to bring up children isnt quite the same thing is it?

 

 

The bottom of the article you linked to suggests that it doesn't.

 

I'd already mentioned that there was more to it that just one article (or at least I thought I had by alluding to it being an existing or prior policy), and expect that if people were interested enough on it they would, yer know read around it, or instead of looking at a non annotated or justfied point. What are these studies. There was no further reading or corroborative links suggested for that bit of the article.. Is it just accepted that these things are true? or was it a case of it making good copy?

 

My dicussion wasn't a critique of only the BBC article I linked. There is a wider discussion and it was clearly alluded to, but why let that get in the way of a few lines of 'gospel'?

 

 

A relatively good point. I wouldn't be surprised if the tobacco industry does end up paying for quite a bit of it. Which is no bad thing.

 

Relative to what exactly? What's a bad point in this discussion? Is there even a 'proper' good point. (Toungue firmly in cheek )

 

What makes you thing that the tobacco industry will pay for it and why is it no bad thing?

 

 

[Chris B]

Good thing they're not thick cunts then, isn't it?

 

What ,you mean your quite happy being 'catered for by the those in charge being in loco parentis with a carte blache to do what the fuck they want because its 'good' for you? Or are you just happy quoting stuff back at us and emboldening it?

 

Checking a pack of fags to make sure its the right brand and telling the nation how to bring up children isnt quite the same thing is it?

 

You said people shouldn't be treated like thick cunts, then suggested one problem would be people buying the wrong brands. Which is kind of a thick cunt thing to do.

 

They're not stopping anybody buying them. They're restricting how they can advertise themselves and package themselves. Are you in favour of warnings being taken off packages? It's an extension of the same thing. And like it or not, the aesthetic quality of cigarettes (and the way they're packaged IS aesthetic) is part of why they're seen as attractive.

 

The bottom of the article you linked to suggests that it doesn't.

 

I'd already mentioned that there was more to it that just one article (or at least I thought I had by alluding to it being an existing or prior policy), and expect that if people were interested enough on it they would, yer know read around it, or instead of looking at a non annotated or justfied point. What are these studies. There was no further reading or corroborative links suggested for that bit of the article.. Is it just accepted that these things are true? or was it a case of it making good copy?

 

It does mention where it comes from. It comes from 'Tobacco Control' magazine, which can be found here. They're basing it on what happened in Ireland, and they do seem to be backing up their findings. Now, queries could be raised as to how they get their data, but that's always the case.

 

My dicussion wasn't a critique of only the BBC article I linked. There is a wider discussion and it was clearly alluded to, but why let that get in the way of a few lines of 'gospel'?

 

Yes, there is. The larger argument includes the idea that, actually, quite a lot of the population are thick cunts who will do something that causes the rest of us an absolute fortune in medical expenses. That's the entire argument in favour of alcohol and tobacco control, on the basis that these things are addictive.

 

There's no control in terms of making them harder to buy. It's in terms of making it easier to quit. I see that as a good thing as someone who found quitting to be difficult, and as someone who couldn't give up alcohol completely.

 

A relatively good point. I wouldn't be surprised if the tobacco industry does end up paying for quite a bit of it. Which is no bad thing.

 

Relative to what exactly? What's a bad point in this discussion? Is there even a 'proper' good point. (Toungue firmly in cheek )

 

Well, the fact that your first point contradicted itself, and you didn't seem to have read the complete article in the second suggested to me that they weren't well made points. So relative to your other points, this was relatively good.

 

What makes you thing that the tobacco industry will pay for it and why is it no bad thing?

 

Because they'll be trying to make sure their goods are sold in the best way possible. They don't want their vendors to go out of business, after all. And it's no bad thing because it will save money for those vendors and it may create jobs. I see those as good things.

[patiirc]

Serious, proper serious, stuff

 

Make's mental note: Dont make a glib/jokey response (which is signposted as such) to a very serious response, if said respondee is going to ignore it completely and be terribwly serious about the whole thing.

 

Unbeeeelivable.

Edited November 21, 2010 by patdfb

[Steveo2007]

There's a White Paper about to come out which will reform our school systems.

 

On the agenda is a proposal to deduct marks from GCSE results for poor spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

 

My inner snob is highly relieved, because I abhor the piss-poor writing that I noticed in some of my own (undergraduate) students.

 

But my reflective side isn't so sure. I see appalling English all around me in the office. Even when the English is largely OK the punctuation isn't good. Words aren't used correctly ("the solution is comprised of ... "), the writing doesn't flow.

 

I was at an awards ceremony the other night where one host (an academic) used the expression "in terms of" at least nine times when introducing the winner and four runners-up. (I counted seven in the final two minutes, after I'd disdainfully registered that she'd thrown it around nonsensically on several prior occasions, including monstrosities such as "She was the first female president in history in terms of the Royal Society of Engineering.")

 

And I wouldn't trust most markers to be able to determine what's correct in all cases. I recall one professor correcting my use of the past subjunctive in a hypothetical construction ("If it were ...") to the preterite ("If it was ..."). I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to put him straight, but a kid who has submitted an exam paper wouldn't.

 

So though I would wish to welcome the proposals, I can't help but think that it's hypocritical to dump on the kids, as though they're the ones bringing down previously high standards. Especially when the headline in the article that I read about the proposals is this:

 

I actually agree with the proposal. Kids would largely go onto A Level and degree courses with only a very basic grasp of correct spelling and grammar.

[Chris B]

Serious, proper serious, stuff

 

Make's mental note: Dont make a glib/jokey response (which is signposted as such) to a very serious response, if said respondee is going to ignore it completely and be terribwly serious about the whole thing.

 

Unbeeeelivable.

 

Eye rolling only signposts that the writer is a cunt, not that they're being less than serious in their responses.

[patiirc]

You said people shouldn't be treated like thick cunts, then suggested one problem would be people buying the wrong brands. Which is kind of a thick cunt thing to do.

 

It may be a thick cunt thing to do, but it isnt dumbing down everything thus absolving the citizens of the country of actually having responsibilty consequences for their actions. Nah we'll be spoon fed by the government cos they knoe best, style thick cuntery. There is a world of difference between the two

 

They're not stopping anybody buying them. They're restricting how they can advertise themselves and package themselves. Are you in favour of warnings being taken off packages? It's an extension of the same thing. And like it or not, the aesthetic quality of cigarettes (and the way they're packaged IS aesthetic) is part of why they're seen as attractive.

 

Dont remember saying that they were stopping people buying them. Driving cigarettes underground is just going to make more of a mystique. Anecdotally, if you had the choice of the something that was legal and everywhere or something that was a bit naughty but legal and had a bit of intrigue to it, I wonder what people would go for. Id go for the something a bit naughty.. and why the hell not.

 

Cigarette Packs havent been asthetically pleasing for years there have been no iconic brands launched in the last gazillion years, and nothing that has been pushed in the way of say Marlboro, Camels and very few others have been.

 

Despite fuck all in the way of advertising (it's banned) and the additions of health warnings and the prohibitive expense, people still smoke. Glamourising it again by adding a mystique isnt going to help.. things is it?

 

In those regards its a bit (tenuous) like prostitution, Its not actually illegal to be a prostitute, but soliciting Kerb Crawling and many things associated with it are illegal. It doesnt stop people either using their services or becoming one.

 

It's not illegal to own a cigarette, but is illegal to smoke it in certain places and advertise it

 

Either way 'the laws' dont stop people from doing either.

 

 

It does mention where it comes from. It comes from 'Tobacco Control' magazine, which can be found here. They're basing it on what happened in Ireland, and they do seem to be backing up their findings. Now, queries could be raised as to how they get their data, but that's always the case.

 

Yeah Tobacco Control 'part of the British Medical Journal'. I wonder what their angle is on the matter. Cant possibly think. Oh hang on

 

Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco's effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.

Essential reading for everyone with an interest in tobacco control, including public health professionals, researchers, policy makers and educators.

 

Their report is from what I can tell as can only see the abstract, purely from statistical analysis and predictions. No quantative research was taken from a social side or any other impact interviews etc etc or specifically targetting shops in terms of revenue and the comparisons to trends with other items, loss of sponsorship, merchandising etc etc . It does mention visual inspection (but not of what) It also doesnt mention where or how the analysis was taken.

 

There are a million and one other questions I could ask but, Id be here all week and without seeing the document

 

The other report uses 1000 people out of an Eire population 4.5 million approximately of and a youth response of 180.. Highly representative of the country as a whole?

 

 

Yes, there is. The larger argument includes the idea that, actually, quite a lot of the population are thick cunts who will do something that causes the rest of us an absolute fortune in medical expenses. That's the entire argument in favour of alcohol and tobacco control, on the basis that these things are addictive.

 

There's no control in terms of making them harder to buy. It's in terms of making it easier to quit. I see that as a good thing as someone who found quitting to be difficult, and as someone who couldn't give up alcohol completely.

 

The NHS budget is 104.3bn according to this According to to the Tobacco industry they pay 10 Billion in tax. Which some would argue is just under a 10th of the budget of the NHS

 

The cost of smokers according to the BBC report here is 2.7 billion.

 

Not everyone's figures can be right, right? Yet according to the above, smokers cover themselves nearly 4 fold in terms of cost to the NHS? Its a massive drain on whose resources exactly?

 

Yes, these things are addictive and will kill you. So will 1 million and 1 other things. Bad news is everyone dies, its just a matter of how. If people chose to go through cancer thats their choice.. There are enough fucking warnings to show that these things will kill you yet people still start. didtto with alcohol.

 

Last time I checked you werent held by gun point to start smoking and even if it was pier pressure. I appreciate it was hard for you, but no one forced you to start did they? This is why I dont see why making it harder is going to stop. If anything it will make it more alluring for reasons as I said before

 

Why did you want to give up alcohol?

 

 

Because they'll be trying to make sure their goods are sold in the best way possible. They don't want their vendors to go out of business, after all. And it's no bad thing because it will save money for those vendors and it may create jobs. I see those as good things.

 

There are other markets that are on the increase, thus things can always be offset else where. Given smoking is a declining market already because of several reasons ( it was declining before the smoking ban) then Why should they stump up, which was my point. Today cigarette stands are still branded without them you are going to have some strange goings on.

 

Back to the a time before packaged cigarettes were displayed like they are today so maybe plus 30-50 years ago ( thanks to multiple trips to Robert Opie when I was younger for that tid bit) and you still havent solved ' the problem'.

 

Instead of trying to stop people smoking, what if they try and make cigarettes safer... for both the user and those surrounding them.

 

It works in the food industry apparently.. No go for the smoking industry?

[patiirc]

Serious, proper serious, stuff

 

Make's mental note: Dont make a glib/jokey response (which is signposted as such) to a very serious response, if said respondee is going to ignore it completely and be terribwly serious about the whole thing.

 

Unbeeeelivable.

 

Eye rolling only signposts that the writer is a cunt, not that they're being less than serious in their responses.

 

Takes one to know one

[Chris B]

It may be a thick cunt thing to do, but it isnt dumbing down everything thus absolving the citizens of the country of actually having responsibilty consequences for their actions. Nah we'll be spoon fed by the government cos they knoe best, style thick cuntery. There is a world of difference between the two

 

How is making things more difficult dumbing things down? If you want to argue against this, the better argument is the invasion of business by government. It's not that it's dumbing everything down.

 

Dont remember saying that they were stopping people buying them. Driving cigarettes underground is just going to make more of a mystique. Anecdotally, if you had the choice of the something that was legal and everywhere or something that was a bit naughty but legal and had a bit of intrigue to it, I wonder what people would go for. Id go for the something a bit naughty.. and why the hell not.

 

You said they were removing people's decisions.

 

When I was a kid, I was FAR more intrigued by the porn magazines on the top shelves that I could see than the ones behind the counter that I couldn't see.

 

Cigarette Packs havent been asthetically pleasing for years there have been no iconic brands launched in the last gazillion years, and nothing that has been pushed in the way of say Marlboro, Camels and very few others have been.

 

Despite fuck all in the way of advertising (it's banned) and the additions of health warnings and the prohibitive expense, people still smoke. Glamourising it again by adding a mystique isnt going to help.. things is it?

 

In those regards its a bit (tenuous) like prostitution, Its not actually illegal to be a prostitute, but soliciting Kerb Crawling and many things associated with it are illegal. It doesnt stop people either using their services or becoming one.

 

It's not illegal to own a cigarette, but is illegal to smoke it in certain places and advertise it

 

Either way 'the laws' dont stop people from doing either.

 

I'm talking about a physical packet of cigarettes rather than a branded one. They're aesthetically pleasing - the way they open, the way the cigarettes are packed, etc.

 

And I think making the majority of brands look alike actually removes mystique rather than adds to it. With regards to the prostitution analogy, I honestly can't work out whether you're saying you think those things are good things or bad things.

 

It does mention where it comes from. It comes from 'Tobacco Control' magazine, which can be found here. They're basing it on what happened in Ireland, and they do seem to be backing up their findings. Now, queries could be raised as to how they get their data, but that's always the case.

 

Yeah Tobacco Control 'part of the British Medical Journal'. I wonder what their angle is on the matter. Cant possibly think. Oh hang on

 

Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco's effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.

Essential reading for everyone with an interest in tobacco control, including public health professionals, researchers, policy makers and educators.

 

Their report is from what I can tell as can only see the abstract, purely from statistical analysis and predictions. No quantative research was taken from a social side or any other impact interviews etc etc or specifically targetting shops in terms of revenue and the comparisons to trends with other items, loss of sponsorship, merchandising etc etc . It does mention visual inspection (but not of what) It also doesnt mention where or how the analysis was taken.

 

There are a million and one other questions I could ask but, Id be here all week and without seeing the document

 

The other report uses 1000 people out of an Eire population 4.5 million approximately of and a youth response of 180.. Highly representative of the country as a whole?

 

You said there was no further reading or corroborative links. I pointed out that they said where they got the information from. I also said queries could be raised with regards to how they got their data. I'm not saying it's great research or that it's flawless - it clearly isn't. It's just that you seemed to be making out it was utterly groundless, and it isn't. The source was right there in the article.

 

It's not highly representative, but my suggestion is that it is suggestive enough to warrant further studies. It's certainly a start. And realistically, this information is either going to be found by people in favour of controlling tobacco or from the tobacco firms. It's going to be difficult not to get biased information from this.

 

Yes, there is. The larger argument includes the idea that, actually, quite a lot of the population are thick cunts who will do something that causes the rest of us an absolute fortune in medical expenses. That's the entire argument in favour of alcohol and tobacco control, on the basis that these things are addictive.

 

There's no control in terms of making them harder to buy. It's in terms of making it easier to quit. I see that as a good thing as someone who found quitting to be difficult, and as someone who couldn't give up alcohol completely.

 

The NHS budget is 104.3bn according to this According to to the Tobacco industry they pay 10 Billion in tax. Which some would argue is just under a 10th of the budget of the NHS

 

The cost of smokers according to the BBC report here is 2.7 billion.

 

Not everyone's figures can be right, right? Yet according to the above, smokers cover themselves nearly 4 fold in terms of cost to the NHS? Its a massive drain on whose resources exactly?

 

Yes, these things are addictive and will kill you. So will 1 million and 1 other things. Bad news is everyone dies, its just a matter of how. If people chose to go through cancer thats their choice.. There are enough fucking warnings to show that these things will kill you yet people still start. didtto with alcohol.

 

Last time I checked you werent held by gun point to start smoking and even if it was pier pressure. I appreciate it was hard for you, but no one forced you to start did they? This is why I dont see why making it harder is going to stop. If anything it will make it more alluring for reasons as I said before

 

Why did you want to give up alcohol?

 

A fair point on the costs point, and I'll cheerfully retract that. According to a more recent BBC article, though, it's more like

[Jaffa]

Anyone watching the student protests at Westminster?

 

My office christmas party is at Westminster this evening. Bloody students had better be gone by the time I want to get to the free bar.

[Vamp]

Unfortunately I have been, which means I've seen a BBC news presenter pester a student saying "do you really think criminal actions are justified to get your message across" while they've been focusing the majority of their attention on the more criminal protest and more or less ignoring the peaceful ones up and down the country. Funny that people feel that they'll have to turn criminal to get attention isn't it?

 

What saddens me about this is I'm actually a BBC supporter.

 

There was also the incredibly fantastic moment where the Education Secretary essentially said that protests have no part in a democracy and instead he'll be happy to have a debate about it. Fine, when exactly is he going to invite each of the 50,000 that protested two weeks ago to have that personal debate with him?

 

I'm also worried that countries like France must be looking at the violent protest, shaking their heads and feeling like ruffling our hair and saying "Awwh, is it all too violent for you?" Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a peaceful protest, nor am I supporting criminal activity on any level, and I agree that these haven't been peaceful protests, but they're not really 'violent' protests are they? More mild mannered.

[Happ Hazzard]

2 things:

 

Some of the coverage by the Guardian and BBC has been so biased it's verging on parody, such as this article from Laurie Penny:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/24/student- protests-childrens-crusade#start-of-comments://http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...art-of-comments

Outside Downing Street, in front of a line of riot police, I am sitting beside a makeshift campfire. It's cold, and the schoolchildren who have skipped classes gather around as a student with a three-string guitar strikes up the chords to Tracy Chapman's Talkin Bout a Revolution. The kids start to sing, sweet and off-key, an apocalyptic choir knotted around a small bright circle of warmth and energy. "Finally the tables are starting to turn," they sing, the sound of their voices drowning out the drone of helicopters and the screams from the edge of the kettle. "Finally the tables are starting to turn."

 

Then we have this video from the students of Northumbria, comparing their "plight" to the plight by the starving people of Ethiopia in the mid 1980s:

[Vamp]

Doesn't surprise me, I go to the Guardian for the culture and media stuff quite often but they're quite unashamedly left wing the majority of the time. But then its no secret that we've got quite a few right wing 'papers in the country so I guess it balances it out a bit. Really the only way to get at the truth of matters in this country is to read all the newspapers and form an opinion that way. If you read one chances are you're being given a very biased view. The jounalism in this country is nothing short of awful.

 

My biggest concern about the Guardian's coverage at the moment is their decision to use that image of a child spraypainting the word "revolution" for seemingly pretty much everything to do with the protests. I'm not disputing that there's been some "down with the government" speeches or words liek that tagged on walls but the majority of the students arn't after a revolution, suggesting so heavily that they are isn't helping matters at all or presenting the matter fairly.

 

I must say that while some of the tactics the police have used have been controversial they've done well so far to not make a massive fuck up so far. Its a volatile situation, a lot of the people protesting are kids, they're mixing with some socialist nutters and they're pissed off and yet while some of the policing has been somewhat questionable they haven't done anything terribly wrong which it'd be easy enough to do.

 

So with the way things are at the moment; Tories making spending cuts left right and centre, the Lib Dem's showing that they'll sacrifice anything to be in power and Labour seemingly unable to come up with many alternative ideas while shouting "that's not very nice" would anyone like to make a supremely early prediction at the results of the next general election? Obviously it's stupidly early, and anything could happen in the inbetween time, but it'd be interesting to look back after the fact and laugh at false predictions and marvel at those who were right.

[Keith Houchen]

On the subject of Smokers' tax pounds Vs cost of NHS treatment, isn't it a case of the revenue brought in by smoking is put in the same pot as, say, VAT on pringles and condoms? (now there was a night!) and is then divvied up accordingly? I remember Loki mentioning this last time and said something like in real terms, 5% of the tax money goes on the NHS? In other words, the money brought in by tobacco, 95% of it isn't spent on healthcare so any comparisons on tax Vs healthcare cost aren't really accurate

 

I've probably got that a bit wrong so hopefully Loki (or someone else) can clarify or rubbish this.

[Devon Malcolm]

You'll have to wait about a week and a half for Loki to reply, Keith. He dun got suspended an' that.

[JNLister]

So with the way things are at the moment; Tories making spending cuts left right and centre, the Lib Dem's showing that they'll sacrifice anything to be in power and Labour seemingly unable to come up with many alternative ideas while shouting "that's not very nice" would anyone like to make a supremely early prediction at the results of the next general election? Obviously it's stupidly early, and anything could happen in the inbetween time, but it'd be interesting to look back after the fact and laugh at false predictions and marvel at those who were right.

 

It really is too close to predict: anything from a Conservative majority through to a Labour majority is possible. There's even a genuine possibility of getting a situation where there's not only a hung parliament, but neither Conservative + Lib Dem or Labour + Lib Dem makes a majority coalition.

 

If I had to put money on it, I'd go for hung parliament with Labour narrowly getting more seats, and winding up forming a coalition with the Lib Dems.