Saintandy666

Are Labour still with the Darling plan? Or has Ed Miliband abandoned that? Or are we still at the 'Blank Page' on this...

Well, other people are feeling them. Obviously you are lucky to be in a stable environment, but the cuts are hurting a lot of people, but they are necessary... but I just think they could be done slightly differently, perhaps a bit more tax rise, a bit less cutting. A bit more stimulus... I'm quite lucky too that I am going to Uni next year and already have a job for this year, and my Dad's job is stable... though my Mum is starting to get less work as a Teacher... but really, so far bar a few cut backs like no foreign holidays(yes, I know... POOR ME - sarcasm btw), a few less luxuries, the recession hasn't really hit me personally too much. I am very lucky in that respect... as you seem to be too. But I know people who are less well off who it is hitting harder... and I don't think we should forget about them just because we are lucky enough. Out of interest Dune, don't feel you have to answer, but what sector of work are you in?

I don't like the question - Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country? It's bias.... it should be just... 'Should Scotland be an Independent country?'

So cutting as fast as we have has led to less growth and greater unemployment, so lower tax receipts and more borrowing, £158bn more borrowing. More borrowing infact, than Labours original plan! But of course, we have no idea how Labours plan would have turned out anyways. What makes me laugh though is that when it went tits up under Labour, and they rightly put a lot of the blame on the world financial collapse, the Tories wouldn't have it. Now it's going tits up under Conservatives, and they are rightly placing some of the blame on the world economy(specifically the eurozone), Labour won't have it. Bunch of hypocrites. We have to accept in a Globalised world capitalist system, there is little we can do sometimes. However, we can alter our fortunes slightly within a spectrum and in my opinion the Coalition spending plan is a bit too much, too fast for optimal deficit cutting... as the IMF are now realising, and so advising us to perhaps considering some slowing down in the cutting.

Trains can be good and bad. Cross countries trains I find are often late... but other times good, but I find they are most often late! Though I have to say Cross Country down from Birmingham last weekend was excellent in its time keeping! It did make me laugh though, the other week when I was in Oxford, and the two trains before mine back to home(first great western) were late/cancelled, one because of an irreversible fault and the other one because it was waiting for a driver! And my train was late.

For sure, it varies from teacher to teacher and school to school. If I mentioned fact to do with R.S content, I meant the facts of what Christians believe rather than what they believe is fact.

I went to school in what is effectively now, 2004 to 2009. The GCSE content isn't biased, it was just 'what Christian's believe', but I'm saying that sometimes teachers were not non-bias. My secondary school wasn't bias at all really, bar one supply teacher who was hilariously preachy... but except that not really. It wasn't really much of an issue at all. At my Primary school, as we discussed before, it was different.

Good to see his spouting off is not going unnoticed.

Hmmmm, you say it isn't biased, but I found often it was... more often than not in an overly don't offend anyone's religion way if debates were set up regarding religion. It was quite fun though when we had an atheist teaching trainee for a few weeks and the tables were turned!

Doing a GCSE isn't compulsory, but teaching of it is, so most schools just do the GCSE or half-GCSE. I think it is wise to teach kids that there are people who believe in this stuff, but for all religions. My GCSE in R.S was 100% Christianity... we did other religions in years 7-9, but it seemed a waste to only do Christianity. It was a pretty easy GCSE though if I am honest, and pretty boring as it was only Christianity.

I don't really think the Queen would be any more protection than Hindenburg... especially as the Queen isn't really allowed to say no to Parliament, whereas of course Hindenburg could technically... The worrying thing if anything with our system vs. the US system is that it is entirely possible that an equivalent of the Enabling act could be passed because we have no safeguards of a proper constitution. In your example again, if the Queen didn't sign, they could just go back to parliament and abolish the Monarchy. Again, there are no protections in our system because Parliament has absolute authority. The only way to get real protection is a proper rigid constitution and a proper Supreme Court to guard it.

People can say what they wish about drugs, but most people on here haven't experienced a decriminalised system(neither have I, bar trips), but I have seen the dangers of the current system and what that causes first hand and that combined with hard statistics on problematic drug use and hard drug use convince me that decriminalisation is the only way.

We need our top players back. I'll judge whether we are dropping or not after Cardiff once we hopefully have some of our top players back.

Perhaps I don't... but I think I do know about the current state of drug usage in younger people and how easy it is to obtain it despite it being illegal... and also the affects of drugs on people and community. I can also read up on the other stuff to find out the core hard stats. In countries where this route has been taken, like the Netherlands and Portugal, problematic drug usage is down, heroin usage is down, and so is cannabis usage albeit by not as much as harder drugs like heroin... but when you consider the impacts of the two drugs it's more important to get drugs like heroin out than cannabis which in its herbal form is largely harmless in the long term, though of course there is some dispute as to whether it causes psychosis, but studies say mixed things. Also, alcohol and tobacco can cause terrible long term effects if overused, so perhaps we should ban them? Of course not! It'd be a disaster as shown by previous attempts to ban alcohol! So in summary, your points aren't backed up by any evidence. More people haven't smoked it in countries where this has already occurred and less people do harder drugs! My arguments are supported by both national statistics, as well as some anecdotal evidence re: the availability and usage rates... yours is just backed up by anecdotal evidence which by itself makes for a very weak argument when you are trying to state the case for nationwide law. Using the age card is a very poor attack on my arguments by the way.

Cheers As I said, it is probably one of the things that I believe in most passionately! The problem in convincing people to the view that decriminalisation will actually cause more problem is that people just immediately think, legal means more availability equals more usage, when this actually isn't the case as other countries who have gone down this route already show!

In reality, it's exactly the same though. Ours take orders from David Cameron, the US Barack Obama. It makes little difference, except a technical one. The difference in the US of course is the rigidity of the constitution and the fact that the Supreme Court can stop any law or action that goes against it. So really, the US has more protection! Parliament if it wanted to could vote to take away all freedom tomorrow and insert an actual fascist state(that would shock the morons who seem to think we live in one at the moment, but anyways...). In the US, that would be impossible... as it would be unconstitutional.

I think nobody here would actually want people to take drugs like heroin. Heroin ruins lives, and I think everyone, even those who vouch for decriminalisation would state this. It is a irrevocable fact. The question is though, how do make it so that the least amount of harm comes from drug use, both to the individual and the community. The answer, perhaps paradoxically to some is decriminalisation. Drugs are illegal at the moment, yet millions do them every week, some perhaps harmlessly where the only damage done is to themselves, others problematically, and that is what needs to be addressed, problematic drug use. No-one who advocates decriminalisation is going to say it would result in zero drug usage, that just isn't achievable. But what statistics from other countries show is that where a more lenient approach to drugs have been taken, problematic drug use is down and so is hard drug usage, in many cases dramatically. I do not believe that if drugs were decriminalised tomorrow, there would be a rush to go and do drugs such as heroin. How many on here would go try it? People get on to heroin when they are in a dark place, generally a pressurised environment. If it were legal, though obviously not easily obtainable people could seek help and be treated as patients not criminals. Aside from the argument on problematic drug use, we have the crime argument. It's estimated that we, in just Britain spend £6bn on cannabis alone each year. Most of that goes in the pockets of dogey individuals who use it to fund their criminal enterprise with such activities as trafficking. It's no coincidence that prohibition of alcohol in the 20's in the USA led to the rise of people such as Al Capone. To decriminalise drugs, such a cannabis would give those who wish to experiment (as people inevitably always do) a non-pressured way to purchase cannabis which does not contribute to funds which support misery the world over to thousands. (not to mention the fact of no harder drug pushing by dealers). And this doesn't even address the amount of money we spend hunting down illegal cannabis farms each year, which are a scrounge on society and rip communities apart as gangs fight over the lucrative supply lines. To legalise it would be to cut off the demand for these supply lines and would be stop an important source of income to less than savoury people. In short, the criminalisation of drugs is perhaps the greatest financial gift we gave to crime, perhaps ever. Now on to the health affects. To bring us back to our parallel with 1920's america, it is known that when alcohol was made illegal, not only did people end up drinking more, they ended up drinking harmful moonshine which caused countless side affects not usually associated with alcohol. The same is true for drugs, which dealers to save money cut with other substances to enhance their profit margins... I know of people who have seen what is mixed with drugs in an attempt to do this, and they certainly never wanted to touch them again... in short, it causes extra cost to the country as a whole as more people have bad side affects causing health problems that would have not been present otherwise. This added to by the fact that many 'new drugs', some of the more harmful substances created synthetically are only in existence because of the illegality of drugs. And that does touch on needle sharing which among other problems spreads HIV. Oh, and as a side note, where a more lenient approach has been taken to heroin in trials in the UK, crime has fallen dramatically - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm - astounding statistics from that study. This doesn't even address the affects on individuals caught smoking cannabis who end up with it on their record, excluding them from society later in life for a 'crime' that affected no one else. I realise, I'm going on a bit here, but it is something I believe in passionately. We all want the same thing... the least amount of problematic usage of all the drugs going, whether that be Tobacco, Heroin, Cocaine, Cannabis, Ectasy etc and it is clear that the only way to do this is by decriminalising it and allowing use within a regulated, taxed, non-pressurised environment. It is ridiculous though, the current situation, when often as a 16 year old, it is easier to obtain cannabis than alcohol. In the past, the government has been too scared to act on this, ignoring advice from those with much more experience on this subject than you and I. Just look at Professor David Nutt, sacked from the governments own advisory panel for doing his job, looking at the facts and advising on the best course forward. I really don't think we can ignore this much longer, it's coming up to a critical point where action must be taken. Positive action. To not take the brave move now and sail on through the inevitable knee-jerk reaction would be to only sentence the problem to further escalation.

US Army allegiance for reference... I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. They largely seem to get on okay...

Yer, but in reality... that wouldn't happen as the government would still be in charge and unless the government says roll a tank into Trafalgar Square and blow up the House of Commons, it won't happen. The Oath of allegiance isn't that important anyways... it strikes me as more symbolic given who is really in charge. I think it's a weak argument for keeping the monarchy.

They can swear allegiance to the country and its citizens. The head of state need not be any more powerful than a legislative leader... in the US, the President is well kept in check by Congress and the Supreme Court should he try to do anything unconstitutional. In fact, Congress can even pass laws without the Presidents consent should they get a super majority, 2/3's... second time round. So he is hardly all powerful, in fact I would say Congress balances him quite well. One of the parts of the US system I quite like is that the 3 branches of government are well separated. Until very recently, all 3 branches of government were uncomfortably overlapping in the UK, but recent reforms removing the Law Lords to a Supreme Court, abolishing the Lord Chancellor as a meaningful post and the set up of the JAC to independently look over the appointment of judges have helped amend this. So, the Judiciary has been effectively separated to some degree in the UK(albeit the slight nibble that parliament could still abolish it all at any moment as no parliament can bind a future one in this country so nothing is guaranteed)... YET, our executive still operates from our legislature? There are advantages to this, but also a lot of disadvantages, particularly constitutional ones and power issues regarding the executives grip on the legislative. It has been promising in recent years to see the rise of the select committees as a powerful entity to itself, probably due to the fact that the chairs are now elected by MPs, so the PM has less grip on the scrutiny of his government. A lot of good came out of the last Labour government in terms of constitutional reform now I think about it, but there is still a long way to go, our electoral system, the lords and yes perhaps the Royal Family need to go as well. That was a bit rambly, but I guess my overall point is getting rid of the royals would allow us to separate the executive from the legislature!

Indeed, I should have learnt by now, though it is at least useful to state the facts so at least every realises his thread is based on a false premise!

That's not government debt, thought our high debt levels were more to do with our large financial sector.

Don't understand why voting someone in as head of state would make a huge difference to the type of person we'd have... even as PM you have to climb the political ladder to get there, and for a President is no different. An election for it would not be much different to our current elections either which prominently feature the leaders anyways. But as I say earlier, there are bigger problems with our system than an unelected head of state which doesn't really cause too much trouble at all.

Oh ouch, Andrew Neil absolutely 100% just burned Diane Abbott over her cancellation.

I don't really see how there would be 'more politicians' and even if there was, I'd prefer someone elected. The only difference would be Cameron, Clegg and Miliband competing for President as opposed to for a parliamentary seat.