This thread exists to discuss British politics.
Political issues related to Northern Ireland and the Crown Dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) are also considered on-topic here if there's no more appropriate OTC thread for them.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
As with other OTC threads, off-topic posts may be thumped or edited by the moderators.
- There is a dedicated thread to discuss LGBTQ+ rights in the United Kingdom. That doesn't mean it's always off-topic here, but unless something's directly linked to political events, that's probably a better thread for it.
- There's also a separate thread to talk about your favourite British Prime Ministers.
Recent political stuff:
- The vote to see if Britain should adopt Alternative Voting has failed.
- Lib Dems lose lots of councils and councillors, whilst Labour make the majority of the gains in England.
- The Scottish National Party do really well in the elections.
A link to the BBC politics page containing relevant information.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 3rd 2023 at 11:15:30 AM
Figure of Hourai
I don't think STV is complicated from a voter perspective either, it's just 'number who you like in order, you can stop whenever'. Having two ballots is just as complicated as that (if not more, if anyone then wants to try and understand it)—all the STV complexity is in the counting and apportioning surplus votes.
Avatar Source
Is not actually from Lyniezia
As much as I'm still tempted to go on about voting systems- and to be honest I've learned a few things which might have softened my view on the matter...
What does everyone think about the proposed bill to ban buying cigarettes for people born after a certain time, and put restrictions on vaping?
Personally I think the former part is well intentioned but I'm not sure about the principle of effectively banning things for some legal adults but not other. Plus, if it doesn't actually ban those people banned from actually smoking, would it not be easy enough to have an older friend buy it for you?
If it does work, could it be in part attributed to the fact smoking is as it has been for some time now seen as progressively less socially acceptable? How much of the "young people are smoking less now" anyway attributable to vaping, and what would restrictions on that do?
I do think banning disposible vapes is a good idea if only on environmental grounds.
I also am not exactly comfortable with the practices of either smoking or vaping, especially when I'm around it, but it's the issue of personal liberty...
he/him
Driving is also personal liberty, but we don't allow you to drive when drunk, or without a licence. Smoking potentially harms people other than the smoker.
We could go down the Judge Dredd route and limit it to smokatoriums, but as long as people smoke at home or around others, they'll potentially harm others. Including kids who can't consent.
It's a socially acceptable addictive drug, as opposed to all the criminalised ones. Laudanum may be nice, but my right to drink it is curtailed by the law, and that doesn't directly harm others.
In this case, the majority of the public - across all age ranges - seem to support a ban. I can see some of the practical challenges in enforcing it, but it's certainly popular.
Edited by Mrph1 on Apr 16th 2024 at 6:54:12 PM
A procrastination in of itself
While I’ve not checked the law would likely also make it a criminal offence to buy cigarettes for someone who isn’t allowed to buy them or to sell cigarettes to someone you believe to be buying them for that purpose, both are already crimes in relation to people under 18.
It’s an interesting one, as the one difference between cigarets and other drugs is that even the users don’t like it and wish they weren’t users. Smokers don’t argue that it provides them a pleasant feeling and is fine in moderation the way that drinkers do. Tobacco is one of those rare drugs that is only harmful and had a negative impact on the people around you.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Is not actually from Lyniezia
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That smoking harms people other than the smoker is already partly covered by the law- i.e. you can't smoke in enclosed public spaces where people are most likely to be affected by passive smoking. Thing is if you're not actually smoking around someone else the harm is minimal. To compare driving- well, simply by doing that you are putting people somewhat at risk, even if you are licensed, sober, and following the Highway code to the letter.note I'll admit the whole car dependent society is one of my favourite bugbears, but pushing that would be off topic... plus there are other reasons why motor vehicles are accepted in terms of utility, whereas smoking has little real utility other than personal pleasure.[[/note]]
There is the argument that banning intoxicating substances is generally counterproductive anyway, as it doesn't kill demand and pushes supply onto an unregulated black market where the substances can be cut with more dangerous additives. Not to mention the Forbidden Fruit effect!
As I say if this does work I think it will be because smoking in particular is broadly seen as socially unacceptable anyway.
Edited by TheLyniezian on Apr 16th 2024 at 7:10:57 PM
Is not actually from Lyniezia
That would be worth checking out. The question is how enforcable that is.
That's interesting, and if so might well be part of the reason it isn't accepted in the same way...
he/him
Banning smoking in public places doesn't prevent smoking at home. Hence the point about raising children in a smoky house — I grew up in one like that, although my parents eventually stopped.
A procrastination in of itself
Yeah, while we have banned smoking in a car with a child present that’s not yet been extended to doing it in homes.
I’d guess it’s as enforceable as the current law is. So generally people will be able to do it if they actually want to purchase such stuff for someone under-age, but the basic fact that it’s illegal means such actions require a level of effort and the lazy or passive are deterred away.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
New Zealand’s trying this. I can see the rationale. You can’t just ban snoking because it’s incredibly addictive and will drive current smokers to the black market. But if you make it so that the next generation never starts smoking, that phases it out over time. How many young people who’ve never smoked before are going to actively seek out black market cigarettes? And how many have family members who will buy them for them despite it being illegal?
We’ve known how harmful smoking is for a long time, and most of the other measures to reduce it (no advertising, warning messages on packs) have already been done. So it seems worth a try, and I’m curious to see how it goes.
Edited by Galadriel on Apr 16th 2024 at 3:13:03 AM
A procrastination in of itself
New Zealand has actually scrapped its law of the same nature as of November 2023.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Oh right, the election. Unfortunate.
he/him
That's the one big problem with this approach - it's easy for any future government to unpick it.
Disasturbator
Thats why you have to pass a law before you leave office that makes it illegal to undo your legislation!
New theme music also a box
Not really possible. Even Germany can't do that.
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
he/him
"No Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change" (from here). It's one of the key rules.
Nolo contendere
Given that I'm American I very much expect someone to tell me to go back to "my old thread", but I'll bite.
So you mean there will never be a law that simply copy-pastes the opening words of the First Amendment, but replaces "Congress shall make no law" with says "Parliament shall make no law"?
Ironically enough, there was a crowdsourced UK Constitution project in 2015 by the London School of Economics.
he/him
On a different note, from today's PMQs:
Lib Dem MO Sarah Olney mentions a rape victim who was told it would cost £7,000 to get a transcript of her attacker's trial. In another case someone was told it would cost £22,000.
From the Guardian:
I'm sure he didn't quite mean that. Making free transcripts available to murder victims on request... sounds like an option thar will rarely be used...
Nolo contendere
That seems... insane to me.
Further, your affiant sayeth naught.
he/him
It is.
But hey, it's much cheaper if you're already dead.
(Cynically, I do wonder how restrictive they are about who can claim the free/discounted transcript in a murder case. I see plenty of scope for "you weren't married, you pay full price" or "siblings don't count")
Edited by Mrph1 on Apr 17th 2024 at 2:51:31 PM
Tief girl with eartude
Tories acting like making it slightly cheaper to get a very important slip of paper, and acting like that's a huge favour.
Sounds familiar.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
A procrastination in of itself
Such a law can be passed, it’s just that Parliament can choose to pass a law overturning that law whenever it pleases. You know how the thought experiment of “Can God make a boulder so heavy he could not lift it?” is answered by “Yes, and then he could lift it”, Parliament is the same.
Parliament even does this at times, we not long ago passed a law saying that election dates were fixed and it would take two third of Parliment to call an early election, we then threw out said law and only needed a majority vote to do it.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
A procrastination in of itself
Keep in mind that Parliament has literally asserted control over time in certain instances, a day in Parliament ends when Parliament decides to be done for the day and not a moment sooner. This does in some instances lead to a Parliamentary day going well into the following calendar day, but as far as Parliament is concerned it’s the day hey started until the finish.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
While AMS can be complicated from a back end perspective it’s very simple from a voter perspective, you vote once for a local person and once for a party. That’s what gives it an advantage over STV or Ranked Choice. Full Party List is also simple but you loose the local connection and empower part H Qs a ton.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran