Metropol

Leeds is a dump, so I guess it's appropriate the sanitation workers are on strike there!

Also interesting to see that vast swathes of the relatively well-off populace are suddenly re-re-defining themselves as "working class" in order to garner extra sympathy for their pay freeze plight. I don't know how many times I've heard 'oh, but aren't we all just middle class now?' over the last ten years. They seem to think the whole United Kingdom magically self-actualised within a decade just because they live in a nice area where they never see any crime :roll:

Anyway back to the Tories, I thought Cameron's speech was very good today. He hit all the right points about personal responsibility and things like that. I don't think the Conservative government will be half as bad as some people are making out really. The main issue appears to be that the Tories have a bit of money, but Labour hasn't exactly fallen over itself to tax the rich over the last 12 years either. If we really must have a tax on self-indulgence, as people keep suggesting, then we should start by raising tax on alcohol and tobacco by something meaningful, like 10%.

Chie wrote:Also interesting to see that vast swathes of the relatively well-off populace are suddenly re-re-defining themselves as "working class" in order to garner extra sympathy for their pay freeze plight. I don't know how many times I've heard 'oh, but aren't we all just middle class now?' over the last ten years. They seem to think the whole United Kingdom magically self-actualised within a decade just because they live in a nice area where they never see any crime :roll:

Is all crime associated with "working class" people then?

I know you said you think it is unseemly to label oneself with a class - but as you keep bringing it up, I would again inquire - what class do you consider yourself to be?

The main issue appears to be that the Tories have a bit of money, but Labour hasn't exactly fallen over itself to tax the rich over the last 12 years either. If we really must have a tax on self-indulgence, as people keep suggesting, then we should start by raising tax on alcohol and tobacco by something meaningful, like 10%.

The Tories have more than a "bit of money". And before you say it, its not a "class" thing, its about having an understanding of living on a low to middle income. That's rather difficult to conceptualise when you're very wealthy. Its telling that one of the main points in their agenda is a reduction in inheritance tax liability and capital gains tax. This will benefit the top 5% of the population, and leave the other 95% to make up the balance in the tax shortfall.

Would it be unfair to consider this being an example of the very rich being "self serving"?

As for cigarettes - I genuinely think that the time for whipping the addicts is over. I think tobacco should be banned outright.

And I say this as a smoker.

I've paid tens of thousands of extra monies into the exchequer (possibly even more than that, scarily) for the luxury of exercising my choice to smoke. I'm taxed to the balls and vilified by the public, yet I pay the most into the system.

So - if they ban it, I will get healthier, and smoking related deaths and illness will be dramatically reduced.

But there will be *billions* less pouring into the exchequer, and Thatcher would be displeased, being on the board of British American Tobacco, as she is (still - despite being as old and crazy as Monty Burns).

Gavin Scott wrote:But there will be *billions* less pouring into the exchequer, and Thatcher would be displeased, being on the board of British American Tobacco, as she is (still - despite being as old and crazy as Monty Burns).

Question from the Advocate for Mr B. El. Zebub: How much of that amount will be therefore saved by the NHS in not having to treat smoking-related health issues? How much money does the NHS spend on treating smokers with, let's face it, self-inflicted health issues, each year?

Alexia wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:But there will be *billions* less pouring into the exchequer, and Thatcher would be displeased, being on the board of British American Tobacco, as she is (still - despite being as old and crazy as Monty Burns).

Question from the Advocate for Mr B. El. Zebub: How much of that amount will be therefore saved by the NHS in not having to treat smoking-related health issues? How much money does the NHS spend on treating smokers with, let's face it, self-inflicted health issues, each year?

From the BBC in late 2008

Treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year, compared with £1.7bn a decade ago, a report claims.

Anti-smoking group Ash says the cost would have risen to over £3bn had action to curb smoking not seen numbers fall from 12 million to nine million.

Lobby group Forest argues that smokers pay over £9bn a year in tobacco tax.

So - there's clearly more advantage to keeping cigarettes available but taxing them at these levels. One can see why its not been banned yet.

Actually, I omitted to mention that one part of Government argue that the costs to the UK is higher if you take into account all of the tax a dead person would have paid had cancer not got to them.

Which is a bit of a stretch, if you ask me.

Gavin Scott wrote:So - there's clearly more advantage to keeping cigarettes available but taxing them at these levels. One can see why its not been banned yet.

To be fair, gav, for all intents and purposes it has been banned. Sure, you can still buy tobacco, but there aren't many places smokers can smoke legally any more.

To be honest I actually think the system isn't too bad as it is. I disapprove of smoking in public but I wouldn't want to deny someone the right to smoke in their own home. But I also think smokers need incentives to give up, since cigarettes are addictive. Even if the taxation is excessive, it provides a much needed monetary argument in favour of giving up for people who aren't swayed by the health benefits.

cdd wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:So - there's clearly more advantage to keeping cigarettes available but taxing them at these levels. One can see why its not been banned yet.

To be fair, gav, for all intents and purposes it has been banned. Sure, you can still buy tobacco, but there aren't many places smokers can smoke legally any more.

You may not see ads for it, but they've available to buy every 20 feet in any street in Britain. That's pretty far from being banned in any sense of the word. Everyone and anyone can smoke in the street. Or outside of whatever building they are in, and at home.

To be honest I actually think the system isn't too bad as it is. I disapprove of smoking in public but I wouldn't want to deny someone the right to smoke in their own home. But I also think smokers need incentives to give up, since cigarettes are addictive. Even if the taxation is excessive, it provides a much needed monetary argument in favour of giving up for people who aren't swayed by the health benefits.

Sure, if you take the approach that ciggies aren't so bad, then yes this is an acceptable setup.

But of course they are deadly and addictive - and I'm stuck with it now. Sure it was my fault for trying them young - but we all did things when we were young that we shouldn't have. Its just that when you start a highly addictive drug you're kind of lumbered.

I really really want to knock it on the head, for a multitude of reasons. Was chatting to my cousin who took the pills which curb the addiction, but a side effect of those is suicidal tendencies.

Not so good.

It will take a brave, and cash rich, Government to ban them completely. Short of growing a baccy bush in my garden it would stop me smoking forever.

So bring it on...!

Gavin Scott wrote:You may not see ads for it, but they've available to buy every 20 feet in any street in Britain. That's pretty far from being banned in any sense of the word. Everyone and anyone can smoke in the street. Or outside of whatever building they are in, and at home.

Maybe, but I'd say the only problem with smoking is the effect on others. In the social sense, they are banned.

Sure, if you take the approach that ciggies aren't so bad, then yes this is an acceptable setup.

Argument as above: smokers themselves know what they are doing, it's their choice etc, if they're not affecting me I don't mind.

I really really want to knock it on the head, for a multitude of reasons. Was chatting to my cousin who took the pills which curb the addiction, but a side effect of those is suicidal tendencies.

It must be hard to quit when there are 'adverts' (in the form of endless packets of cigarettes on display). Perhaps they should be removed from view. But we both know that an absolute ban isn't the answer.

Ban[ning] them completely [...] would stop me smoking forever

That's not true; you may be 'vilified by the public' but cigarettes are a generally socially acceptable drug. So there's no doubt you'd be approached by various shysters (in pubs almost certainly) offering you the chance to buy (imported) cigarettes. Except they'd cost even more.

cdd wrote:You are right that it must be hard to quit when there are 'adverts' (in the form of endless packets of cigarettes on display). Perhaps they should be removed from view. But we both know that an absolute ban isn't the answer.

The SNP administration are calling for them to be "under the counter" up here very soon. Out of sight..out of mind - maybe. Might stop the uptake a little, but if they're in the shop they can be bought.

That's not true; you may be 'vilified by the public' but cigarettes are a generally socially acceptable drug. So there's no doubt you'd be approached by various shysters (in pubs almost certainly) offering you the chance to buy (imported) cigarettes. Except they'd cost even more.

They're not particularly acceptable to many. Some are apathetic, but those who really dislike them are quite vocal about it.

There's always black market stuff flying around - and by the way, if you cut the UK duty they are always cheaper. But I'm not about to start buying from men in clubs.

I genuinely do believe that a ban on this deadly drug is the answer. There's *nothing* positive to say about them - as much as I enjoy a ciggie after dinner.

Gavin Scott wrote:Is all crime associated with "working class" people then?

Sorry, I should've been more specific. I meant that middle class people (by and large) don't have to put up with crime. Some reckon it doesn't even exist and the media makes everything up.

Gavin Scott wrote:I know you said you think it is unseemly to label oneself with a class - but as you keep bringing it up, I would again inquire - what class do you consider yourself to be?

Back when I was studying sociology at college I used to say I was working class, but with middle class values. Now I'm nearly 23, and I don't think it's as simple as that. I honestly can't decide where I am in terms of class or social status, although in this position it does mean I can view all social groups from a neutral standpoint.

I also used to think the class system had changed from being determined by money and wealth to being defined by an individual's attitudes and values. For example, Michael Carroll won £9.7 million on the lottery, but that didn't mean he became middle class overnight. He's still scum, despite having loads of money. But I think it's more comlex than that too.

The biggest problem I've got with the whole thing is that a lot of the people who've made it over the last decade, who've gone from being working to middle, used to whinge on incessantly about how we should all help each other and how rich people were snobs. But now they have made it up the ladder, they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. They've become exactly like the snobs they used to moan about when they were poor.

Gavin Scott wrote:The Tories have more than a "bit of money". And before you say it, its not a "class" thing, its about having an understanding of living on a low to middle income. That's rather difficult to conceptualise when you're very wealthy. Its telling that one of the main points in their agenda is a reduction in inheritance tax liability and capital gains tax. This will benefit the top 5% of the population, and leave the other 95% to make up the balance in the tax shortfall.

Would it be unfair to consider this being an example of the very rich being "self serving"?

But then you could argue that if you reduce their inheritance tax liability and capital gains tax, they'll have more money to spend on the ground and therefore help to get the economy going again. There must be a logical reason the Tories want to do it anyway, unless they've got a death wish and really do want to help the rich become richer.

Gavin Scott wrote:As for cigarettes - I genuinely think that the time for whipping the addicts is over. I think tobacco should be banned outright.

And I say this as a smoker.

I've paid tens of thousands of extra monies into the exchequer (possibly even more than that, scarily) for the luxury of exercising my choice to smoke. I'm taxed to the balls and vilified by the public, yet I pay the most into the system.

So - if they ban it, I will get healthier, and smoking related deaths and illness will be dramatically reduced.

But there will be *billions* less pouring into the exchequer, and Thatcher would be displeased, being on the board of British American Tobacco, as she is (still - despite being as old and crazy as Monty Burns).

I think that since smoking is finally seen as being socially unacceptable, it's time to start focusing more on the alcohol problem now. Many people appear to be using alcohol as a substitute for anti-depressants. I really can't see any other reason why people would drink so much. This applies to all groups from middle income earners who knock back a bottle of wine (or two) every few days, to young people who go out every weekend or hang around drinking on the streets every night.

Gavin Scott wrote:But of course they are deadly and addictive - and I'm stuck with it now. Sure it was my fault for trying them young - but we all did things when we were young that we shouldn't have. Its just that when you start a highly addictive drug you're kind of lumbered.

I agree. I gave up smoking 9 months ago. It's taken 3 years of attempting to give up to last this long without a cigarette, but I often feel as though I'd love nothing more than to have a nice smoke, even after all this time