Mayoral and General Elections 2017

[Condate]

MPs vote against their beliefs all the time, within their same party.  They don't need to be in a coalition to do it.   because they follow a party whip system.

Well, I'd say any candidate who would accept any party whip, is ipso facto unsuitable to be an MP. That of course means that hardly any of the MPs who will be elected will be suitable. Each candidate makes their own personal statement of their beliefs to their electorate and if they say they will support or oppose a particular idea, they should not alter this just because their party changes policy, or agrees a deal with another party. Of course, people do change their mind on issues; that after all is the point of Commons debates, but it should be the MP's own decision on how to vote on any issue, not a question of party allegiance. We elect them as representatives of the constituency, not as a party automaton.

Our voting system is not a fair one by any means.

Actually, it's very fair. Each local area elects a person to represent the area in parliament. What could be fairer than that? Of course if the electorate fail to do their job and just vote for whoever has the right party label, that's the fault of the electorate, not the system. The system could be improved certainly. Getting rid of party names and symbols on the ballot paper would be a good start.

[andrewbowden]

This of course is why coalitions are fundamentally undemocratic and an abomination in any civilised system. What it means in effect is that an MP needs to vote in a way he or she believes is wrong and damaging to the country, in order to have another MP vote the way he or she wants on another issue (although that other MP believes it to be wrong). This is simply unacceptable. Any candidate who would even consider entering a coalition, is ipso facto unsuitable to be an MP.

MPs vote against their beliefs all the time, within their same party.  They don't need to be in a coalition to do it.   because they follow a party whip system.  A perfect example is that a majority of MPs were not in favour of leaving the EU, yet the vast majority went against their beliefs and voted for it. 

Let's take our MP for 2015-2017.  The data's all public and easy to read. 
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/41020&showall=yes#divisions

Out of 419 votes he took part in, he rebelled from the party line 3 times.  That's 0.7% of the time.  It seems highly unlikely the other 99.3% of the votes, he believed exactly the party line was spot on.  Even in one party there are many beliefs and viewpoints.  No.  He toed the party line for at least some of those times.


As an aside, an anti-coalition attitude of many in this nation got us to a position where 63.1% of the population didn't vote for the party that formed the government in 2015.  It's why the SNP got 4.7% of the vote but got 7.69% of the seats, yet Ukip got 12.6% and got 0.15% of the seats (aka 1).  It's why all the power is in a handful of marginal seats, whilst those in safe seats really can do nothing.  (And until I moved to Marple, I'd lived all my life in safe seats.) 

Our voting system is not a fair one by any means.

[marpleexile]

No sources for denying that cannabis is a gateway drug. 

It is a gateway drug, but.... there is nothing inherent in cannabis that leads users to try other drugs, it's a gateway because it's illegal, and because once you're in that world, and know those people, it's easy to take the next step. Making it legal would actually mean that over time (probably quite a short space of time) it would cease to be a gateway drug. However, something else would take it's place.

. 
What is beyond dispute is that cannabis is a harmful substance - there are established links to severe mental illness (including a personal friend of mine) - so the arguments for legalising it just do not make sense.

Yes, but certainly no more so than tobacco and alcohol.

The arguements do make sense, and in context it's ridiculous that alcohol and tobacco are legal, and cannabis not. But it is not so clear cut that making it fully legal like alcohol and tobacco are would be as beneficial as some think.

[Melancholyflower]

Here are a few reasonably well-reputed sources from the US which is the most widely observed market:

Market Watch, Colorado Topped $1 Billion in Legal Marijuana Sales in 2016
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-200-million-in-colorado-as-sales-pass-1-billion-2017-02-10

Fotune, Marijuana tax revenue hit $200 million in Colorado as sales pass $1 billion
http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/colorado-billion-legal-marijuana-sales/

Oregon's Recreational Cannabis Tax Revenue For 2016 Exceeded One Original Estimate More than Six-Fold to $60m
http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/01/21/recreational-marijuana-tax-revenue-for-2016-exceeded-one-original-estimate-more-than-six-fold/

Tax Foundation on total US receipts of £28bn (yes...billion) if the all US states legalise it
https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/

And here's a Wikipedia article on the status around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country

I have no axe to grind here. I've never been a user but I've been in bands for 30 years so have been around it for a long time. However, if I am ever unfortunate enough to feel a need for its well-recognised pain-relief properties (for example, Multiple Sclerosis, arthritis, rheumatism), whether it's legal or not, you can be sure that I'll find some way to get hold of it. If it were regulated and licensed a user would understand its provenance. Current buyers have no way of knowing how it was farmed and what fertilizers and weed killers were used in its growth. Of course, if you grow small quantities for yourself, which is part of what the LibDems have proposed, you would know exactly where it came from.

See http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/1915  - an American study (there is no equivalent British one, I often wonder why) which shows that tax revenue pales into insignificance against the wider social and health costs of legalisation. Tobacco and alcohol are used to compare. 

No sources for denying that cannabis is a gateway drug. 

A 25-year study (fairly comprehensive) revealed that in 86% of cases of those who had taken two or more illegal drugs, cannabis had been the substance they had used first.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Annette_Beautrais/publication/8978949_Cannabis_a nd_educational_attainment/links/0fcfd509ab156282be000000.pdf - link to authors though sadly not that particular conclusion.


Logically if it's legalised it will be cheaper, and more people will use it for both reasons. That's happened in every case of legalisation worldwide. 
What is beyond dispute is that cannabis is a harmful substance - there are established links to severe mental illness (including a personal friend of mine) - so the arguments for legalising it just do not make sense.   

[Condate]

See the thing about coalitions is that you have to compromise.  The Tories had to compromise and the Lib Dems had to compromise.

This of course is why coalitions are fundamentally undemocratic and an abomination in any civilised system. What it means in effect is that an MP needs to vote in a way he or she believes is wrong and damaging to the country, in order to have another MP vote the way he or she wants on another issue (although that other MP believes it to be wrong). This is simply unacceptable. Any candidate who would even consider entering a coalition, is ipso facto unsuitable to be an MP.
 

[andrewbowden]

To be fair the Lib Dems can promise what they like, they won't be in government alone if at all.

Look what happened to their promises last time - tuition fees anyone?

See the thing about coalitions is that you have to compromise.  The Tories had to compromise and the Lib Dems had to compromise.

In other countries (with far more sensible voting systems than our ridiculous one) this is generally known and understood (although smaller partners in coalitions can still end up suffering more in elections).  We don't have much of a history of coalitions (due to our aforementioned electoral system which is winner takes all even if the winner only has a minority of the population supporting it) so it's not understood.

Maybe the Lib Dems should have made tuition fees a red line.  And maybe if they had, the coalition would have collapsed.  Who knows.   

[Howard]

Your source for these claims?

Here are a few reasonably well-reputed sources from the US which is the most widely observed market:

Market Watch, Colorado Topped $1 Billion in Legal Marijuana Sales in 2016
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-200-million-in-colorado-as-sales-pass-1-billion-2017-02-10

Fotune, Marijuana tax revenue hit $200 million in Colorado as sales pass $1 billion
http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/colorado-billion-legal-marijuana-sales/

Oregon's Recreational Cannabis Tax Revenue For 2016 Exceeded One Original Estimate More than Six-Fold to $60m
http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/01/21/recreational-marijuana-tax-revenue-for-2016-exceeded-one-original-estimate-more-than-six-fold/

Tax Foundation on total US receipts of £28bn (yes...billion) if the all US states legalise it
https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/

And here's a Wikipedia article on the status around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country

I have no axe to grind here. I've never been a user but I've been in bands for 30 years so have been around it for a long time. However, if I am ever unfortunate enough to feel a need for its well-recognised pain-relief properties (for example, Multiple Sclerosis, arthritis, rheumatism), whether it's legal or not, you can be sure that I'll find some way to get hold of it. If it were regulated and licensed a user would understand its provenance. Current buyers have no way of knowing how it was farmed and what fertilizers and weed killers were used in its growth. Of course, if you grow small quantities for yourself, which is part of what the LibDems have proposed, you would know exactly where it came from.

[Melancholyflower]

It's an extremely sensible idea. The world's oldest medicine banned because ...

Well I don't really know why it's banned other than nonsense about it being a "gateway drug" or other such bollocks. States in the US that have legalised it have seen large growths (ha) in tax revenue from the business set up to grow and supply and a significant increase in business-to-business activity.

Your source for these claims?

[Dave]

Tactical voting is taking place so Lisa Smart stands a good chance.

That's right. The Libdems are targeting this seat (also Cheadle) - they are two of four target seats in the North West which the party sees a realistic chance of winning.  So supporters from other constituencies are being bussed in to help with leafleting and canvassing here.

William Wragg has a decent majority (c. 6,500), but issues such as the NHS, schools and Brexit, not to mention his poor voting record,  make him look potentially vulnerable. And I have a feeling that Theresa May's 'it's all about me' campaign may eventually prove to be a mistake.  She will win, no doubt, but I suspect not with the landslide that the Tories are hoping for.

[admin]

Have you being doing this? Why?

As part of FoMMP's campaign to have a CCTV camera installed to combat ASB around the bowling green buildings, library and toilets, and also to have the teen shelter removed, we began logging all known ASB in the park from September 2013 until November 2015. Over this period we had the cooperation of the full time park attendant and during daily litter picking he and our volunteers picked up and counted all the drug packets left in the park. The results were logged and details of numbers and locations were reported to the council's Community Safety Team, Police and local councillors on a daily / weekly basis. This was begun because initially we were fobbed off and told there was not a problem, so we set out to prove that there was. We and councillors were flabbergasted at the results. The Safety Team and Police were forced to acknowledge that there were problems and we began working group meetings with them to address the issues. We got great support from councillors once the problems were highlighted to them and eventually we got the camera installed, the bowling pavilion canopy gated off and the teen shelter removed early (before the skatepark was built). In the case of the teen shelter this remained a battle until a report was commissioned from a youth group charity, who visited the park for 6 weeks during the summer of 2015. They produced a report that showed the teen shelter to be a the heart of the drug dealing within the park and it was removed in December 2015.

If you are interested in more detail then read the FoMMP minutes from around October 2013 onwards and you will see how these events were reported at the time: http://www.marplememorialpark.org.uk/monthly-meetings.html   

[Rcsprinter123]

You would not believe how prevalent the use of cannabis is in Memorial Park unless you'd spent nearly 2 years picking up drug packets and logging the results.

Have you being doing this? Why?

[andy+kirsty]

To be fair the Lib Dems can promise what they like, they won't be in government alone if at all.

Look what happened to their promises last time - tuition fees anyone?

Tactical voting is taking place so Lisa Smart stands a good chance. As does Ruth in High Peak. It'll also oust two terrible MPs - win win!

Check it out.

hghpvoteswap.weebly.com

[marpleexile]

It's an extremely sensible idea. The world's oldest medicine banned because ...

The US Department of Prohibition needed something to do when Prohibition was lifted in the 1930s.

No really!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-influence/real-reasons-marijuana-is-banned_b_9210248.html

[admin]

This is an interesting development, and quite a brave one, I think:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999

If Portugal decriminalised drugs in 2001 surely there's a lot to learn from their experience? Good or bad.

You would not believe how prevalent the use of cannabis is in Memorial Park unless you'd spent nearly 2 years picking up drug packets and logging the results.

[Howard]

This is an interesting development, and quite a brave one, I think:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999

It's an extremely sensible idea. The world's oldest medicine banned because ...

Well I don't really know why it's banned other than nonsense about it being a "gateway drug" or other such bollocks. States in the US that have legalised it have seen large growths (ha) in tax revenue from the business set up to grow and supply and a significant increase in business-to-business activity.