TheDimpleboy

I'd nationalise the rail and utilities - the latter two have nothing to do with left v right.

Them fuckers from 'Stop the War Campaign' I keep seeing shared all over my Newsfeed are literally the left's equivalent of Britain First. Some of the discourse and imagery being used by them on social media is nothing short of shameful. If they're so keen on entering negotiations with an organisation who are hell bent on the subjugation and murder of anyone who doesn't agree with their ideals, then may I suggest we fund their flights to Syria to begin peace talks. So far these enlightened individuals have: -Praised the 'internationalism and solidarity' of ISIS, drawing comparison with the Internationale Brigades -Victim blamed the Paris attacks: France were '​reaping the whirlwind of western support for extremist violence' -Opposed actions to save the Yazidis stranded on a mountain surrounded by ISIS forces. -Blamed the Charlie Hebdo attacks on the West. -Promoted Assad apologists. The list is pretty long tbh, I could be here all night. It seems Stop The War doesn't actually give a flying fuck about the genocide, murder or rape of people universally - they're only arsed about potential casualties from UK airstrikes. This is particularly funny considering UK airstrikes in Iraq over the last year have brought about a grand total of 0 civilian casualties, while no doubt saving 1000's of people from murder and oppression (this was ratified by the Kurdish ground forces chief). I have no issue with a non-interventionism stance, it's a perfectly valid one as there are other things we should be doing in co-ordination with airstrikes. But these fuckers are on a different planet. Oh, and comrade Corbyn loves them.

This. People that have a go at all Muslims are dicks, there's plenty of them on Facebook, generally their occupation is: 'works at footsoldier for North East INFIDELS' But at the same time there's a worrying number of people that think criticism of an idea is bad. Islam is an idea. It's an idea which fosters intolerance towards women, homosexuals, and people that don't follow Islam. For that reason I think it's pretty shit. The same of course is true of Christianity. The difference being, that Christians in this country have en mass drifted away from following their holy literature to the nth degree, and see it as something they tick off on their census, maybe go to church once a week, and that's about it. That hasn't happened as such with Islam.

[tweet] [/tweet]

The taxpayer pays for it mate. We already pay for a methadone treatment program for 150,000 people (that was in 2009, the number is almost certainly higher now), surely this would make more sense financially in the long run? Especially seeing as the methadone treatment programme doesn't seem to really be reducing the number of new addicts at all - where as this clinic in Liverpool did do just that, by removing the need for a dealer. Surely that's the thing that stops people getting into these new habits? I personally would never consider taking a drug like heroin even if it was legal and controlled, because I've been educated fully on how addictive it can be, and I've read testimonies of people who've just tried it once saying that a decade later the happiness that moment brought is the first thing they think of each day. That sounds scarily good. And is probably a better way of scaring off people from using such drugs than any amount of hyped-up overdose stories. I don't know mate, it just seems daft to ignore such evidence when the taxpayer is already forking out for extremely similar drugs to these people, and it doesn't seem to be working. The interesting thing about opiate addiction is the way that it's victims are stigmatised as being 'scum'. That baffles me a bit. The overwhelming majority of users of heroin find their way there after addiction to prescribed and legal opiates, as it's a lot cheaper. The rest have probably suffered more mental, physical and social trauma than most in life, and I'm not sure I can look down on them from my ivory tower. As a side note, I would bet everything I own in the world that drugs such as MDMA and LSD will be absolutely imperative in dealing with mental illnesses at controlled doses in the future, and it seems criminal that governments have made it almost impossible for scientists to carry out such research.

In fact on reflection, even the hardest drugs are better off legalised and regulated. This little excerpt is fascinating, I'd love to see the documentary itself if anyone knows where it can be found.

Can see excellent arguments both for and against the airstrikes. I would point out one thing though. It would be nice if the anti-interventionists would refrain from attempting to hold a monopoly on 'compassion', and acknowledge the fact that inaction will result in just as much, if not more innocent blood being spilled than UK airstrikes. So calling people 'child killers' and 'evil' for agreeing with the strikes is a bit simplistic. I know the Kurds appreciated them a hell of a lot in Iraq.

Of course drugs should be legalised/regulated. It's the most frustrating topic in the world to debate. No matter how much empirical, logical or medical evidence you put forward, you'll get shouted down with abuse/emotive blackmail/told you're wrong just 'because'. It's not because I think drugs are cool, or because of any underlying psuedo-libertarian ideals that 'the state shouldn't tell me what I can and can't put in my body!!!!' (although I do agree with that somewhat). It's because I want less people to die. Drug policy within a nation should focus on what has the best possible outcomes for society. Now quite clearly, the best possible health outcomes for society would be if nobody at all touched any drugs (alcohol and tobacco included), but unless your name is Peter Hitchens, I think most people will admit that it's just not feasible, and people that want drugs will get drugs. So what is the next best possible outcome for society? Harm minimization/death reduction due to a policy of education and regulation. Let's take MDMA as an example, but it's a similar story for pretty much any prohibited drug (other than very soft i.e. weed or very hard i.e. crank/crack/smack): MDMA itself, the stuff you get in 'ecstasy' tablets, is no where near as unsafe as the media make out (it's not risk free either like as some online would have you believe). Potential death from MDMA can occur in the following ways: 1. Approximately 2/100000 people simply cannot properly process MDMA, and even small amounts can be toxic, it's comparable to an allergy, and unless immediate medical attention is sought then death is likely. If MDMA was a regulated substance, then anyone wishing to use it would be able to get a simple 'allergy test' prior to using it, to see whether it will be deadly for them. Easily avoidable. 2. Too much water. I think everyone's heard of the case of Leah Bett's - hell it was brought up on a debate I saw on TV last week. But what most people fail to mention is that her death was a result of her taking an ecstasy pill, and then consuming 7 and a half litres of water in the space of 90 minutes. A lack of education killed Leah Betts. Her friends were under the impression that you need to drink bucket loads of water if you consume MDMA - but in face it increases water retention in the body, and too much water will dilute sodium levels to the point permanent brain damage as a result of swelling occurs. Tragic, and preventable. 3. Heatstroke. Once again preventable with basic education. The substance raises body temperature and blood pressure while active, and as a result it's important to take breaks from dancing and consume sensible amounts of water. Now for the more common, and easily preventable ones: 4. Overdose due to purity. When someone consumes MDMA unless they have a testing kit at home (sort of an admission of guilt) they have no idea what they're putting in their body. They might be used to really 'weak' stuff, but if by chance they get their hands on much higher purity drugs than usual without realising, then taking their 'usual' dose could be fatal, as their body just isn't used to it. It's like accidentally drinking a 70cl instead of 3 double vodkas, which is easy in tablet form. A regulated market allows you to identify your purity, and choose your dose safely. 5. This is the one that's responsible for the overwhelming majority of ecstasy related deaths - overdose due to different chemical. MDMA has a toxic LD50 dose (the median dose which will kill 50% of the population) of over 1 gram (although obviously consuming that much anyway would be absurd due to risks of neurotoxicity which would cause potential loss of concentration/memory in future). Chemicals which can produce almost identical 'euphoric' effects such as PMA/PMMA have a lethal dose of less than 1/10 of that, (anything over 60mg can be deadly). Just one of these can kill, and would once again be avoided if the product was regulated. The same is true for almost any drug, although I recognise the horrendously addictive nature of the likes of heroin, crack, and methamphetamine means those 'hard' substances are best decriminalised, as opposed to the legalisation and regulation I support of the likes of Weed/speed/MDMA/coke/LSD etc. And if you're worried about the effects of such a policy move on society as a whole - look no further than Portugal. Prohibition of drugs is resulting in 1000's of needless deaths each year. The war on drugs has failed.

Out. 100%.

Anyone that thinks Corbyn can win in 2020 - play around with this. https://moreknownthanproven.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/new-improved-model-to-see-if-corbyn-can-win-a-general-election/ You win elections by appealing to middle england - not the greens.

It's fucking awful this, and the worst part is there isn't any obvious answer. Social media has went batshit mental. On the one hand we have groups of people making astonishing statements like 'these people have phone chargers - they are not refugees!!!!!' as if a middle class lifestyle and electrical goods mean they are safe from the threat of IS. On the other hand I've also seen plenty of people who have came to the conclusion that anyone who does not think allowing tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the UK is a good idea is therefore a racist devoid of any compassion. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. We can't take a 'nothing to do with us attitude' because nobody should be denied the ability to seek refuge when in danger, not to mention the West's involvement in undermining Assad. But at the same time I'm hardly surprised that there's also an 'anti-refugee' sentiment clearly visible on the internet. That happens when you smear and tarnish anyone with an opposing view on mass-immigration as a bigot for the best part of two decades. I'd also point out that the people most enthusiastic in welcoming as many refugees as possible on my Facebook/Twitter are also the people who are least likely to feel any resulting negative impacts on housing, social services etc. I think we should be proud of the financial support we've already offered - unless I'm mistaken we've completely dwarfed the rest of Europe in terms of such aid. And despite detesting the bloke, Cameron's speech was pretty much perfect in dealing with what is a particularly delicate issue. He offered to accept a reasonable number of refugees, but also stressed that these would only be people in refugee camps, meaning he clearly dissuaded people from risking their lives crossing the Mediterranean. That will almost certainly save lives, and in fact the much nicer 'REFUGEES WELCOME' line which I'm seeing everywhere could well have actually done the opposite and encouraged more people to embark on that extremely dangerous journey. So credit where it's due for Cameron. Not a nice situation at all, and it would be nice if people on both sides stopped trying to take the moral high-ground and attempted to work towards the best possible solution with the best possible outcomes for everyone - including the UK population.

Was meant to be me but I gave it to a lad off Twitter as I was still feeling rough from the previous night.

Getting pretty boring on Twitter seeing people that actively campaigned for/were members of the SWP, Greens, Communists, SPG, Respect etc at the general election act outraged at being denied a vote in the leadership election.

Off to see Corbyn tonight in town, still no idea which way I'm going to be voting to be honest. There's no way Corbyn will win in 2020, however I wouldn't be adverse to him taking charge for a couple of years to challenge a lot of the one-sided rhetoric in the media, before parachuting someone a lot more electable in such as David Miliband or Dan Jarvis. The way he's portrayed in the media is his biggest problem, as someone earlier in the thread mentioned the majority of the public support nationalisation of key industries, but such a proposal by Mr Corbyn is being portrayed as 'extreme' and 'militant' when it's anything but. The fact he seems to be eurosceptic anarl is a massive plus in my eyes, however he seems a bit 'liberal lefty' for my liking socially. Cooper is the other person that's impressed me a lot, and tonight's going to decide whether her or Corbyn get my 1st preference. I am slightly worried by the amount of people that seem to be happy to posture from the sides with a 'rather principles than power' stance, which is all very well, but you can't really do a good job of protecting the most vulnerable in society while sat on the opposition benches.

If the Tories want a minimum % for a Union strike ballot to be valid then all they have to do is allow workplace ballots again, and I'd have no problem with it. They won't though - they want to have their cake and eat it. I'd understand if this was '77 and Jimmy from Leyland has just took the shopfloor outside because the coffee provided by the management wasn't up to scratch - but FFS it's 2015 and the Tube strike aside, the only other strikes that have occurred over the last 5 years have been in direct opposition to Tory policy, and have had full legitimacy. (FWIW I support the Tube strike anarl). As for a Labour leader I'm praying to god it's not Corbyn - the Twitter echo chambers would love it but in the real world that's an instant Tory victory in 2020. Mind, looking at the other contenders the same is probably true for all of them. Dan Jarvis is the man I would have thrown my hat in the ring with but sadly he (understandably due to personal reasons) ruled himself out. Burnham's a good man but seemingly still hasn't learned any lessons with his comment to O'Neill yesterday: 'I absolutely support the free movement of people' - aye mate that's really going to benefit the low paid in this country.

Deregulation?

One sided clap-trap? Eh???? The Iraq war, along with PFI and the EU/immigration are the reasons I have decided not to vote for Labour, and instead have voted UKIP. If you are coming from a neutral perspective than criticising Labour's spending is perfectly rational - but it makes fuck all sense to use it as a stick to beat Labour with if you're defending a party who wanted to do EXACTLY the same with more deregulation. Unless of course you're suggesting that deregulation + the sub prime mortgage crisis weren't the key factors in the global recession? Would it be fair if the roles were reversed and I was sat here saying 'vote labour because the tories crashed the economy' if the global crisis happened on the Tories watch and Labour had pledged to match all their spending plans? You criticise PFI (fairly), but ignore the fact they were first introduced under a Major government, that they are still being used under this government - and that the largest wasteful PFI contract to date has been signed under this coalition government. You criticise mass-immigration (and I agree), while failing to point out immigration has reached higher levels than under Labour. You criticise the 'bloated welfare system' Labour produced, completely ignoring the massive amount of spending that was urgently needed on it when Labour inherited it in 1997 after it had been cut to the bones under a Major government. (I am NOT condoning the 'white dee's' of the world, they're fucking scrotes that deserve massive sanctions). You also ignore the fact that this coalition government has attacked the 'bloated welfare system' by literally killing people with sanctions and targeting the most vulnerable and genuinely needy with aggressive sanction quotas. Fecklessness pisses me off, but this turns my stomach. And unless I'm mistaken didn't Brown sell off the gold to avoid a complete financial melt-down and bail one of the over-leveraged US banks? This lad from the FT doesn't think it was too bad an idea: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ZOVkxwBj

But as I pointed out, when Osborne scrapped his own plan, at the end of 2012, and shifted closer to Darling's plan growth, growth actually began? Does this not tell you something? Aggressive cuts don't work - and we're getting the equivalent of the last 5 years in the next 2 years. That's absolute dogma. You keep mentioning the 'mess'. But we've already established we would have been in a worse state following the crash under a Tory government - who wanted to match Labour spending with further deregulation. Why do you keep dodging around, sniping, and occasionally reeling off selective facts from a Conservative Election Pamphlet? The Conservatives have more unfunded election pledges than the Labour party FFS. I keep seeing patronising statements on local political blogs about 'robots voting labour cos their da does', but it seems like a better reason than mumbling 'economy...progress' without being able to substantiate it.

I noticed you completely ignored my previous post in which I quoted you. Wonder why. Fancy addressing the points I made there? Particularly regarding the economy? The share of the vote is irrelevant - if they have a problem with the FPTP system then they can drive for electoral reform - they don't though. I have no tribal politics. I've already voted, by post, for UKIP, for reasons I've already outlined on this thread - but my god I'd rather a Labour government than a Tory one. For what it's worth, I think the SNP are tits, and I wouldn't feel comfortable if they had real influence in our government. But for the reasons I've outlined above - they won't. I was brought up to strive for a country where we look after the most vulnerable in society - not shit on them. Fuck the Tories.

Miliband has played a blinder regarding the SNP - any accusations of Sturgeon holding him to ransom are now pure scaremongering propaganda. He can't go back on his word regarding coalitions/deals with the SNP - or Labour will be unelectable for a generation However assuming opinion polls are correct, the Conservative party, even with Lib Dem's, UKIP and the DUP totalled in, will fall short of the total needed for a majority. So Labour + the SNP (and quite likely the Lib Dems, although it's not necessary for them to do so) will vote down the Tory Queen Speech, allowing Miliband to propose his - which would then be accepted. The SNP are basically in a corner, they cannot return to Scotland having A. supported a Tory Queen Speech or B. failed to have backed a Labour Queen Speech. The SNP will be forced to back a Labour manifesto - or have to return to their own electorate having allowed another 5 years of Tory rule, which would be suicide. AND, Miliband knows the few things in his manifesto that the SNP won't back in the HOC such as Trident, will be backed by the Tories anyway. So the SNP in effect will have no influence over policy whatsoever. I could be very wrong, but this might have backfired for the Tories tremendously.

I keep seeing this idea that the Conservative Party we currently have are one of absolute economic prudence, and how they have ‘fixed’ the ‘last lots mess’. Which is interesting, because as we know the last ‘mess’ was a result of a GLOBAL financial crisis, beyond the control of the Labour party – and the few countries which did escape from most of it (e.g. Australia), were ones with relatively small amount of exposure to financial services in comparison to ourselves. Now from a neutral perspective (UKIP, Lib Dem etc.), it would be absolutely fair to call out Labour on some economic mistakes they did make. For example during the periods they were running budget surpluses it would have made a lot more sense to pay back some of their existing debts, instead of maintaining increasing expenditure. Labour also failed to correctly regulate the banking sector, which internationally, along with the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis over in the U S OF A, was one of the key reasons the crash occurred. But the thing is mate, throughout this period leading up the Crash, your ‘guys’ of economic wisdom, the Tories were not only pledging to MATCH Labour’s spending each year – they crucially wanted FURTHER banking deregulation – claiming Labour had not gone far enough. If this had gone ahead, we would have been in an even worse place to deal with the crisis than under Labour. It’s also worth pointing out that Labour were required to spend massively following the election thanks to the state of public services left by the Major government – Oxclose school next to me was literally crumbling in 1997. Although this in NO WAY justifies PFI contracts, which are a waste, and could have been used as a stick to beat Labour with, if it wasn’t for the fact the Tories have signed the biggest one to date in the current parliament. And now coming onto the ‘recovery’. The fact that the economy has recovered from a recession seems to result in some Tories genuinely thinking this therefore means their plan is ‘working’, despite the fact there was ALWAYS going to be a recovery. Think about it, if you’re rock bottom, then things can only get better, so a recovery should always be expected, but this is where it gets interesting. The Tory 2010 plan had 3 components: Eliminate the deficit over 1 parliament (failed), have total debt falling by 2015 (failed), retain financial confidence and retain the AAA status (failed). These three things, if successful, would have been potential justification for their austerity program. Until 2013 there was no economic growth at all, as up until this point there had been heavy cuts to social services. In 2013, recognising that government cuts were resulting in a knock on stagnation effect in the overall economy, the Tories decided to postpone their remaining heavy cuts plan till after this election. And low and behold, less cuts + attempted keynsian stimulus through HS2 (I oppose HS2) has seen promising GDP growth since then. This current plan is closer to Labour’s 2010 plan than their own, and is working better. And instead of sticking to it. These stupid cunts want deeper austerity again and will oversee the same amount of cuts from 2015-2017, as we saw in the last 5 years. That’s going to be a hell of a lot of vulnerable people shit on for ideological reasons. Now moving away from the economy: They cannot be trusted on healthcare - despite pledges to ringfence the NHS, the Office of National Statistics wrote to Downing Street pointing out that the NHS has in fact received real term cuts. The overriding opinion of every single individual who works in the NHS that I've spoken to is that it is at breaking point, and has deteriorated considerably since 2010 (and boy did Labour make some mistakes, *cough* PFI *cough*). Mental health in particular has been royally f****d over, demand has risen by 30% while there have been cuts to both MH nurses and MH beds (circa 1200 drop in each IIRC) - that doesn't sound like a 'big society' to me. It's absolutely clear that the Conservative party cannot be trusted on Education. Despite being an absolute **** I actually agreed with some of Mr Gove's educational reforms, particularly on the maths curriculum, as grade inflation was definitely a problem, although I think the A level changes were a bad move (so do Oxbridge). But the problem is we had an education secretary who was more concerned in engaging in an ideological battle with teachers than actually improving standards - because let's have this right, it's generally a sign you're making a bit of a mess of things if you're entire workforce despise you. Teacher's jobs aren't anywhere near as hard as some make out - but they also aren't anywhere as easy as others make out. You cannot continue to increase the workload and paperwork of teachers every year, while freezing pay and pensions. There's a reason why 50% of newly qualified teachers leave the profession within 5 years - and no Mr. Dacre - it's not because they've left to establish a Politburo among the NUT. Healthcare and education are two massive issues, which are big enough to make voting Tory a no no for me, but it's not just that. We've got: -Bedroom Tax (spare room subsidy) -Legal Aid -Chris Grayling's mess of the prison system -The fact immigration has managed to rise even higher than under Labour (and that takes some doing) -Surestart closures -Disgraceful sanctions, which have literally killed people. Now don't get me wrong, under no circumstances should benefits ever pay more than employment (the disabled excluded), however these reforms have devastated some of the most vulnerable people in society - why are they being punished because of Jeremy Kyle scrotes? By all means chase the scroungers - but make sure the genuinely needy aren't hit - and this government has failed to do so. -Firefighter pensions and cuts - FREE SCHOOLS LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL How anyone from the North East can put a cross next to the Conservative Party box on Thursday is beyond me.

Be class if we go down, much better as a supporter.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

No more than 40k in the ground today. Seen plenty images on Twitter of all stands during the 1st half. There's at least 10k empty seats

From Sky it looked like around 10k missing I reckon, attendance of 42k sounds about right.