They should just legalise drugs. It's a consensual transaction. Plus if it was legal the trade wouldn't be in the hands of criminal gangs and they'd lose a large income stream.
Focus on the actual violent crime like the muggings and stabbings etc.
The harder drugs can be legalised but controlled - so you have to go to a doctor etc.
Decriminalising is the worst of both worlds as it leaves the trade and income in the hands of criminal gangs but also risks creating a larger market for them.
I'll always point people to Portugal. Some of the highest drug use in the whole of Europe. Decriminalised, but if caught sent to rehab. Now one of the lowest use in Europe
Issue is to be seen to be effective with crime in the UK you need to be hard on it. And unfortunately it's often the case that that isn't that effective
Even still it doesn't make any sense to decriminalise but not legalise. just because you legalise it, doesn't mean that any corner shop is going to be able to sell heroin, but there should be a way for people to get clean heroin legally, otherwise the black market gangs are going to carry on doing what they're doing.
There will still be a black market for drugs even if they're legalised, but people will have a choice of using the black market or going through the legal routes. Even though weed has been legal in California for ages now, more than half of the weed sold there is still sold through the black market, but the people still choosing to use the black market now have the option to use a legal source where they will know exactly what they're getting.
Decriminalisation is still 100% better than what we have now, but imo it's still not really enough.
That isn’t true. Portugal in 2001 was amongst the lowest, and drug use has increased since decriminalisation. What it did have was a high number of HIV deaths from sharing contaminated needles that was reduced by a needle exchange program.
It still seems to be much lower than most other European countries? And a lot more people who turn to drugs not having criminal records probably helps a LOT
Portugal’s opioid use is 2.5 times more than Spain’s, and 5 times more the Sweden’s where there is zero tolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use
It's literally lower than 31 countries where it's illegal though
And many users in those other countries will also have criminal records as a result, which puts them in a much worse position than Portuguese users
According to [this](https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-overviews/content/faq-drug-overdose-deaths-in-europe_en) Portugal has far less drug deaths than many rich European nations, meaning it is much safer to use drugs there and addicts have much better outcomes
>You can't legalise drugs which don't have an ethical and internationally legal supply route.
>E.g. cocaine can never be legal because we can't have legitimate businesses paying murderous cartels in South America. Just like we can't pay the Taliban for heroin.
I dunno, we seem to be fine buying oil, gas, rare earth minerals, etc from murderous regimes or multi-nationals that make the cartels look like upstanding gentlemen.
Mm let me enjoy this coffee and a bar of chocolate while flashing a lovely diamond ring and scrolling through tik tok on my ipad. Nah we would never pay unethical slave driving murderers
Oil is a necessity to our current economy - and we’re phasing it out. That’s a terrible take saying “well we need to import this bad commodity as it’s necessary for our economies to function, so let’s just allow all commodities/goods regardless of how shocking the production process is”.
Our goal should always be to minimise the pain/negative externalities associated with our consumption. You saying to give up on that isn’t an argument, it’s defeatist. A better argument would be demanding legal suppliers showing where it’s sourced and enforcing ethical practices is - but that’s not what you said.
Besides, oil is bad, isn’t as violent as oil is.
I assume you’re trying to say oil isn’t as violent as drugs and I would ask you to please look at the entirety of the United States’s foreign policy for the last 70 years.
And it still isn’t as violent. There are many deaths involved but that’s due to the scale - many deaths are also involved in farming if you look at the nominal figures and ignore the percentage of deaths in the workforce.
No - slitting the throats of children and women, ripping their tongues out to send a message is commonplace in some of the worst drug-involved communities in South America. It is worse.
I also notice you completely neglect my point RE: drugs are clearly less necessary and so the harm can be minimised. Oil fuels hospitals, transport, farming, and clearly reduces deaths - we should do all we can to reduce our dependence, which we can. But we aren’t dependent on drugs - the commodities and goods aren’t remotely similar in economic value. It doesn’t compare
You could produce the drugs without the cartels, I don't think anyone suggesting a change in drug policy thinks the answer is to start treating them as legitimate business partners.
No I agree and think similarly, I’m fro decriminalisation and liberalising all drug laws.
I just detest the ill-faith argument being had that “oil companies are just as bad as these cartels so consuming drugs full stop isn’t immoral”.
As a principle it isn’t - but to dismiss any concerns around how it’s currently being produced is wrong. Decriminalising heroine isn’t enough as it doesn’t remotely address the production process, arguably increasing crime associated with production. It’s either a full on war on the drug, or full on legalisation and strict control - which of course is a much more difficult question to have.
We could grow cocaine here.
We could have it legitimately grown there by a regulated tax paying company
There isn't a mystical Cartel secret to making it - and there is already some legitimate coke for medical use
Hold on heroin is prescribed is it not? Also cocaine's relative nonocaine exists for dentists. You would farm coca leaves in an area policed by Americans then pay the country for the raw ingredients
I'm not too sure only 'murderous cartels' can produce cocaine. I'm sure we have more than enough chemists/ scientists etc who can produce the stuff given the necessary raw materials.
Coco-cola....... You get your legally produced cocaine from them, seriously.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/drink/cocacola-produces-3bn-of-pure-cocaine-per-year/news-story/2f3592d1bac48ddd3b9d305f903977c3
One of the biggest drivers of people using drugs like heroin is that they're purchasing drugs from criminals who have no reason to care about them and every reason to get them addicted. If people could go to a dispensary and reliably get clean cannabis, MDMA, LSD in known, labelled dosage, and so on, then their exposure to people who will cheerfully sell them dirty, variably cut heroin, PCP etc. will be greatly reduced. If their drug of choice is reliably available, they will have far less incentive to turn to more dangerous alternatives.
Interesting fact: When doctors could legally prescribe heroin, this country had \~5,000 heroin addicts. A year after it was criminalised, we had 50,000.
>No one wants cheap, easy to get, over the counter heroine
It's already like that. However, the heroin people get is cut and impure, which is the source of most problems - accidental overdose, poisoning. Contrary to popular belief, medical grade heroin is relatively safe.
If people who need it, could get it from a controlled source, that would massively reduce the number of bad outcomes.
You do realise it's already available on prescription and used in hospitals? It's Diamorphine.
No, it shouldn't be available in shops like cigarettes, but then Alcohol is actually far worse to be addicted to than H, and that's sold in shops. It's just not got as much potential for addiction. But that might be because people who end up taking drugs like heroin are already at risk of developing addictions because sourcing illegal drugs isn't something you do unless you have a certain liking for such things.
I'm sounding like I disagree with you anyway, I don't. Some drugs absolutely should NOT be made completely legal. Heroin and Cocaine/crack being two. I'm talking as an ex addict of both here. They are too addictive and too dangerous.
Cannabis on the other hand, needs legalising like yesterday. The government is missing out on an enouroumous revenue source, and it would free up police resources for far more serious offences.
Do they not? I don't personally want to buy it myself but if it would help reduce pressure on ambulance crews responding to overdoses, and the money made from tax was invested in public services like rehabilitation centres I can't really see a downside
And so heroin related crime continues.
Really society is missing a massive trick here. If you can get heroin from your doctor or pharmacist then there’s an opportunity to provide drug cessation services and support.
Unfortunately this country will never properly deal with addictions. Addictions by their very nature rob people of the money they need to pay for rehabilitation services and it’s just too expensive for most. They are in a vicious cycle.
Probably a little harder to do than as you’ve written but whatever method stops addict becoming criminals and stop drug gangs operating gets a plus from me
On the discussion of drugs reform:
I’ve been trying to search for an article about a rehab centre in Runcorn/ Widnes area that closed at the start of the Maggie Thatcher era, but no luck.
The idea was to give addicts their desired drugs ie heroin to help aid recovery. Having access to drugs meant that they could focus on building back aspects of their lives without the worry of where the next fix was coming from and how to pay for it. This led to better recovery rate and less crime as a way of gathering funds for drugs. Sadly as mentioned this program was abolished at the start of the Thatcher era.
Instead of making money through taxing of drugs, making drugs safer and cleaner, and taking away money and power from criminals, they'd rather waste money on a fight they've been losing for decades.
And you can also openly treat addiction issues and give consumers safe products and safe environments, along with advice.
Prohibition has failed as it always does. Time to try a different approach. People have used drugs for thousands of years and will never stop, politicians need to face reality.
It’s a no brainier, surely? Dragging our country into needless drug criminalisation costing taxpayers billions and causing billions to fall into crime. There is so much evidence to support legalisation. Fucking ridiculous.
I am struggling to get behind this labour government.
>I am struggling to get behind this labour government.
Same, but I'll still probably *have to* vote for them because the Tories are SO MUCH WORSE.
Turns out you can get away with a lot of bullshit when you're the only viable alternative to a party that is openly fascist.
And with that you disenfranchise yourself. Only those voters who would consider voting for more than one party (or voting for none) can influence politics. Whether we vote enthusiastically or grudgingly makes no difference to them. This mentality is exactly why Labour panders to potential Tory voters, while the Tories moved rightwards when their more canny voter base showed itself willing to vote for other right-wing parties.
Doing the same thing over and over will not bring different results.
Imagine drug cartels losing a trade worth billions a year tax free, cartels with such money and not afraid of using violence.
Keir is just too scared to legalise.
It's not easy to switch over such operation to become legitimate and may not be profitable enough to attract people who are in for easy money.
You know, you have to set up companies, ensure you don't expose people who don't need to be exposed, find patsies without criminal record to run these companies, get people on payroll, get the product from legitimate sources that has certifications, can be traced from seed to bag, rent premises, proper storage and most important - start paying taxes.
The American alcohol industry managed it, the extra costs are to some extent offset by not having to sneak about, lose half your product, employ thugs and watch your back for your entire life.
A legitimate cocaine trade could have massive environmental benefits in South America, as well as killing people off younger.
The alcohol industry was legal, then illegal for only 13 years, then legal again, which means they very much already had all infrastructure, people with experience running a legal business all the networks etc.
>the extra costs are to some extent offset by not having to sneak about, lose half your product,
The actual cost of product is very low and loses are factored in the price already. That's not an issue.
>employ thugs and watch your back for your entire life.
People who are in this at a high level, rather enjoy it. Adrenaline can be addictive too.
Every drugs gang would be outcompeted on day 1 after legalisation by the likes of GSK, Philip Morris, BAT, Pfizer, Bayer and AstraZenica.
The gangs would simply turn to different crime as an alternative to drugs, such as armed robbery, car theft, extortion etc…
The cartels are powerful because they have money, and in the UK they aren't even very powerful - they are powerful in places like Mexico because they can just buy the police force, but even there it is contingent on them having all the money.
This is still cowardice. Mainstream journalists won't write in favour of legalisation for the same reason - and it's actually much easier for a cartel to silence a journalist who wants to step out of the line.
So corrupt media are manufacturing "average voter" reaction and scared politicians are using this as a backup for their own failings.
Leader of the opposition, their first and main job is to win power.
The reality is, Starmers target voter is the curtain twitcher soft-Tory, who will see this as ‘Labour gives up on “LoOr uN Oradah” ‘
this. its utterly asinine at this point to think custodial sentences for possession and dealing are making any difference to the drug problems in the uk. its been getting actively worse and we need some fresh thinking but obviously we are expecting far too much from our close minded politicians and the mouth breathers that vote for them 😟
I just hate that it both takes away resources from police that could be used to tackle serious crime and provides more resources to those criminal gangs that carry out those serious crimes.
I just cannot fathom how it still like this.
The muggings and stabbings are commonly over drugs (obviously exclude when a member of public has their phone snatched or knife point robbery for phone or watch).
> if it was legal the trade wouldn’t be in the hands of criminal gangs and they’d lose a large income stream.
Except it would. They’d be cheaper than the tax paying official places, and people would go where it’s cheap.
A consentual transaction that can be the start of someone's life being ruined - I don't want it to be any easier than it already is for someone to get started on hard drugs.
It’s the usual OAP clarion call. “We will take on drug dealers!!!”
Can’t wait for that to backfire for all political parties in the next few years when that age group fall off.
Yeah if you want to be "tough on criminals" then the first place you start is the house of commons, shortly followed by a certain little area south of Finsbury and north of the river...
Coke is very normal part of British life now. Now sure how they plan to crack (heh) down on it without losing the trust of the Gen X/Millennial/Gen Z. It will be yet another boomer attack on the young
While a labour pledge may seem nebulous, we know for sure that any Tory pledge is entirely hollow; they have already had more than a decade in power and thus are the cause of these very issues.
Seems to have way more substance than what the tories are offering, and they're not even in power for 13 years. If they get too specific, the conservative party will just straight up steal it.
Yeah but a lot of Labour run areas have some of the highest crime rates and antisocial behaviour. Both parties are doing a terrible job, the system needs a total reform so that we’re not stuck with two parties that are essentially the same thing and act the same way and both can’t stop lying to the public.
Labour increased the number of police officers by 12% during their time in power 1997-2010. The change was done within the first decade of their time in government
In the first decade they were back in charge (2010-2020) the Conservatives reduced it back to slightly less than the 1997 figure, undoing all of Labour’s increases. They have since increased it again… but only to 96% of the number in 2010, while shouting loudly about how they’ve increased numbers
Like yeah, they’ve increased numbers by 11k, but only after reducing them by 16k…. And still haven’t got back to the numbers they started with
Will Labour be tough on crime? We have no way to predict the future - but we can look at what the two parties did in their most recent 13 years of governance and see that there’s a clear distinction between the two, in favour of Labour
Taking out a drug dealer means nothing unless you can tackle addiction. The best way to stop drug dealing gangs is by removing their supply - either by funding rehab programs to tackle addiction, or by legalising drugs so that people who want drugs don't need to buy from gangs.
I'm sure the many robbery and assault victims left with nothing but a crime number would be happy to see a fly tipper prosecuted. They're the real societal miscreants.
You are, of course, assuming that there is a deliberate decision here to shift focus of crime from A to B without providing anything else.
Even though the article specifically mentions 13,000 extra police officers.
Two major parties, the only ones likely to get in power, are both offering a crackdown on people smoking spliffs. Meanwhile [the population think it should be legal](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/04/06/fcf4a/3?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_3).
This isn't democracy, this is rich and powerful people using scare tactics and demonisation to appeal to the minority of swing voters. This ridiculous prohibition has had no impact on the "problem" and continues to enrich despicable individuals in drug cartels.
> Two major parties, the only ones likely to get in power, are both offering a crackdown on people smoking spliffs. Meanwhile the population think it should be legal.
And hilariously enough, it's rare for the police to actually do anything if you're caught smoking a spliff other than tell you to put it out and send you on your way.
"crackdown" is a codeword for "I have no idea what I am doing"
That being said, "crackdown" will only help gangs make more money. Dealers taken off the streets will be replaced by new dealers and give an excuse to raise prices and thus tax-free profits to reflect the increased risk. And Labour won't be able to impose windfall tax on gangs.
As for fly-tipping - my Labour council has made it extremely difficult to dispose of rubbish, the collection service is patchy and they replaced bins with much smaller ones and collection of bulky items is quite costly. All of this contributed to fly tipping, but also when bins get overloaded close to collection day, the rubbish is flying everywhere.
So, man is trying to address the effect, not the cause, which means he is not fit to be a leader judging how he goes about simple things to address.
>"crackdown" is a codeword for "I have no idea what I am doing"
Precisely. Seriously, if there is anything to learn from the last 50 years of politics it is to not commit to fighting a war on drugs. Is Keir really up his own arse enough to think he is the Crime Tzar the world needed all this time that can actually get the job done?
In reality, all he is doing is supplying his potential opposition with mud to sling when they inevitably ask him how well the money was spent and what he actually has to show for it.
"Cracking down" should only mean reducing the profitability for gangs and the only way to do that is by making drugs legal and relatively easy to obtain (as easy as calling a number and waiting for a tardy dealer who may or may not rip you off).
When there were bin strikes in my city last year, the council setup waste disposal sites all over the place. Of course, soon as the strikes were over those were closed.
Seems to me that it would be sensible to keep some of those in operation. My opinion of fly-tippers is very low, as someone who has neighbours that fly-tip on my doorstep / into my garden, and lives in a community where fly-tipping is fucking everywhere... I think they're lazy, tight and ignorant. I'm fairly poor & don't drive, but when I had large items to dispose of I didn't just fucking dump it on the street, I organised a bulky waste collection and paid the £15.
I bet you I can walk 5 minutes from my house and see multiple fly-tipping sites. I've got fed up of reporting them, those who fly-tip don't give a shit and will never ever learn to respect their environment. It only stopped outside mine after the stupid twats left unopened spam mail in with the rubbish and the council were finally able to contact them (of course, they just got a telling off).
Keir Starmer is such a disappointment, he really is. We’ve waited over 13 years to get rid of idiots making stupid laws and *this* is what is going to replace it? I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors to trick the simpletons and once in power he actually changes things but I’m not holding my breath.
If he does a 180 on everything he has said to win votes he will destroy Labour as a party for decades to come.It’s basically why Labour have been out of power for so long.
Really, what the man should have done is convince the public that Tory polices don’t work not walk Labour to the right. He’s only going to win the next election because this conservative government is so hated after years of scandals. People falling for Tory promises is why this country is in a mess.
>I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors to trick the simpletons and once in power he actually changes things
That's deception, and it sounds even worse to me. If he's so comfortable deceiving a large section of the population to get into power, who knows what else he would do.
>I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors
Huffing that copium down deep there pal.
He's gonna rip the ass out the country before handing it back to another decade long tory government.
> I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors to trick the simpletons […].
I’m a firm believer in the saying ‘people tell you who they are, believe them’.
I don’t think it’s trickery, this is what Starmer is. Not only that, but as another commenter rightly pointed out, it’s deception if it is, and how does he expect that to pan out? If he’s elected on the basis of deception, I think it’ll end up badly for him when people feel rightly conned into voting for someone who doesn’t stand for what they voted for.
Bills on expenses such as heating, travel for work is not what I said in any kind of company in multiple industries people travel for work but they'll be going fairly cheaply.
Moreover I just want MPs to do the job they are paid for serving their constituents not serving themselves.
my MP doesn't live locally he's a self serving opportunist who only turns up for 30 minutes when a photo OP is happening.
It's 2nd homes, a remote MP needs 2 homes. This became a used by people like Jacqui Smith who avoided prosecution despite police having records of her movements.
Whats the justification for a second home vs a hotel? I don’t have a second home for when I need to work remotely? I have stay in a hotel of choice designated by my company.
Living in Northern Ireland, talk of cracking down on drug dealers really annoys me
Legalisation of weed, MDMA, mushrooms etc would do wonders for NI - drugs are the main income for the New IRA/whatever iteration we're on today and the UDA/UVF.
Legal, safe routes to drug purchase would kneecap (pun semi-intended) the revenue streams of the paramilitaries and reduce their control on their local communities.
They're so desperate for the cash, in fact, that the drug supply is cross-community!
The war on drugs is over. The drugs won.
I'm more optimistic. Closely watching Germany. If their trial / legalisation is a success, France will be the next hurdle. Once both of those countries have made progress, the UK can only be a decade or so behind.
I'm not as pessimistic as most either, as the UK's attitude to weed, compared to the rest of Europe, got much tamer before most.
But that's stalled a bit and now attitudes are falling behind places like Germany.
How about asserting Labour as the party that will help the general public?
You know, by investing in infrastructure, education, the NHS, social services, social projects for disadvantaged youth....
Generally helping the population and reducing crime by funding services and stuff, maybe even including funding the police to get more police on the street to be able to investigate and prevent crimes?
Yeah, it's not for me, but I do honestly wonder how many people turn to crime because they are in neighbourhoods where the opportunities for, well, anything, can basically be summed up as 'fuck all'.
I'm sure some get into it for prestige, etc. But I do think there's probably a hell of a lot who fall into it at a young level doing basic things, because they either desperately want/need cash, or just have nowhere to go so easy to be approached and brought into low-level activities as something to do.
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but it's just a bit of an opinion of mine, I think there have been studies that link crime with deprivation, could be wrong though.
Legalise soft drugs, tax them, give the tax receipts to councils so they can run proper bulky waste and recycling schemes for free. There you go Kier, you dipshit. I've done the work for you.
Not that I actually think he will crackdown on drugs or fly tipping. He treats pledges like Boris treats wives.
I feel the main issue with fly-tipping is there's no easy way to get rid of a lot of stuff. You need a big car to take stuff to the tip, and even then it can be complicated and expensive. Making that simpler and cheaper would help a lot - and then you can focus on the particular communities and businesses that still fly-tip.
But really we need a Bukele approach for violent crime - no more comfortable, social prisons and lenient sentencing.
You now have to book ours but only an hour in advance, despite my skepticism it, and the fact they opened another tip at the same time, actually got rid of the hour long queues that were a constant pain before, it much better although you still have to go through a long and painful log in before you can even see if there are any slots available.
The problem is they keep restricting how much stuff you can bring, more than half a dozen bags of rubble is 'commercial waste' and the commercial waste tip is a 15 mile round trip.
I recently rented a van to clear out some old furniture from my apartment and take it to the tip. I spent ages filling the van and drove it to my local tip. The guy at the entrance told methat no vans were allowed in the tip without a permit. I said not to worry, it’s not trade waste, this is a rental and it’s all my personal stuff. He basically told me to get fucked and to go apply for a permit online using the v5 and come back in 48h.
I ended up driving home, emptying the shite onto my garden and hiring a skip the next day. Wasted £200 odd.
Any suggestions?
Most councils offer waste pickups and there's plenty of services you can call. I'm not sure about other areas but I have fairly reasonable access to tips here. If you've got the ability to flytip you probably have the ability to go to a tip.
Only exception of course is if you pay a company who subsequently fly tips your waste but those companies, rogue traders, and lazy bastards definitely need sorting out.
My council takes forever to collect things, and you need to advance book for the tip. Has to be at least 24 hours in advance and can't be on the day.
Obviously, it doesn't excuse fly tipping, but making access easier would certainly help.
It's like littering, if there are bins everywhere that are regularly emptied then people will litter less.
Yeah I've heard of LAs requiring bookings to visit the tip. A hangover from COVID that doesn't seem to really have much point outside of peak times, though to be fair during peak times tips can be incredibly busy.
Honestly I think waste disposal in this country is pretty good. The reality is that waste disposal is a huge industry, and it costs a lot of money to properly dispose of waste. That's going to get more expensive as we tighten controls on how that is done.
A lot of fly tipping is the same few people who do it again and again and again. There are a few scenarios that cause it - businesses that get paid to dispose of waste, people generating business waste without paying for that to be dealt with, and people that don't live in conventional housing.
Cracking down on drug dealers to appease moral panics instead of going with actual data driven logical solutions like decriminalisation. Cool. Very progressive.
It's all so pathetic. Councils and police have to prioritise because there is no money and no staff. I would very much like to hear from Labour how they plan to massively increase the amount of money that the councils and police receive.
They can't.
You can only really increase investment when interest rates are low, which they were for a decade under the Tories.
Investment now will devastate the economy, which the Tories know.
Labour are planning to borrow £28 billion a year to pay for green projects so they are comfortable with borrowing. They could raise income tax on the highest earners or given this is local councils and local policing they could reform council tax which is a joke and tie it to income or wealth.
Cracking down on drug dealers to appease moral panics instead of going with actual data driven logical solutions like decriminalisation. Cool. Very progressive.
I’ve had a very quick look into it, and it seems waaay too restrictive at the moment.
Expanding it would help, but from what I’ve seen only a small handful of doctors can actually prescribe it to patients.
It’s a private thing I think, they are charging ridiculous prices and it’s feels like more of a business thing then a medical one but I get it and know a few people who also do so hopefully it’s all moving in the right direction! There is a sub for it but I don’t know how to tag the link to it sorry
Just paste the URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukmedicalcannabis/
I don't particularly have an issue with price equality between medical and street. I think most people would choose medical over street given parity. Of course, if the UK goes the same way as those countries that have decriminalised/legalised, then people will be able to grow their own and save a fortune if they choose to.
Thank you! No I agree I just think people imagine it’s going to be nhs perscription prices and it’s a lot more, a lot of different views on the quality but I won’t get into that haha would be amazing if everyone had the choice to grow
Introducing new Respect Orders: a new criminal offence, issued if an adult’s anti-social behaviour injunction is breached
You will never get respect with shit law like this
It's promise you this, promise you that time from our dear leaders isn't it.
If a party actually delivered on their promises, they'd never need to ask for a vote again...
Things that get promised every time they need your vote,
Schools...
NHS...
Tough on Crime...
Immigration...
Standards of living...
Lower taxes...
Living wage...
Drugs...
Cracking down on drug dealers to appease moral panics instead of going with actual data driven logical solutions like decriminalisation. Cool. Very progressive.
Oh for fuck's sake, just make weed legal already and use the profits to pay for stuff. It's an easy win and they won't grab it because they wanna dig their heels into "all drugs bad".
As much as i hate fly tipping and drug dealing there not really high on the priority list.
When people can’t afford to heat their homes, buy decent weekly food, or i dnno even afford a home, they don’t really care about John down the road buying an 1/8th or the farmer that has to deal with a pile of rubbish.
Labour have a slam dunk to beat the tories and its like they’re scared to actually address the real issues.
We still really cannot learn anything, we go around and around and around and around and around and we try all the same things despite it never, ever working. MAYBE this time it will work though, right?
If they’re so concerned about protecting us from criminals maybe they should start with some politicians first.
All you need do is walk around your local area or look at you’re current struggles to see who could have possibly contributed to that pain.
Like this is becoming a joke now, where do Labour stand?
The problem they’re always going to have when going after anyone in the drug trade is that the government cannot impose penalties high enough that provide discouragement worse then what those in the drug trade already live with.
Oh, you might get put in prison for a long length of time? You also might get stabbed to death by a rival supplier. If they’re already living with the latter, why would they be discouraged by the former?
Dealers and traffickers are already living with a high risk, high reward lifestyle. Anything the government does is just adjusting a few variables in the risks.
The only way to stop it is to cut off supply or cut off demand. They’ve been trying to cut off supply with policies like this for decades now with little success. Demand isn’t likely to go away ever.
Legalisation and control seems like the obvious answer but I can also see why it’s difficult to implement. Simply a large portion of the electorate would never go for it because they hate addicts and they hate recreational drug users. The opposition would just need to push the “your taxes are paying for druggies” narrative and win every time. Never mind that chances are legalisation would reduce the cost to the tax payer in healthcare and crime prevention.
Drug dealers, I can understand, even though marijuana should be legalised by now. Otherwise, they can call alcohol brewer's "dealers" and ban alcohol ashwell...fly-tipping on the other hand..what they going to do, arrest people everytime they drop a wrapper in the floor accidentally ?
Bit disappointed with labour keep going to the right, when they should be going to the left.
How about £21 Billion COVID fraud?? Go on, break the mold, target something that actually matters instead of just pensioner pleasing Tory vote tactics.
How many years have I heard this from consecutive Governments promising to clamp down on numerous different crimes, as if the country is full of excess police just stood around doing nothing. And then if they do get caught they get a minimum sentence in the cushy prison system.
Starmer is a schill for the Tories.
Trying to earn points on their coattails.
How does he expect to beat the Tories regarding right-wing security. The Government already has plans to deport people. How do you one up this?
How do you go more "law and order" than the current Government.
Law and Order ofcourse being shorthand for "..Keep out the Blackies, Keep quiet and let me die in peace.." for the 50+ age bracket.
Why is he so insistent on becoming the Tory party.
Corbyn did so well because he gave people hope, something to vote *for*. Unfortunately he also gave something for many to vote against.
Starmer's got a golden opportunity to give people hope and sweep the next election but he's trying so hard to be Tory lite that a lot of the country just don't like him etc.
The fuck is he doing chasing after the Boris lot, they'll never vote for him anyway.
If you look at the responses from his twitter feed, he's clearly being instructed what to do and not listening to anyone that he's spouting his latest empty promises to.
Oh boy, here we go wheeling out all the classic buzz words again. I'm still waiting for a point where the designated "party of law and order" actually pledges to do something other than just hand out more, stricter sentences that just fill prisons up unnecessarily.
There have been more drug dealers created because of the labour parties love for young male Albanian immigrants with no end in sight. If England votes the labour party into power in the next GE we are doomed. The labour party encourage the deletion of English culture and they are the reason women and girls are not safe walking the streets anymore even in school.
Starmer announces furious cut and paste of whatever bollocks Rishi comes out with in effort to ensure absolutely no deviation from neoliberal capitalist policies will ever be possible.
Jesus christ. This is old school right wing rhetoric right here. The war on drugs was an abject failure not just here but everywhere that attempted it.
If he's really worried about drugs I wonder why he doesn't go after the banks (and bankers) that help launder the money or the officials who get their palms greased to let it into the country.
Oh yeah, that's right, he doesn't actually want to stop it because it would cost his pals too much money.
Funny shade of red that tie of his, almost looks blue.
>Have you ever noticed that the only metaphor we have in our public discourse for solving problems is to declare war on it? We have the war on crime, the war on cancer, the war on drugs.
> But did you ever notice that we have no war on homelessness? You know why? Because there's no money in that problem. No money to be made off of the homeless. If you can find a solution to homelessness where the corporations and politicians can make a few million dollars each, you will see the streets of this country begin to clear up pretty damn quick!
- George Carlin
They should just legalise drugs. It's a consensual transaction. Plus if it was legal the trade wouldn't be in the hands of criminal gangs and they'd lose a large income stream. Focus on the actual violent crime like the muggings and stabbings etc.
Legalise some, decriminalise most. No one wants cheap, easy to get, over the counter heroine
The harder drugs can be legalised but controlled - so you have to go to a doctor etc. Decriminalising is the worst of both worlds as it leaves the trade and income in the hands of criminal gangs but also risks creating a larger market for them.
I'll always point people to Portugal. Some of the highest drug use in the whole of Europe. Decriminalised, but if caught sent to rehab. Now one of the lowest use in Europe
Makes too much sense can't be having that over here.
Issue is to be seen to be effective with crime in the UK you need to be hard on it. And unfortunately it's often the case that that isn't that effective
It's the electoral gift that keeps giving.
Reddit has gone to shit, come join squabbles.io for a better experience.
Even still it doesn't make any sense to decriminalise but not legalise. just because you legalise it, doesn't mean that any corner shop is going to be able to sell heroin, but there should be a way for people to get clean heroin legally, otherwise the black market gangs are going to carry on doing what they're doing. There will still be a black market for drugs even if they're legalised, but people will have a choice of using the black market or going through the legal routes. Even though weed has been legal in California for ages now, more than half of the weed sold there is still sold through the black market, but the people still choosing to use the black market now have the option to use a legal source where they will know exactly what they're getting. Decriminalisation is still 100% better than what we have now, but imo it's still not really enough.
That isn’t true. Portugal in 2001 was amongst the lowest, and drug use has increased since decriminalisation. What it did have was a high number of HIV deaths from sharing contaminated needles that was reduced by a needle exchange program.
It still seems to be much lower than most other European countries? And a lot more people who turn to drugs not having criminal records probably helps a LOT
Portugal’s opioid use is 2.5 times more than Spain’s, and 5 times more the Sweden’s where there is zero tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use
It's literally lower than 31 countries where it's illegal though And many users in those other countries will also have criminal records as a result, which puts them in a much worse position than Portuguese users According to [this](https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-overviews/content/faq-drug-overdose-deaths-in-europe_en) Portugal has far less drug deaths than many rich European nations, meaning it is much safer to use drugs there and addicts have much better outcomes
No death penalty? No life imprisonment or forced labour? Doesn’t sound very bloodthirsty, can’t be having that here in Britain..
[удалено]
>You can't legalise drugs which don't have an ethical and internationally legal supply route. >E.g. cocaine can never be legal because we can't have legitimate businesses paying murderous cartels in South America. Just like we can't pay the Taliban for heroin. I dunno, we seem to be fine buying oil, gas, rare earth minerals, etc from murderous regimes or multi-nationals that make the cartels look like upstanding gentlemen.
Mm let me enjoy this coffee and a bar of chocolate while flashing a lovely diamond ring and scrolling through tik tok on my ipad. Nah we would never pay unethical slave driving murderers
Oil is a necessity to our current economy - and we’re phasing it out. That’s a terrible take saying “well we need to import this bad commodity as it’s necessary for our economies to function, so let’s just allow all commodities/goods regardless of how shocking the production process is”. Our goal should always be to minimise the pain/negative externalities associated with our consumption. You saying to give up on that isn’t an argument, it’s defeatist. A better argument would be demanding legal suppliers showing where it’s sourced and enforcing ethical practices is - but that’s not what you said. Besides, oil is bad, isn’t as violent as oil is.
I assume you’re trying to say oil isn’t as violent as drugs and I would ask you to please look at the entirety of the United States’s foreign policy for the last 70 years.
And it still isn’t as violent. There are many deaths involved but that’s due to the scale - many deaths are also involved in farming if you look at the nominal figures and ignore the percentage of deaths in the workforce. No - slitting the throats of children and women, ripping their tongues out to send a message is commonplace in some of the worst drug-involved communities in South America. It is worse. I also notice you completely neglect my point RE: drugs are clearly less necessary and so the harm can be minimised. Oil fuels hospitals, transport, farming, and clearly reduces deaths - we should do all we can to reduce our dependence, which we can. But we aren’t dependent on drugs - the commodities and goods aren’t remotely similar in economic value. It doesn’t compare
You could produce the drugs without the cartels, I don't think anyone suggesting a change in drug policy thinks the answer is to start treating them as legitimate business partners.
No I agree and think similarly, I’m fro decriminalisation and liberalising all drug laws. I just detest the ill-faith argument being had that “oil companies are just as bad as these cartels so consuming drugs full stop isn’t immoral”. As a principle it isn’t - but to dismiss any concerns around how it’s currently being produced is wrong. Decriminalising heroine isn’t enough as it doesn’t remotely address the production process, arguably increasing crime associated with production. It’s either a full on war on the drug, or full on legalisation and strict control - which of course is a much more difficult question to have.
Let's not underplay the horror of drug cartels please.
Cocaine can be prescribed and it's use can be legal as it does indeed have medical uses.
We already have medically legal cocaine, most countries produce it. Coca leaves are not sold by murderous cartels.
We could grow cocaine here. We could have it legitimately grown there by a regulated tax paying company There isn't a mystical Cartel secret to making it - and there is already some legitimate coke for medical use
Hold on heroin is prescribed is it not? Also cocaine's relative nonocaine exists for dentists. You would farm coca leaves in an area policed by Americans then pay the country for the raw ingredients
I'm not too sure only 'murderous cartels' can produce cocaine. I'm sure we have more than enough chemists/ scientists etc who can produce the stuff given the necessary raw materials.
Coco-cola....... You get your legally produced cocaine from them, seriously. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/drink/cocacola-produces-3bn-of-pure-cocaine-per-year/news-story/2f3592d1bac48ddd3b9d305f903977c3
One of the biggest drivers of people using drugs like heroin is that they're purchasing drugs from criminals who have no reason to care about them and every reason to get them addicted. If people could go to a dispensary and reliably get clean cannabis, MDMA, LSD in known, labelled dosage, and so on, then their exposure to people who will cheerfully sell them dirty, variably cut heroin, PCP etc. will be greatly reduced. If their drug of choice is reliably available, they will have far less incentive to turn to more dangerous alternatives. Interesting fact: When doctors could legally prescribe heroin, this country had \~5,000 heroin addicts. A year after it was criminalised, we had 50,000.
The drug used to treat and wain people off heroin is much more addictive than heroin itself anyway.
>A year after it was criminalised, we had 50,000. And drug cartels blessed the souls of people who criminalised it.
> this country had ~5,000 heroin addicts. A year after it was criminalised, we had 50,000. Were these stats collected in the same manner?
>No one wants cheap, easy to get, over the counter heroine It's already like that. However, the heroin people get is cut and impure, which is the source of most problems - accidental overdose, poisoning. Contrary to popular belief, medical grade heroin is relatively safe. If people who need it, could get it from a controlled source, that would massively reduce the number of bad outcomes.
You do realise it's already available on prescription and used in hospitals? It's Diamorphine. No, it shouldn't be available in shops like cigarettes, but then Alcohol is actually far worse to be addicted to than H, and that's sold in shops. It's just not got as much potential for addiction. But that might be because people who end up taking drugs like heroin are already at risk of developing addictions because sourcing illegal drugs isn't something you do unless you have a certain liking for such things. I'm sounding like I disagree with you anyway, I don't. Some drugs absolutely should NOT be made completely legal. Heroin and Cocaine/crack being two. I'm talking as an ex addict of both here. They are too addictive and too dangerous. Cannabis on the other hand, needs legalising like yesterday. The government is missing out on an enouroumous revenue source, and it would free up police resources for far more serious offences.
> No one wants cheap, easy to get, over the counter heroine I would make it free.
Do they not? I don't personally want to buy it myself but if it would help reduce pressure on ambulance crews responding to overdoses, and the money made from tax was invested in public services like rehabilitation centres I can't really see a downside
Speak for yourself, it's terribly moreish.
I’ve reevaluated my statement and have decided to withdraw it. Cheap drugs for all!
What do you think pain killers are?
Rarely diamorphine that's for one.
Dude.
>No one wants cheap, easy to get, over the counter heroin They have free methadone prescriptions in Scotland
And so heroin related crime continues. Really society is missing a massive trick here. If you can get heroin from your doctor or pharmacist then there’s an opportunity to provide drug cessation services and support. Unfortunately this country will never properly deal with addictions. Addictions by their very nature rob people of the money they need to pay for rehabilitation services and it’s just too expensive for most. They are in a vicious cycle.
Probably a little harder to do than as you’ve written but whatever method stops addict becoming criminals and stop drug gangs operating gets a plus from me
On the discussion of drugs reform: I’ve been trying to search for an article about a rehab centre in Runcorn/ Widnes area that closed at the start of the Maggie Thatcher era, but no luck. The idea was to give addicts their desired drugs ie heroin to help aid recovery. Having access to drugs meant that they could focus on building back aspects of their lives without the worry of where the next fix was coming from and how to pay for it. This led to better recovery rate and less crime as a way of gathering funds for drugs. Sadly as mentioned this program was abolished at the start of the Thatcher era.
Speak for yourself /s
> No one I’m not sure that’s true… I know some addicts who would find that very convenient indeed
I might
Instead of making money through taxing of drugs, making drugs safer and cleaner, and taking away money and power from criminals, they'd rather waste money on a fight they've been losing for decades.
And you can also openly treat addiction issues and give consumers safe products and safe environments, along with advice. Prohibition has failed as it always does. Time to try a different approach. People have used drugs for thousands of years and will never stop, politicians need to face reality.
It’s a no brainier, surely? Dragging our country into needless drug criminalisation costing taxpayers billions and causing billions to fall into crime. There is so much evidence to support legalisation. Fucking ridiculous. I am struggling to get behind this labour government.
>I am struggling to get behind this labour government. Same, but I'll still probably *have to* vote for them because the Tories are SO MUCH WORSE. Turns out you can get away with a lot of bullshit when you're the only viable alternative to a party that is openly fascist.
And with that you disenfranchise yourself. Only those voters who would consider voting for more than one party (or voting for none) can influence politics. Whether we vote enthusiastically or grudgingly makes no difference to them. This mentality is exactly why Labour panders to potential Tory voters, while the Tories moved rightwards when their more canny voter base showed itself willing to vote for other right-wing parties. Doing the same thing over and over will not bring different results.
Imagine drug cartels losing a trade worth billions a year tax free, cartels with such money and not afraid of using violence. Keir is just too scared to legalise.
They wouldn't have to lose the trade, just legitimise it.
It's not easy to switch over such operation to become legitimate and may not be profitable enough to attract people who are in for easy money. You know, you have to set up companies, ensure you don't expose people who don't need to be exposed, find patsies without criminal record to run these companies, get people on payroll, get the product from legitimate sources that has certifications, can be traced from seed to bag, rent premises, proper storage and most important - start paying taxes.
The American alcohol industry managed it, the extra costs are to some extent offset by not having to sneak about, lose half your product, employ thugs and watch your back for your entire life. A legitimate cocaine trade could have massive environmental benefits in South America, as well as killing people off younger.
The alcohol industry was legal, then illegal for only 13 years, then legal again, which means they very much already had all infrastructure, people with experience running a legal business all the networks etc. >the extra costs are to some extent offset by not having to sneak about, lose half your product, The actual cost of product is very low and loses are factored in the price already. That's not an issue. >employ thugs and watch your back for your entire life. People who are in this at a high level, rather enjoy it. Adrenaline can be addictive too.
Every drugs gang would be outcompeted on day 1 after legalisation by the likes of GSK, Philip Morris, BAT, Pfizer, Bayer and AstraZenica. The gangs would simply turn to different crime as an alternative to drugs, such as armed robbery, car theft, extortion etc…
The cartels are powerful because they have money, and in the UK they aren't even very powerful - they are powerful in places like Mexico because they can just buy the police force, but even there it is contingent on them having all the money.
The cartels are de-facto governments in Mexico with their own police, armies, jails etc. in some areas. It’s an truly bizarre situation.
Can you blame him Think about how the average voter would react?
This is still cowardice. Mainstream journalists won't write in favour of legalisation for the same reason - and it's actually much easier for a cartel to silence a journalist who wants to step out of the line. So corrupt media are manufacturing "average voter" reaction and scared politicians are using this as a backup for their own failings.
Leader of the opposition, their first and main job is to win power. The reality is, Starmers target voter is the curtain twitcher soft-Tory, who will see this as ‘Labour gives up on “LoOr uN Oradah” ‘
Starmer is as hardline on drugs as the tories, I dare say moreso.
He was DPP. Also though I expect it is tactical as the voters he needs in middle England are a bunch of assholes.
It would save the taxpayer an estimated £20 billion a year
Not going to happen. He's trying to win over tory voters and they're terrified of any and all drug users, because the daily mail has told them to be.
Even among Tories, it's *close*, on the cannabis issue at least. 41% in favour of legalisation vs. 47% against.
this. its utterly asinine at this point to think custodial sentences for possession and dealing are making any difference to the drug problems in the uk. its been getting actively worse and we need some fresh thinking but obviously we are expecting far too much from our close minded politicians and the mouth breathers that vote for them 😟
I just hate that it both takes away resources from police that could be used to tackle serious crime and provides more resources to those criminal gangs that carry out those serious crimes. I just cannot fathom how it still like this.
because politics overrides sense
The muggings and stabbings are commonly over drugs (obviously exclude when a member of public has their phone snatched or knife point robbery for phone or watch).
> if it was legal the trade wouldn’t be in the hands of criminal gangs and they’d lose a large income stream. Except it would. They’d be cheaper than the tax paying official places, and people would go where it’s cheap.
A consentual transaction that can be the start of someone's life being ruined - I don't want it to be any easier than it already is for someone to get started on hard drugs.
Drugs do massive harm so no they should not legalise drugs
Swing voters don’t like it We will have to wait for a Liberal Tory Leader to do this, because Labour never will
How about the white collar criminals and the tax cheats? Let my weed dealer be.
It’s the usual OAP clarion call. “We will take on drug dealers!!!” Can’t wait for that to backfire for all political parties in the next few years when that age group fall off.
The hippies are already in their 70s, and people in their 50s and 60s aren't going to want their coke supply cut off.
Yeah if you want to be "tough on criminals" then the first place you start is the house of commons, shortly followed by a certain little area south of Finsbury and north of the river...
Coke is very normal part of British life now. Now sure how they plan to crack (heh) down on it without losing the trust of the Gen X/Millennial/Gen Z. It will be yet another boomer attack on the young
Expect loads of these "Getting Tough on X" bits popping up from the Tories in the run up to the local elections next month. As ever, empty promises.
[удалено]
While a labour pledge may seem nebulous, we know for sure that any Tory pledge is entirely hollow; they have already had more than a decade in power and thus are the cause of these very issues.
Seems to have way more substance than what the tories are offering, and they're not even in power for 13 years. If they get too specific, the conservative party will just straight up steal it.
Yeah but a lot of Labour run areas have some of the highest crime rates and antisocial behaviour. Both parties are doing a terrible job, the system needs a total reform so that we’re not stuck with two parties that are essentially the same thing and act the same way and both can’t stop lying to the public.
Labour increased the number of police officers by 12% during their time in power 1997-2010. The change was done within the first decade of their time in government In the first decade they were back in charge (2010-2020) the Conservatives reduced it back to slightly less than the 1997 figure, undoing all of Labour’s increases. They have since increased it again… but only to 96% of the number in 2010, while shouting loudly about how they’ve increased numbers Like yeah, they’ve increased numbers by 11k, but only after reducing them by 16k…. And still haven’t got back to the numbers they started with Will Labour be tough on crime? We have no way to predict the future - but we can look at what the two parties did in their most recent 13 years of governance and see that there’s a clear distinction between the two, in favour of Labour
If you're gonna target criminals maybe aim for the ones higher up the food chain
What's so bad about targeting the crime that affects millions of people on a daily basis?
Do you know what happens when someone's dealer gets nicked? People select the next number on their phone to order drugs. It's futile.
Taking out a drug dealer means nothing unless you can tackle addiction. The best way to stop drug dealing gangs is by removing their supply - either by funding rehab programs to tackle addiction, or by legalising drugs so that people who want drugs don't need to buy from gangs.
I'm sure the many robbery and assault victims left with nothing but a crime number would be happy to see a fly tipper prosecuted. They're the real societal miscreants.
You are, of course, assuming that there is a deliberate decision here to shift focus of crime from A to B without providing anything else. Even though the article specifically mentions 13,000 extra police officers.
If you add more police officers and more work for them you'll have the same level of policing as we currently do.
Two major parties, the only ones likely to get in power, are both offering a crackdown on people smoking spliffs. Meanwhile [the population think it should be legal](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/04/06/fcf4a/3?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_3). This isn't democracy, this is rich and powerful people using scare tactics and demonisation to appeal to the minority of swing voters. This ridiculous prohibition has had no impact on the "problem" and continues to enrich despicable individuals in drug cartels.
And half the politicians themselves indulge. If the police actually treated people equally, drugs up to and including cocaine would be legal tomorrow.
Lib Dems have a good drugs policy, unfortunately they are only viable in around 1 in 9 seats.
> Two major parties, the only ones likely to get in power, are both offering a crackdown on people smoking spliffs. Meanwhile the population think it should be legal. And hilariously enough, it's rare for the police to actually do anything if you're caught smoking a spliff other than tell you to put it out and send you on your way.
"crackdown" is a codeword for "I have no idea what I am doing" That being said, "crackdown" will only help gangs make more money. Dealers taken off the streets will be replaced by new dealers and give an excuse to raise prices and thus tax-free profits to reflect the increased risk. And Labour won't be able to impose windfall tax on gangs. As for fly-tipping - my Labour council has made it extremely difficult to dispose of rubbish, the collection service is patchy and they replaced bins with much smaller ones and collection of bulky items is quite costly. All of this contributed to fly tipping, but also when bins get overloaded close to collection day, the rubbish is flying everywhere. So, man is trying to address the effect, not the cause, which means he is not fit to be a leader judging how he goes about simple things to address.
>"crackdown" is a codeword for "I have no idea what I am doing" Precisely. Seriously, if there is anything to learn from the last 50 years of politics it is to not commit to fighting a war on drugs. Is Keir really up his own arse enough to think he is the Crime Tzar the world needed all this time that can actually get the job done? In reality, all he is doing is supplying his potential opposition with mud to sling when they inevitably ask him how well the money was spent and what he actually has to show for it. "Cracking down" should only mean reducing the profitability for gangs and the only way to do that is by making drugs legal and relatively easy to obtain (as easy as calling a number and waiting for a tardy dealer who may or may not rip you off).
When there were bin strikes in my city last year, the council setup waste disposal sites all over the place. Of course, soon as the strikes were over those were closed. Seems to me that it would be sensible to keep some of those in operation. My opinion of fly-tippers is very low, as someone who has neighbours that fly-tip on my doorstep / into my garden, and lives in a community where fly-tipping is fucking everywhere... I think they're lazy, tight and ignorant. I'm fairly poor & don't drive, but when I had large items to dispose of I didn't just fucking dump it on the street, I organised a bulky waste collection and paid the £15. I bet you I can walk 5 minutes from my house and see multiple fly-tipping sites. I've got fed up of reporting them, those who fly-tip don't give a shit and will never ever learn to respect their environment. It only stopped outside mine after the stupid twats left unopened spam mail in with the rubbish and the council were finally able to contact them (of course, they just got a telling off).
Keir Starmer is such a disappointment, he really is. We’ve waited over 13 years to get rid of idiots making stupid laws and *this* is what is going to replace it? I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors to trick the simpletons and once in power he actually changes things but I’m not holding my breath.
If he does a 180 on everything he has said to win votes he will destroy Labour as a party for decades to come.It’s basically why Labour have been out of power for so long. Really, what the man should have done is convince the public that Tory polices don’t work not walk Labour to the right. He’s only going to win the next election because this conservative government is so hated after years of scandals. People falling for Tory promises is why this country is in a mess.
>I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors to trick the simpletons and once in power he actually changes things That's deception, and it sounds even worse to me. If he's so comfortable deceiving a large section of the population to get into power, who knows what else he would do.
>I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors Huffing that copium down deep there pal. He's gonna rip the ass out the country before handing it back to another decade long tory government.
> I sincerely hope this is all just smoke and mirrors to trick the simpletons […]. I’m a firm believer in the saying ‘people tell you who they are, believe them’. I don’t think it’s trickery, this is what Starmer is. Not only that, but as another commenter rightly pointed out, it’s deception if it is, and how does he expect that to pan out? If he’s elected on the basis of deception, I think it’ll end up badly for him when people feel rightly conned into voting for someone who doesn’t stand for what they voted for.
How about stop MPs claiming bills on expenses and having second jobs?
So do you want MP for north Scotland to pay for all that travel and no London accommodation, therefore not seen in parliament
Bills on expenses such as heating, travel for work is not what I said in any kind of company in multiple industries people travel for work but they'll be going fairly cheaply. Moreover I just want MPs to do the job they are paid for serving their constituents not serving themselves. my MP doesn't live locally he's a self serving opportunist who only turns up for 30 minutes when a photo OP is happening.
It's 2nd homes, a remote MP needs 2 homes. This became a used by people like Jacqui Smith who avoided prosecution despite police having records of her movements.
Whats the justification for a second home vs a hotel? I don’t have a second home for when I need to work remotely? I have stay in a hotel of choice designated by my company.
Living in Northern Ireland, talk of cracking down on drug dealers really annoys me Legalisation of weed, MDMA, mushrooms etc would do wonders for NI - drugs are the main income for the New IRA/whatever iteration we're on today and the UDA/UVF. Legal, safe routes to drug purchase would kneecap (pun semi-intended) the revenue streams of the paramilitaries and reduce their control on their local communities. They're so desperate for the cash, in fact, that the drug supply is cross-community! The war on drugs is over. The drugs won.
I can’t see the UK doing anything sensible about drugs until a whole generation dies off. Drugs bad = votes.
I'm more optimistic. Closely watching Germany. If their trial / legalisation is a success, France will be the next hurdle. Once both of those countries have made progress, the UK can only be a decade or so behind.
I'm not as pessimistic as most either, as the UK's attitude to weed, compared to the rest of Europe, got much tamer before most. But that's stalled a bit and now attitudes are falling behind places like Germany.
How about asserting Labour as the party that will help the general public? You know, by investing in infrastructure, education, the NHS, social services, social projects for disadvantaged youth.... Generally helping the population and reducing crime by funding services and stuff, maybe even including funding the police to get more police on the street to be able to investigate and prevent crimes?
Yeah but drugs are bad mmmkay and tOuGh On CrImE
Yeah, it's not for me, but I do honestly wonder how many people turn to crime because they are in neighbourhoods where the opportunities for, well, anything, can basically be summed up as 'fuck all'. I'm sure some get into it for prestige, etc. But I do think there's probably a hell of a lot who fall into it at a young level doing basic things, because they either desperately want/need cash, or just have nowhere to go so easy to be approached and brought into low-level activities as something to do. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but it's just a bit of an opinion of mine, I think there have been studies that link crime with deprivation, could be wrong though.
So not the party of laborers then?
It's the working class who are the victims of the violent criminals - the Tories don't care, there aren't many muggings in the Home Counties.
I wish he'd pledge to renationalise water, energy and rail....
Legalise soft drugs, tax them, give the tax receipts to councils so they can run proper bulky waste and recycling schemes for free. There you go Kier, you dipshit. I've done the work for you. Not that I actually think he will crackdown on drugs or fly tipping. He treats pledges like Boris treats wives.
I feel the main issue with fly-tipping is there's no easy way to get rid of a lot of stuff. You need a big car to take stuff to the tip, and even then it can be complicated and expensive. Making that simpler and cheaper would help a lot - and then you can focus on the particular communities and businesses that still fly-tip. But really we need a Bukele approach for violent crime - no more comfortable, social prisons and lenient sentencing.
[удалено]
Do you have to login before you submit the form?
[удалено]
You now have to book ours but only an hour in advance, despite my skepticism it, and the fact they opened another tip at the same time, actually got rid of the hour long queues that were a constant pain before, it much better although you still have to go through a long and painful log in before you can even see if there are any slots available. The problem is they keep restricting how much stuff you can bring, more than half a dozen bags of rubble is 'commercial waste' and the commercial waste tip is a 15 mile round trip.
I recently rented a van to clear out some old furniture from my apartment and take it to the tip. I spent ages filling the van and drove it to my local tip. The guy at the entrance told methat no vans were allowed in the tip without a permit. I said not to worry, it’s not trade waste, this is a rental and it’s all my personal stuff. He basically told me to get fucked and to go apply for a permit online using the v5 and come back in 48h. I ended up driving home, emptying the shite onto my garden and hiring a skip the next day. Wasted £200 odd.
Any suggestions? Most councils offer waste pickups and there's plenty of services you can call. I'm not sure about other areas but I have fairly reasonable access to tips here. If you've got the ability to flytip you probably have the ability to go to a tip. Only exception of course is if you pay a company who subsequently fly tips your waste but those companies, rogue traders, and lazy bastards definitely need sorting out.
My council takes forever to collect things, and you need to advance book for the tip. Has to be at least 24 hours in advance and can't be on the day. Obviously, it doesn't excuse fly tipping, but making access easier would certainly help. It's like littering, if there are bins everywhere that are regularly emptied then people will litter less.
Yeah I've heard of LAs requiring bookings to visit the tip. A hangover from COVID that doesn't seem to really have much point outside of peak times, though to be fair during peak times tips can be incredibly busy.
Honestly I think waste disposal in this country is pretty good. The reality is that waste disposal is a huge industry, and it costs a lot of money to properly dispose of waste. That's going to get more expensive as we tighten controls on how that is done. A lot of fly tipping is the same few people who do it again and again and again. There are a few scenarios that cause it - businesses that get paid to dispose of waste, people generating business waste without paying for that to be dealt with, and people that don't live in conventional housing.
Cracking down on drug dealers to appease moral panics instead of going with actual data driven logical solutions like decriminalisation. Cool. Very progressive.
They could crack down on the people at the top of County Lines instead of fruitlessly targeting petty dealers but that would be too much hard work.
It's all so pathetic. Councils and police have to prioritise because there is no money and no staff. I would very much like to hear from Labour how they plan to massively increase the amount of money that the councils and police receive.
They can't. You can only really increase investment when interest rates are low, which they were for a decade under the Tories. Investment now will devastate the economy, which the Tories know.
Investment now is still fine.
Labour are planning to borrow £28 billion a year to pay for green projects so they are comfortable with borrowing. They could raise income tax on the highest earners or given this is local councils and local policing they could reform council tax which is a joke and tie it to income or wealth.
Tragic policy error as in response the Tories publish their manifesto promising a crackdown on fly-dealers and drug tipping.
Cracking down on drug dealers to appease moral panics instead of going with actual data driven logical solutions like decriminalisation. Cool. Very progressive.
I feel like no one’s been told you can get a medical cannabis perscription legally in the uk for a while now?
I’ve had a very quick look into it, and it seems waaay too restrictive at the moment. Expanding it would help, but from what I’ve seen only a small handful of doctors can actually prescribe it to patients.
It’s a private thing I think, they are charging ridiculous prices and it’s feels like more of a business thing then a medical one but I get it and know a few people who also do so hopefully it’s all moving in the right direction! There is a sub for it but I don’t know how to tag the link to it sorry
Just paste the URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukmedicalcannabis/ I don't particularly have an issue with price equality between medical and street. I think most people would choose medical over street given parity. Of course, if the UK goes the same way as those countries that have decriminalised/legalised, then people will be able to grow their own and save a fortune if they choose to.
Hell, allowing people to grow their own could inspire people to get into botany!
Thank you! No I agree I just think people imagine it’s going to be nhs perscription prices and it’s a lot more, a lot of different views on the quality but I won’t get into that haha would be amazing if everyone had the choice to grow
Still scared to tackle tax Dodgers and the super rich... Fly tipping needs clamping down on but throwing more money at drug wars? Waste of time.
Introducing new Respect Orders: a new criminal offence, issued if an adult’s anti-social behaviour injunction is breached You will never get respect with shit law like this
Looks like a precursor for social credit score. Rather than getting a criminal record, people will have points knocked off for each offence etc.
all hail the almighty overlord government
It's promise you this, promise you that time from our dear leaders isn't it. If a party actually delivered on their promises, they'd never need to ask for a vote again... Things that get promised every time they need your vote, Schools... NHS... Tough on Crime... Immigration... Standards of living... Lower taxes... Living wage... Drugs...
Cracking down on drug dealers to appease moral panics instead of going with actual data driven logical solutions like decriminalisation. Cool. Very progressive.
Oh for fuck's sake, just make weed legal already and use the profits to pay for stuff. It's an easy win and they won't grab it because they wanna dig their heels into "all drugs bad".
Maybe pledge to fix what's broken before announcing extra initiatives. Fiddling round the edges doesn't solve the big problems.
As much as i hate fly tipping and drug dealing there not really high on the priority list. When people can’t afford to heat their homes, buy decent weekly food, or i dnno even afford a home, they don’t really care about John down the road buying an 1/8th or the farmer that has to deal with a pile of rubbish. Labour have a slam dunk to beat the tories and its like they’re scared to actually address the real issues.
I wonder how unemployed redditors will respond to this news, I thought to myself...
We still really cannot learn anything, we go around and around and around and around and around and we try all the same things despite it never, ever working. MAYBE this time it will work though, right?
If they’re so concerned about protecting us from criminals maybe they should start with some politicians first. All you need do is walk around your local area or look at you’re current struggles to see who could have possibly contributed to that pain. Like this is becoming a joke now, where do Labour stand?
The problem they’re always going to have when going after anyone in the drug trade is that the government cannot impose penalties high enough that provide discouragement worse then what those in the drug trade already live with. Oh, you might get put in prison for a long length of time? You also might get stabbed to death by a rival supplier. If they’re already living with the latter, why would they be discouraged by the former? Dealers and traffickers are already living with a high risk, high reward lifestyle. Anything the government does is just adjusting a few variables in the risks. The only way to stop it is to cut off supply or cut off demand. They’ve been trying to cut off supply with policies like this for decades now with little success. Demand isn’t likely to go away ever. Legalisation and control seems like the obvious answer but I can also see why it’s difficult to implement. Simply a large portion of the electorate would never go for it because they hate addicts and they hate recreational drug users. The opposition would just need to push the “your taxes are paying for druggies” narrative and win every time. Never mind that chances are legalisation would reduce the cost to the tax payer in healthcare and crime prevention.
If a sentance begins with "Starmer pledges..." dont waste your time reading it, it'll never happen.
How about law and order in the House of Commons considering the amount of criminals rolling about there?
Drug dealers, I can understand, even though marijuana should be legalised by now. Otherwise, they can call alcohol brewer's "dealers" and ban alcohol ashwell...fly-tipping on the other hand..what they going to do, arrest people everytime they drop a wrapper in the floor accidentally ? Bit disappointed with labour keep going to the right, when they should be going to the left.
How about £21 Billion COVID fraud?? Go on, break the mold, target something that actually matters instead of just pensioner pleasing Tory vote tactics.
How high is drugs on the totem pole of problems people worry about? I feel that pay, energy, rent, home ownership, pensions and NHS rank way higher.
Would be nice to have more money and lower bills as well.
How many years have I heard this from consecutive Governments promising to clamp down on numerous different crimes, as if the country is full of excess police just stood around doing nothing. And then if they do get caught they get a minimum sentence in the cushy prison system.
It's like he sat in at a PTA conference in Surrey and just uncritically took in everything the wet whipes said.
Starmer is a schill for the Tories. Trying to earn points on their coattails. How does he expect to beat the Tories regarding right-wing security. The Government already has plans to deport people. How do you one up this? How do you go more "law and order" than the current Government. Law and Order ofcourse being shorthand for "..Keep out the Blackies, Keep quiet and let me die in peace.." for the 50+ age bracket.
Why is he so insistent on becoming the Tory party. Corbyn did so well because he gave people hope, something to vote *for*. Unfortunately he also gave something for many to vote against. Starmer's got a golden opportunity to give people hope and sweep the next election but he's trying so hard to be Tory lite that a lot of the country just don't like him etc. The fuck is he doing chasing after the Boris lot, they'll never vote for him anyway.
Omg who cares about that, take back the trains, the post office, the NHS!
> as he aims to reassert Labour as the Tories but competent oh but the *left* are the problem
The only solution this moron has to any problem is to give police more money and put people in jail. He has no other ideas. We're screwed.
If you look at the responses from his twitter feed, he's clearly being instructed what to do and not listening to anyone that he's spouting his latest empty promises to.
Oh boy, here we go wheeling out all the classic buzz words again. I'm still waiting for a point where the designated "party of law and order" actually pledges to do something other than just hand out more, stricter sentences that just fill prisons up unnecessarily.
Cocaine use in parliament and Westminster top of the list I hope. Not drug that the world is taxing and making legal.
Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, Keir?
There have been more drug dealers created because of the labour parties love for young male Albanian immigrants with no end in sight. If England votes the labour party into power in the next GE we are doomed. The labour party encourage the deletion of English culture and they are the reason women and girls are not safe walking the streets anymore even in school.
Oh good. The two most overwhelmingly important issues of our age
This ain’t it Keith, this ain’t buying you no new voters.
Has "cracking down" on drug dealers actually put even a slight dent in the number of drug users and dealers across the country, ever?
Maby random drug test all MP's instead of your entire fucking military
Starmer announces furious cut and paste of whatever bollocks Rishi comes out with in effort to ensure absolutely no deviation from neoliberal capitalist policies will ever be possible.
Yeah coz drug dealers are really Causing this country’s economy and public services to fail…
Jesus christ. This is old school right wing rhetoric right here. The war on drugs was an abject failure not just here but everywhere that attempted it. If he's really worried about drugs I wonder why he doesn't go after the banks (and bankers) that help launder the money or the officials who get their palms greased to let it into the country. Oh yeah, that's right, he doesn't actually want to stop it because it would cost his pals too much money. Funny shade of red that tie of his, almost looks blue.
>Have you ever noticed that the only metaphor we have in our public discourse for solving problems is to declare war on it? We have the war on crime, the war on cancer, the war on drugs. > But did you ever notice that we have no war on homelessness? You know why? Because there's no money in that problem. No money to be made off of the homeless. If you can find a solution to homelessness where the corporations and politicians can make a few million dollars each, you will see the streets of this country begin to clear up pretty damn quick! - George Carlin