The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Deleted member 6183]

So, not Scottish then?

Don't wake Pontoneer up, he'll only get all shouty about Scotland again.

 

[grober]

So, not Scottish then?

Merely a reflection on the fact there are people around who actually create wealth and then there are people who merely talk about creating it. Despite impressive amounts of hot air being generated in the environs of the Westminster bubble at present, in the real world I would not advise relying on this to power even the lowliest of wind turbines!

 

[GeordieN]

If it was legal there should be some restriction on access to free healthcare if there is a proven health risk. It should be the same with tobacco and alcohol really and I think it will eventually but otherwise it should be legalised.

Mentioning tobacco, its reported that smokers contribute £12bn to the goverment in taxes and it costs between £3bn-6bn to treat smoking related ilnesses. if this IS the case should it be non smokers paying more as the figues suggest smokers pay between £6bn-£9bn more in than took out.
Dont shoot me google came up with the figures lol.

 

[markjay]

Mentioning tobacco, its reported that smokers contribute £12bn to the goverment in taxes and it costs between £3bn-6bn to treat smoking related ilnesses. if this IS the case should it be non smokers paying more as the figues suggest smokers pay between £6bn-£9bn more in than took out.
Dont shoot me google came up with the figures lol.

You would think that, but...:

Smokers (and heavy drinkers, and drug users etc) take-up a lot of resources... but for a relatively short period of time.

The long term cost of geriatric treatment for people who run a healthy life style and live well into their eighties and nineties is actually much higher...

 

[GeordieN]

You would think that, but...:

Smokers (and heavy drinkers, and drug users etc) take-up a lot of resources... but for a relatively short period of time.

The long term cost of geriatric treatment for people who run a healthy life style and live well into their eighties and nineties is actually much higher..

So the next stealth tax will be aimed at the fit and healthy then

 

[ioweddie]

Its a pity that funny looking skinny bloke is a remainer...as he is the only one who appears not to lie

 

[markjay]

So the next stealth tax will be aimed at the fit and healthy then

That has already began... raiding pension funds and removing BBC license fee expemtion etc.

 

[Benzowner]

From Facebook. Last week they praised the veterans for their part in D Day, this week they take their TV license away.

 

[grober]

Mentioning tobacco, its reported that smokers contribute £12bn to the goverment in taxes and it costs between £3bn-6bn to treat smoking related ilnesses. if this IS the case should it be non smokers paying more as the figues suggest smokers pay between £6bn-£9bn more in than took out.

That assertion relies on several erroneous assumptions
1. That tax revenues from the sale of tobacco are directly hypothecated to the NHS ----they're not AFAIK
2. Depends on how you define "smoking related illness" ---- confine it to lung cancer and lung conditions such as asthma, COPD bronchiectasis, pulmonary fibrosis and its easy to make the connection. When it comes to associated conditions such a coronary heart disease or peripheral arterial disease, both potentially debilitating long term conditions, the connection appears less clear but NOT if you ask the medical profession. Indeed on the thorny subject of dementia, in the care of the elderly cerebral arterial insufficiency is a frequent cause of cognitive impairment .

 

[GeordieN]

That assertion relies on several erroneous assumptions
1. That tax revenues from the sale of tobacco are directly hypothecated to the NHS ----they're not AFAIK
2. Depends on how you define "smoking related illness" ---- confine it to lung cancer and lung conditions such as asthma, COPD bronchiectasis, pulmonary fibrosis and its easy to make the connection. When it comes to associated conditions such a coronary heart disease or peripheral arterial disease, both potentially debilitating long term conditions, the connection appears less clear but NOT if you ask the medical profession. Indeed on the thorny subject of dementia, in the care of the elderly cerebral arterial insufficiency is a frequent cause of cognitive impairment .

Point 1 doesn't count, government pay the bill for the NHS, smokers pay tax to government.
Point two is prob why it states £3-£6bn.

 

[Dryce]

That has already began... raiding pension funds and removing BBC license fee expemtion etc.

Not that many veterans left - so an edge case.

I think that this whole sordid affair raises a more general question as to why the BBC should be entitled to charge a fee to people who have TVs that can pick up broadcasts but in a world where the BBC offers only small number of the available channels - not just on Freeview but on Freesat and other services such as Sky and Virgin.

Worse - the licence fee collection is done in quite a nasty manner - with people who legitimately do not need a licence routinely being sent quite intimidating letters which are in effect of a form of harassment. I have two sets of elderly relatives that don't need a licence. One lot put up with the letters and knocks on the door for years - the others have always coughed for a licence because even though there is no TV in the house they don't want the potential hassle.

My view is the licencing setup is an anachronism and the BBC are entitled to charge those who watch their broadcasts but have no entitlement to charge those who choose to only watch non-BBC broadcasts.

 

[st13phil]

My view is the licencing setup is an anachronism and the BBC are entitled to charge those who watch their broadcasts but have no entitlement to charge those who choose to only watch non-BBC broadcasts.

I agree that the TV Licencing system is in many respects an anachronism, but the argument that those who only watch non-BBC channels shouldn't have to pay has been around since September 1955 when independent TV started. To the best of my knowledge, and assuming that Public Service Broadcasting is still considered important, no-one has yet come up with an alternative funding model that is both fair and viable to collect.

 

[flowrider]

Not that many veterans left - so an edge case.

I think that this whole sordid affair raises a more general question as to why the BBC should be entitled to charge a fee to people who have TVs that can pick up broadcasts but in a world where the BBC offers only small number of the available channels - not just on Freeview but on Freesat and other services such as Sky and Virgin.

Worse - the licence fee collection is done in quite a nasty manner - with people who legitimately do not need a licence routinely being sent quite intimidating letters which are in effect of a form of harassment. I have two sets of elderly relatives that don't need a licence. One lot put up with the letters and knocks on the door for years - the others have always coughed for a licence because even though there is no TV in the house they don't want the potential hassle.

My view is the licencing setup is an anachronism and the BBC are entitled to charge those who watch their broadcasts but have no entitlement to charge those who choose to only watch non-BBC broadcasts.

I agree re license fee collection, my in laws both passed away last year and the house is empty at the moment so no TV's are in use, in fact there are no TV's but periodically we still get enforcement letters despite me telling the TV licensing people that no one lives in the house. This week we had a letter stating that the enforcement has been escalated to the next level, whatever that is!

 

[flowrider]

I agree that the TV Licencing system is in many respects an anachronism, but the argument that those who only watch non-BBC channels shouldn't have to pay has been around since September 1955 when independent TV started. To the best of my knowledge, and assuming that Public Service Broadcasting is still considered important, no-one has yet come up with an alternative funding model that is both fair and viable to collect.

I see no reason for the BBC not to start advertising like all the other channels. They could bring it in gradually starting with programme sponsorship, then product placement, then go to commercial breaks. I bet not many people would notice other than no longer paying a license fee.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I’m not really sure what the issue is with removing this TV license benefit - the whole point is that we *all* pay it and we *all* benefit.

I asked my 84 year old grandma and grandad how they felt about it and they both said they’ve got enough money to pay it so why shouldn’t they? Mind you, they also donate their Winter Fuel Allowance to charity which I doubt too many others do.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I agree that the TV Licencing system is in many respects an anachronism, but the argument that those who only watch non-BBC channels shouldn't have to pay has been around since September 1955 when independent TV started. To the best of my knowledge, and assuming that Public Service Broadcasting is still considered important, no-one has yet come up with an alternative funding model that is both fair and viable to collect.

I’m happy to pay the license fee - I think it’s good value for money - and even more so now that ginger tosser has left..!

 

[190]

I agree re license fee collection, my in laws both passed away last year and the house is empty at the moment so no TV's are in use, in fact there are no TV's but periodically we still get enforcement letters despite me telling the TV licensing people that no one lives in the house. This week we had a letter stating that the enforcement has been escalated to the next level, whatever that is!

For many years I was treasurer for the local District Scout Association. Our headquarters was an ordinary terraced house in an ordinary street. I received the same string of enforcement letters and could never convince them that although we had a TV it wasn't connected to an aerial and was only used to watch training video's. On principle there is no way I was going to pay whatever they did.

The means testing of free TV licences is something I agree with, Pensioners, myself soon to be included have for too long been excessively favoured by governments for the simple reason of buying votes. It's time we were treated equally with the young.

 

[m80]

Instead of regurgitating 100 years of propaganda, if you are genuinely concerned about the influence of drugs on decision making, shift your focus from recreational drug use in evenings and weekends to wide scale use of prescribed drugs which influence a person's thought processes but are never considered in assessing a person's fitness to make decisions that affect others.

You assume, but your approval of the drug taking is noted.
If you refer to my earlier post I was concerned about a person who has intentionally broken our laws then being so instrumental in creating our legislation. It doesn't tally.
These persons break the laws when it suits but then expect the rest of us to respect laws that they have involvement in passing.
I don't like being ripped off for the road fund licence but the law will get me if I don't pay.
Maybe I could feel justified in robbing that rich little granny, she can afford it.
Which laws should I respect if our leader/s can choose for themselves when it suits?

 

[Bellow]

You assume, but your approval of the drug taking is noted.
If you refer to my earlier post I was concerned about a person who has intentionally broken our laws then being so instrumental in creating our legislation. It doesn't tally.

Assume nothing, I approved nothing.
In your earlier post you questioned morals and intelligence. Intelligence has little bearing on the matter and it is a recent idea to equate drug use with low intelligence or imply it degrades it.

Which laws should I respect if our leader/s can choose for themselves when it suits?

If breaking any law harms no one else, break it as you see fit. Just like anyone exceeding 70mph on motorway does. Honestly breaking a bad law (I'm not querying speed limits BTW - merely using them as an accessible analogy) is no bar to higher office. Lying about it is however. As is playing any part in enforcing it or increasing the severity of the punishment - as Gove did to teachers.

 

[st13phil]

Honestly breaking a bad law (I'm not querying speed limits BTW - merely using them as an accessible analogy) is no bar to higher office. Lying about it is however. As is playing any part in enforcing it or increasing the severity of the punishment - as Gove did to teachers.

I'm all for breaking bad laws - perhaps I should have been born French?

What I am absolutely opposed to is the faux Puritanism that our media engage in to damage anyone who challenges their prejudices and position.

The reality is that this country is desperately lacking leadership. I'd much prefer to be guided by a morally questionable leader than a whiter-than-white manager.