|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2022 0:38:27 GMT
There's a 5.5% swing in approval toward Boris When did you last see the PM on the TV? The less coverage the less negativity. Keep him in post until the next election and then get all the videos out on social media, I say..
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Jan 4, 2022 11:16:46 GMT
It could be that a week off over Christmas has taken the sting out of partygate, or that a week off over Christmas has just made people forget. Possibly also some credit for not rushing headlong to follow Scotland and Wales into deeper unnecessary damaging restrictions which are now making both Sturgeon and Drakeford look ridiculous? The new restrictions in Scotland and Wales are perhaps a factor, but we'll see in a few weeks how the decision plays out in the longer term given the surge in hospitalisations we've seen of late. With increased knowledge of the virus, vaccinations and improved treatments compared to late-2020/early-2021, meaning people may be able to be treated much faster or more likely display less severe symptoms, the Scottish and Welsh governments' decision to increase restrictions may prove to be overcautious or they could prove to be correct. I'm certainly not in a position to know what advice each government is getting as to give an informed determination of the potential options and their effects.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 4, 2022 11:26:25 GMT
Possibly also some credit for not rushing headlong to follow Scotland and Wales into deeper unnecessary damaging restrictions which are now making both Sturgeon and Drakeford look ridiculous? The new restrictions in Scotland and Wales are perhaps a factor, but we'll see in a few weeks how the decision plays out in the longer term given the surge in hospitalisations we've seen of late. With increased knowledge of the virus, vaccinations and improved treatments compared to late-2020/early-2021, meaning people may be able to be treated much faster or more likely display less severe symptoms, the Scottish and Welsh governments' decision to increase restrictions may prove to be overcautious or they could prove to be correct. I'm certainly not in a position to know what advice each government is getting as to give an informed determination of the potential options and their effects. But the crucial point here has always been a matter of personal responsibility and of adult freedom. Do we want to make up our own minds, do our own risk assessments and conduct adult lives? Or do we want a Nanny State to treat us as children and to decide everything for us and tell us what to do and to make us do it by compulsion of law? I am an Adult and do not wish to be treated as a Child by an assertive and slightly malign adult State.
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Jan 4, 2022 12:21:23 GMT
The new restrictions in Scotland and Wales are perhaps a factor, but we'll see in a few weeks how the decision plays out in the longer term given the surge in hospitalisations we've seen of late. With increased knowledge of the virus, vaccinations and improved treatments compared to late-2020/early-2021, meaning people may be able to be treated much faster or more likely display less severe symptoms, the Scottish and Welsh governments' decision to increase restrictions may prove to be overcautious or they could prove to be correct. I'm certainly not in a position to know what advice each government is getting as to give an informed determination of the potential options and their effects. But the crucial point here has always been a matter of personal responsibility and of adult freedom. Do we want to make up our own minds, do our own risk assessments and conduct adult lives? Or do we want a Nanny State to treat us as children and to decide everything for us and tell us what to do and to make us do it by compulsion of law? I am an Adult and do not wish to be treated as a Child by an assertive and slightly malign adult State. It's always a balance. There's restrictions on basically everything: alcohol, drugs, driving, employment, trade, food, housing, speech, etc. The regulations almost always have a basic principle at heart: public safety and wellbeing, and exist as people wouldn't stay within the boundaries otherwise. Something I've heard is ' do people have the right to conduct their normal lives without the risk of contracting a potentially serious illness?' which was posed as less of a direct question and more a question about conflicting rights. For me, the basic principle that government's primary purpose is to protect the welfare of its citizens reigns supreme, but I recognise others will have differing values and opinions. As time goes on, the risk decreases as more long-term preventative actions are taken (vaccinations, not leaving the house if symptomatic, etc.) and increased medical understanding to treat any illnesses which will make restrictions related to Covid less and less relevant as time goes on. I don't believe we're in a situation to ignore, at a legislative level, the effects of Covid yet.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 4, 2022 12:34:23 GMT
But the crucial point here has always been a matter of personal responsibility and of adult freedom. Do we want to make up our own minds, do our own risk assessments and conduct adult lives? Or do we want a Nanny State to treat us as children and to decide everything for us and tell us what to do and to make us do it by compulsion of law? I am an Adult and do not wish to be treated as a Child by an assertive and slightly malign adult State. It's always a balance. There's restrictions on basically everything: alcohol, drugs, driving, employment, trade, food, housing, speech, etc. The regulations almost always have a basic principle at heart: public safety and wellbeing, and exist as people wouldn't stay within the boundaries otherwise. Something I've heard is ' do people have the right to conduct their normal lives without the risk of contracting a potentially serious illness?' which was posed as less of a direct question and more a question about conflicting rights. For me, the basic principle that government's primary purpose is to protect the welfare of its citizens reigns supreme, but I recognise others will have differing values and opinions. As time goes on, the risk decreases as more long-term preventative actions are taken (vaccinations, not leaving the house if symptomatic, etc.) and increased medical understanding to treat any illnesses which will make restrictions related to Covid less and less relevant as time goes on. I don't believe we're in a situation to ignore, at a legislative level, the effects of Covid yet. Yes. We do differ and you put put your case very well. It is perfectly valid and does seem to have majority support. But I shall continue to resist it and to resent it being there. I wish to be advised and even cajoled, but cannot tolerate being compelled to do what others consider to be sensible and 'the right thing'. I consider I have the right to decide for me and the right to make my own 'wrong choices'. Those choices will have consequences for others as well as for me, just as they do for sportsmen, climbers, smokers, the obese, drinkers, drug takers, drivers and the simply careless and foolish people. That is part and parcel of being free in a free community. We are becoming less free and our community becomes more constrained year on year. I resist that rather pallidly and without effect!
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jan 4, 2022 14:25:53 GMT
It's always a balance. There's restrictions on basically everything: alcohol, drugs, driving, employment, trade, food, housing, speech, etc. The regulations almost always have a basic principle at heart: public safety and wellbeing, and exist as people wouldn't stay within the boundaries otherwise. Something I've heard is ' do people have the right to conduct their normal lives without the risk of contracting a potentially serious illness?' which was posed as less of a direct question and more a question about conflicting rights. For me, the basic principle that government's primary purpose is to protect the welfare of its citizens reigns supreme, but I recognise others will have differing values and opinions. As time goes on, the risk decreases as more long-term preventative actions are taken (vaccinations, not leaving the house if symptomatic, etc.) and increased medical understanding to treat any illnesses which will make restrictions related to Covid less and less relevant as time goes on. I don't believe we're in a situation to ignore, at a legislative level, the effects of Covid yet. Yes. We do differ and you put put your case very well. It is perfectly valid and does seem to have majority support. But I shall continue to resist it and to resent it being there. I wish to be advised and even cajoled, but cannot tolerate being compelled to do what others consider to be sensible and 'the right thing'. I consider I have the right to decide for me and the right to make my own 'wrong choices'. Those choices will have consequences for others as well as for me, just as they do for sportsmen, climbers, smokers, the obese, drinkers, drug takers, drivers and the simply careless and foolish people. That is part and parcel of being free in a free community. We are becoming less free and our community becomes more constrained year on year. I resist that rather pallidly and without effect! But asking people for ID in the polling booth is OK?
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2022 14:38:35 GMT
It's always a balance. There's restrictions on basically everything: alcohol, drugs, driving, employment, trade, food, housing, speech, etc. The regulations almost always have a basic principle at heart: public safety and wellbeing, and exist as people wouldn't stay within the boundaries otherwise. Something I've heard is ' do people have the right to conduct their normal lives without the risk of contracting a potentially serious illness?' which was posed as less of a direct question and more a question about conflicting rights. For me, the basic principle that government's primary purpose is to protect the welfare of its citizens reigns supreme, but I recognise others will have differing values and opinions. As time goes on, the risk decreases as more long-term preventative actions are taken (vaccinations, not leaving the house if symptomatic, etc.) and increased medical understanding to treat any illnesses which will make restrictions related to Covid less and less relevant as time goes on. I don't believe we're in a situation to ignore, at a legislative level, the effects of Covid yet. Yes. We do differ and you put put your case very well. It is perfectly valid and does seem to have majority support. But I shall continue to resist it and to resent it being there. I wish to be advised and even cajoled, but cannot tolerate being compelled to do what others consider to be sensible and 'the right thing'. I consider I have the right to decide for me and the right to make my own 'wrong choices'. Those choices will have consequences for others as well as for me, just as they do for sportsmen, climbers, smokers, the obese, drinkers, drug takers, drivers and the simply careless and foolish people. That is part and parcel of being free in a free community. We are becoming less free and our community becomes more constrained year on year. I resist that rather pallidly and without effect! We have lots of laws designed to protect other people, starting with murder and currently finishing with Covid restrictions. Where would you draw the line carlton43. Should you have the right to kill someone?
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,166
|
Post by Jack on Jan 4, 2022 14:44:33 GMT
Yes. We do differ and you put put your case very well. It is perfectly valid and does seem to have majority support. But I shall continue to resist it and to resent it being there. I wish to be advised and even cajoled, but cannot tolerate being compelled to do what others consider to be sensible and 'the right thing'. I consider I have the right to decide for me and the right to make my own 'wrong choices'. Those choices will have consequences for others as well as for me, just as they do for sportsmen, climbers, smokers, the obese, drinkers, drug takers, drivers and the simply careless and foolish people. That is part and parcel of being free in a free community. We are becoming less free and our community becomes more constrained year on year. I resist that rather pallidly and without effect! We have lots of laws designed to protect other people, starting with murder and currently finishing with Covid restrictions. Where would you draw the line carlton43. Should you have the right to kill someone? This is one of the most stupid comparisons I see. Alongside the seatbelt analogy, or comparing the fight against Covid to World War II.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2022 14:48:10 GMT
We have lots of laws designed to protect other people, starting with murder and currently finishing with Covid restrictions. Where would you draw the line carlton43. Should you have the right to kill someone? This is one of the most stupid comparisons I see. Alongside the seatbelt analogy, or comparing the fight against Covid to World War II. I am not comparing Covid restrictions to killing someone. I am asking Carlton and now you where you woukd draw the line between legal and and illegal since you evidently want to draw it somewhere else than now.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2022 14:51:06 GMT
But asking people for ID in the polling booth is OK? That happens at the moment. A person claiming the right to vote is required to identify themselves by stating their name and address.
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Jan 4, 2022 15:19:56 GMT
But asking people for ID in the polling booth is OK? That happens at the moment. A person claiming the right to vote is required to identify themselves by stating their name and address. But documentary proof is a whole extra requirement that is claimed to be required to address a problem (personation) that barely exists outwith Northern Ireland. We all know that the intended purpose is anti-democratic and to supress turnout amongst the poor, the fact that some of the so-called libertarians can't acknowledge this simply shines a light on hypocrisy at its finest...
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jan 4, 2022 16:21:10 GMT
That happens at the moment. A person claiming the right to vote is required to identify themselves by stating their name and address. But documentary proof is a whole extra requirement that is claimed to be required to address a problem (personation) that barely exists outwith Northern Ireland. We all know that the intended purpose is anti-democratic and to supress turnout amongst the poor, the fact that some of the so-called libertarians can't acknowledge this simply shines a light on hypocrisy at its finest... Quite - every one of the 80+ so-called covid libertarian rebels who objected to covid passports voted for illiberal ID requirements to vote.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 4, 2022 16:36:47 GMT
Yes. We do differ and you put put your case very well. It is perfectly valid and does seem to have majority support. But I shall continue to resist it and to resent it being there. I wish to be advised and even cajoled, but cannot tolerate being compelled to do what others consider to be sensible and 'the right thing'. I consider I have the right to decide for me and the right to make my own 'wrong choices'. Those choices will have consequences for others as well as for me, just as they do for sportsmen, climbers, smokers, the obese, drinkers, drug takers, drivers and the simply careless and foolish people. That is part and parcel of being free in a free community. We are becoming less free and our community becomes more constrained year on year. I resist that rather pallidly and without effect! But asking people for ID in the polling booth is OK? Quite correct. Yes it is a very good, even an essential idea. We need to ensure those presenting are fully entitled and that they don't vote in more than one place. I cannot leave or enter my own country without a Passport to prove identity. I cannot take books from the Library without my card to prove identity. I must not drive without my licence of identity and competence. I cannot get cheaper rail fares without my rail card of identity. I cannot travel on the busses free without my bus pass of identity and entitlement. So why not an ID card to prove I am entitled to vote at that particular election in that particular place? And how is any of this in any way comparable to wearing of masks, compulsory distancing and gross restriction of free movement and ability to be a citizen at all. Invalid and inclherent arumentation.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 4, 2022 16:38:45 GMT
Yes. We do differ and you put put your case very well. It is perfectly valid and does seem to have majority support. But I shall continue to resist it and to resent it being there. I wish to be advised and even cajoled, but cannot tolerate being compelled to do what others consider to be sensible and 'the right thing'. I consider I have the right to decide for me and the right to make my own 'wrong choices'. Those choices will have consequences for others as well as for me, just as they do for sportsmen, climbers, smokers, the obese, drinkers, drug takers, drivers and the simply careless and foolish people. That is part and parcel of being free in a free community. We are becoming less free and our community becomes more constrained year on year. I resist that rather pallidly and without effect! We have lots of laws designed to protect other people, starting with murder and currently finishing with Covid restrictions. Where would you draw the line carlton43 . Should you have the right to kill someone? Where it is but above all Covid restrictions. Of course no one has 'the right' to kill except in defence of life.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 4, 2022 16:42:14 GMT
It's always a balance. There's restrictions on basically everything: alcohol, drugs, driving, employment, trade, food, housing, speech, etc. The regulations almost always have a basic principle at heart: public safety and wellbeing, and exist as people wouldn't stay within the boundaries otherwise. Something I've heard is ' do people have the right to conduct their normal lives without the risk of contracting a potentially serious illness?' which was posed as less of a direct question and more a question about conflicting rights. For me, the basic principle that government's primary purpose is to protect the welfare of its citizens reigns supreme, but I recognise others will have differing values and opinions. As time goes on, the risk decreases as more long-term preventative actions are taken (vaccinations, not leaving the house if symptomatic, etc.) and increased medical understanding to treat any illnesses which will make restrictions related to Covid less and less relevant as time goes on. I don't believe we're in a situation to ignore, at a legislative level, the effects of Covid yet. Yes. We do differ and you put put your case very well. It is perfectly valid and does seem to have majority support. But I shall continue to resist it and to resent it being there. I wish to be advised and even cajoled, but cannot tolerate being compelled to do what others consider to be sensible and 'the right thing'.
I consider I have the right to decide for me and the right to make my own 'wrong choices'.
Those choices will have consequences for others as well as for me, just as they do for sportsmen, climbers, smokers, the obese, drinkers, drug takers, drivers and the simply careless and foolish people.
That is part and parcel of being free in a free community. We are becoming less free and our community becomes more constrained year on year. I resist that rather pallidly and without effect! I have huge sympathy with this as a basic political credo.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2022 17:16:06 GMT
We have lots of laws designed to protect other people, starting with murder and currently finishing with Covid restrictions. Where would you draw the line carlton43 . Should you have the right to kill someone? Where it is but above all Covid restrictions. Of course no one has 'the right' to kill except in defence of life. Well, I was wondering about things like smoking in pubs, drinking and driving, seatbelts, food safety regulations, dog fouling and a myriad smaller things
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 4, 2022 18:29:39 GMT
Where it is but above all Covid restrictions. Of course no one has 'the right' to kill except in defence of life. Well, I was wondering about things like smoking in pubs, drinking and driving, seatbelts, food safety regulations, dog fouling and a myriad smaller things I was initially in favour of smoking in pubs (when a smoker) and then neutral and then increasingly against. But I see it to be personal and a decision for the pub landlord and the patrons. If you permit a smoking room or all smoking some won't go. If it is all non-smoking others won't go. Don't DECIDE FOR THEM. Drink driving is very dangerous and has to be illegal. I was very opposed to seatbelt but have become worn down by time. Now I would wear one without regulation by do not agree it should be mandatory. Food safety is essential in commerce and must be a legal standard. Dig fouling is unpleasant but not serious enough to be mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 5, 2022 1:48:13 GMT
We have lots of laws designed to protect other people, starting with murder and currently finishing with Covid restrictions. Where would you draw the line carlton43 . Should you have the right to kill someone? Where it is but above all Covid restrictions. Of course no one has 'the right' to kill except in defence of life. I didn't have you down as an opponent of abortion and capital punishment. Dog fouling is unpleasant but not serious enough to be mandatory. I would hope that it never becomes mandatory. I don't wish to be forced to own a dog, let alone compelled to make it foul the pavement.
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jan 5, 2022 9:10:03 GMT
But asking people for ID in the polling booth is OK? Quite correct. Yes it is a very good, even an essential idea. We need to ensure those presenting are fully entitled and that they don't vote in more than one place. I cannot leave or enter my own country without a Passport to prove identity. I cannot take books from the Library without my card to prove identity. I must not drive without my licence of identity and competence. I cannot get cheaper rail fares without my rail card of identity. I cannot travel on the busses free without my bus pass of identity and entitlement. So why not an ID card to prove I am entitled to vote at that particular election in that particular place? And how is any of this in any way comparable to wearing of masks, compulsory distancing and gross restriction of free movement and ability to be a citizen at all. Invalid and inclherent arumentation. You can drive a car without carrying your licence and only need to show it if challenged by an officer of the law in the event of a suspected crime, you can get on a train without a discount without any proof of identity as you can on a bus. You can get books from a shop without a library card and often you can leave the country (and arrive in another) without a passport check.
Yet for the fundamental democratic right of voting in an election and which suffers from almost no crime (perhaps outside of a single borough) - and definitely lower levels of crime than fare evasion, book stealing and road traffic offences - you and your ilk are gleefully taking away the democratic rights of people who have done nothing wrong other than not having photo ID because it gives your party an advantage at the polling booth.
It's Trumpian gerrymandering and you're no freedom loving democrat.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,666
|
Post by European Lefty on Jan 5, 2022 9:58:55 GMT
If we're going to have to show ID to vote it makes sense to have some kind of national ID card (like many places in Europe). But that idea also wouldn't be very popular
|
|