THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Jacob]

I suppose you can divide the reasons behind crime into career criminals who probably are not interested in rehabilitation and those who found themselves in a desperate situation due to the cost of living and saw no way out. It has often been said that if you send a naive first timer to prison they just get educated by the others and it starts them on a life of crime.

I doubt you could divide them so neatly. There will be all gradations in between and very likely the vast majority would prefer to live normal lives if possible. Rehabilitation works.
Drink/drugs is one big crime generator but people don't choose to wreck their lives.

 

[woodieallen]

.... rather than locking up climate protestors who won't hurt anybody.

True. If you ignore the thousands of manhours wasted while those cretins have an ego-trip and climb a platform over a motorway, the number of hospital appointments missed, the flights missed, the funerals missed.

 

[woodieallen]

.....
Individual actions are important but protest probably the most productive.
....

Correction....Least productive. Most productive at messing about with other people's lives and alienating those same people in the support of whatever those eco-narcissists are on....They have had diddly-squat influence on Govt thinking. Bit like that Has-Been.....ooh, Wotsisname.....Ah yes....Corbinge.

Really glad Starmer is PM.

 

[Spectric]

They do say never to judge a book by it's cover and so far we only have the cover for the book of starmer and no idea what lies on it's pages so jumping to hero worship is a little early so lets see what unfolds. There are a few test lined up this coming week so people will have a little more to base judgement on and maybe it will just confirm that a politician is a politician no matter whether Red or Blue or should it now be Purple.

 

[John Brown]

Keir Starmer and gratuities... What do folks think of this?

It's not really "exposed", is it? This stuff was all declared, as far as I know.

 

[Krome10]

Correction....Least productive. Most productive at messing about with other people's lives and alienating those same people in the support of whatever those eco-narcissists are on....They have had diddly-squat influence on Govt thinking. Bit like that Has-Been.....ooh, Wotsisname.....Ah yes....Corbinge.

Really glad Starmer is PM.

I don't wanna take sides as I can see both sides.

The disruption caused is well known and documented.

So let's look at it instead from an historical context with, let's say, the suffragettes. Hugely disruptive. Radical. And in comparison their cause was trivial IF what many scientists are telling us could be just around the corner (or is in fact here now). Not just climate change. World systems collapse.

It's interesting that no one seems to denigrate the suffragettes, but rather champions them. Everyone was in the resistance after the war?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Could add benefits except that the profit imperative means no help for those without enough money. This is the basic fact behind the public sector on all fronts. It's very very simple.

Nonsense - the state routinely uses the private sector for delivery of public services - defence equipment, pharmaceuticals, construction, refuse collection etc etc etc. The state agrees the terms- quality, price, quantity etc - and should be managing delivery.

If the private sector fails to deliver, the state should have a contractual remedy. Relatively few such cases suggests the state is often responsible for inadequate management, changing specifications, planning delays, political interference, lengthy authorisation processes etc.

That the private sector which earns a profit must be uncompetitive does not stand scrutiny. In some (not all) cases it is entirely plausible the private sector through better targeted investment, operational efficiency etc will have a cost base +profit below that of the state sector.

Nobody quite says that. You are just spouting a bit of dogma of your own. The point about the state sector is that it delivers where the private sector often fails to deliver anything at all.
This is why we have the state.
This is why approaching 50% of GDP in modern states is public sector spending.

The state has a history of delivery late and seriously over budget. If they use the private sector to deliver elements of a project, they set terms, prices, investment, service standards etc. State regulation has frequently failed - eg: financial services and banking, energy, water and sewage.

In neither case would I assert the private sector is consistently effective and the state always deficient. I do stand by the assertion that to deny the ability of the private sector to add value (expertise, efficiency etc) to overall public service delivery is dogma driven arrogance.

That the state provides directly, or through private sector contracts, critical services and support is a democratic compromise. That some would support a very different balance (more or less) is a different issue..

 

[Terry - Somerset]

So I was right then! But fewer votes even than 2019!
Pre-election seems such a long time ago.
It occurred to me that Labour is now the "conservative" party; promising to manage things but without changing the status quo. This used to be the fundamental Tory party raison d'etre; https://www.alistairlexden.org.uk/news/why-do-we-need-change
The tories went wrong in trying to adopt an ideology i.e. "neo-liberalism" which was doomed to fail.
They should have stuck to what they do best, i.e. doing nothing, but carefully.
OTOH The left is based on the realisation that managing things without changes to the status quo is impossible.

The left are barely detectable as a political force at the moment - in the election just gone, obviously "left" parties between them accumulated less than 1% of the votes.

A more likely scenario is:

• the remnants of centre right Tory support migrate to a fairly central LibDem party,
• Reform scoop up all those remaining with more right wing tendencies,
• Labour splits creating a party with more left wing tendencies (a little like Reform on the right)

We may then be back to where we were a two decades ago - LibDemCon slightly right of centre, Labour slightly left, Reform and The Workers Party on the fringes - along with Greens, SNP etc. The also rans would end up as small pressure groups but no real threat to the big 2.

 

[Krome10]

It's not really "exposed", is it? This stuff was all declared, as far as I know.

Declared how? I'm genuinely interested.

Although perhaps by exposed they mean exposed to the public. I've not heard it discussed on MSM.

On a similar note, I found this very interesting...

 

[Krome10]

The left are barely detectable as a political force at the moment - in the election just gone, obviously "left" parties between them accumulated less than 1% of the votes.

A more likely scenario is:

• the remnants of centre right Tory support migrate to a fairly central LibDem party,
• Reform scoop up all those remaining with more right wing tendencies,
• Labour splits creating a party with more left wing tendencies (a little like Reform on the right)

We may then be back to where we were a two decades ago - LibDemCon slightly right of centre, Labour slightly left, Reform and The Workers Party on the fringes - along with Greens, SNP etc. The also rans would end up as small pressure groups but no real threat to the big 2.

Another scenario.... After the centre right have failed, if the "left" now fail (I don't consider current Labour left, but I think many do), what remains? A disillusioned, angry, poor population. Which leaves the door wide open for a beer swigging escape-goat blaming man to tell the people he has all the answers.

Look at how Trump managed to get people to vote for him against their own interests....

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I don't wanna take sides as I can see both sides.

The disruption caused is well known and documented.

So let's look at it instead from an historical context with, let's say, the suffragettes. Hugely disruptive. Radical. And in comparison their cause was trivial IF what many scientists are telling us could be just around the corner (or is in fact here now). Not just climate change. World systems collapse.

It's interesting that no one seems to denigrate the suffragettes, but rather champions them. Everyone was in the resistance after the war?

Many suffragettes who took direct action were arrested for breaking various laws - mostly ones that protected private property - and went to prison. From the start of the 20th century to the beginning of World War One, almost 1,000 suffragettes were imprisoned. Emmeline Pankhurst went to jail three times.

Not sure how this compares with the Extinction Rebellion and other activist groups - cup of tea and we (the police) are terribly sorry for having inconvenienced you? My perception is that even major unpleasant acts clearly recorded on camera seem to go largely unpunished.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The common denominator is money - more public servants need to be paid - where will it come from.

The private sector. Where it always comes from. Where else does anyone think it comes from?

 

[Krome10]

I'd have to have a look at arrest numbers, convictions, etc. for ER and the like. I'm not doubting you, I really don't know...

But in terms of equivalence and comparison, a quote from Wikipedia:

"The campaign, led by key WSPU figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst, targeted infrastructure, government, churches and the general public, and saw the use of improvised explosive devices, arson, letter bombs, assassination attempts and other forms of direct action and violence."

 

[Scruples]

I doubt you could divide them so neatly. There will be all gradations in between and very likely the vast majority would prefer to live normal lives if possible. Rehabilitation works.
Drink/drugs is one big crime generator but people don't choose to wreck their lives.

I think they just make choices that they don't see the consequences of. So choice is a valid cause of drink/drug abuse.

 

[Chris152]

They have had diddly-squat influence on Govt thinking.

You seem very confident - how would you know?

 

[Blackswanwood]

Declared how? I'm genuinely interested.

Although perhaps by exposed they mean exposed to the public. I've not heard it discussed on MSM.

On a similar note, I found this very interesting...

In the MP’s register of interests which is available for anyone to look at.

 

[Jacob]

I think they just make choices that they don't see the consequences of. So choice is a valid cause of drink/drug abuse.

Millions of people get into drugs and alcohol without coming to harm. In fact probably most of the members on here to some extent! It's only an unfortunate few who get seriously addicted to the point where it wrecks their lives and turns them into criminals.
Drugs should be legalised in a sensible controlled way like smoking* and addiction treated as an illness. It would probably halve the prison population. Prohibition was a major cause of criminality in USA
Vaping needs to be controlled too. One way or another drug users and dealers will find a way and vaping is now a big issue. Controls work, prohibition does not.

 

[MikeJhn]

Drugs should be legalised and addiction treated as an illness. It would probably halve the prison population.

And double the crime rate.

 

[Jacob]

And double the crime rate.

Of course it wouldn't, that's the whole point and it has been proven in many ways.

 

[Jacob]

I don't wanna take sides as I can see both sides.

The disruption caused is well known and documented.

So let's look at it instead from an historical context with, let's say, the suffragettes. Hugely disruptive. Radical. And in comparison their cause was trivial IF what many scientists are telling us could be just around the corner (or is in fact here now). Not just climate change. World systems collapse.

It's interesting that no one seems to denigrate the suffragettes, but rather champions them. Everyone was in the resistance after the war?

In fact most radical change was never handed down from the top and only achieved after massive illegal campaigns coming from the people, throughout history.
The intention is to annoy/agitate people until they start taking an intelligent interest. Good to see that they annoy/agitate @woodieallen - that's the whole idea!
Also it's not true that people aren't taking direct action in terms of personal behaviour - millions are taking steps to go "greener' - insulating homes, trying to reduce IC vehicle use - going electric, installing heat pumps, going vegetarian etc etc. It's a mass movement and growing rapidly.