1,542 comments posted · 6 followers · following 0
MPs should be talking about supply-side reforms needed to release wealth into the productive private sector, instead of listing ways for the state to pick yet more out wealth of our pockets.
The 10-year proposal isn't "characteristic" at all. It's unrelated to unreasonably soft sentencing for violent and damaging crimes. Gauke's conflation of the two issues is the kind of sleazy argumentation that led to his political failure.
Gauke was part of the problem, exposing normal people to more and more risk of criminality, and rejecting the concerns of normal people as "tabloid".
Thank God we removed him.
It's international "law", and therefore politics. There is no authority to enforce it.
We now have peer-reviewed science demonstrating that the most restrictive interventions have done nothing to stop the virus.
It doesn't matter what your personal prejudices are. They don't change the fact that letting a member of any non-vulnerable group jump the queue puts a vulnerable person at increased risk of death. Anecdotes and prejudice aren't good enough evidence to take such a step.
The people of Manchester never wanted a mayor, and said No when the question was put in a referendum.
A Conservative government that wanted to do something popular with the people of Manchester would give Burnham the GLC treatment.
Because they're not expecting to really need to jump it.
They're expecting an activist judge who will make a political determination on flimsy evidence.
Starmer's going to bomb. Who else have they got?
The people of Manchester rejected the idea, but still the wets foisted it upon them.
This site would benefit greatly from a real-names-only comment policy, enforced by photo ID verification.
The site’s blog posts aren't anonymous, or made under fake names. There’s no reason below-the-line comments should be any different.
That would sort out the spammers and the trolls.