UK politics general discussion

[GooseOnTheLoose]

ABS isnt going to happen. The intention is that next years primary starters would be the first group that will do the new qualification … a decade from now. Rishi and his lot will be long gone before then

And the smoking ban is never gonna happen, too much is generated in taxes

The Smoking ban will happen, it has enough support from both sides of the house and will glide through with ease. If anything it's politically dangerous to oppose it and is already in place in New Zealand.

With regard to the tax fallacy, the government receives roughly £10 billion in tax from smoking related products. The NHS spends around £17 billion treating smoking related illnesses. The tax is simply there to raise the price of smoking significantly to make it unattractive, or to encourage those to cut down significantly. It's a form of prod economics. Humans are far more sensitive to financial cost than health risks.

Sources:

Tax income from smoking: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/t...ies are levied on,per cent of national income.

NHS spend on treating smoking related illnesses: https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/new...health and,first time, residential care costs.

 

[tayspru]

The Smoking ban will happen, it has enough support from both sides of the house and will glide through with ease. If anything it's politically dangerous to oppose it and is already in place in New Zealand.

With regard to the tax fallacy, the government receives roughly £10 billion in tax from smoking related products. The NHS spends around £17 billion treating smoking related illnesses. The tax is simply there to raise the price of smoking significantly to make it unattractive, or to encourage those to cut down significantly. It's a form of prod economics. Humans are far more sensitive to financial cost than health risks.

Sources:

Tax income from smoking: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/tobacco-duties/#:~:text=Tobacco duties are levied on,per cent of national income.

NHS spend on treating smoking related illnesses: https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated#:~:text=Smokers' need for health and,first time, residential care costs.

That’s a well sourced response. My worry is an age restriction will just make people want to smoke more, not less. People love to rebel

Smoking ban aside, the rest of the conference has been classist, racist, transphobic tripe

 

[Matt.GC]

I've spent over 2 decades trying to overcome the fear of education brought about from terrible experiences at school. Because I'm bad at Maths and English, I believed for 26 years that, because I was no good at those subjects I therefore must just be stupid and no good at acedemia. As I currently study hard for a degree (of which so far gaining a level 2 in Maths to stay on the course is proving to be the hardest part) , I'm only now realising (and still doubt from time to time) that this was false.

Luckily, I was able to leave school at 16 and had the opportunity to show my talents and thrive outside of an educational environment. I do wonder what life would have been like if I had been imprisoned within an environment to be tortured by this stuff for another 2 years. I would imagine I would have been held back significantly. That's not to play down the importance of Maths and English skills, but sometimes you've got to stop squeezing the stone, it ain't going to bleed.

Not the only things Sunak said. Loads of typical Tory red meat was thown. All that "a man is a man, a woman is a woman" BS to keep the rabid right wing wolves at bay. Benefit claimants and immigrant bashing made it in as well. So predictable these lot. Not only will this new British Standard stuff never see the light of day, the HS2 scrapping consolation prize of current rail infrastructure investment is also mere words, planned in for long after we've forgotten who Rishi Sunak is.

I can't disagree at all with the phased smoking ban. Long overdue in my opinion and it looks like it has full support from Labour. Of course it's people like Liz Truss and her newly formed Retrosqaud gang that are kicking off about it. I would love him to put this free vote to the house before the election to see it get through with opposition votes.

What a mess. His last conference speech as Prime Minister and this was it?

 

[BarryZola]

The Smoking ban will happen, it has enough support from both sides of the house and will glide through with ease. If anything it's politically dangerous to oppose it and is already in place in New Zealand.

With regard to the tax fallacy, the government receives roughly £10 billion in tax from smoking related products. The NHS spends around £17 billion treating smoking related illnesses. The tax is simply there to raise the price of smoking significantly to make it unattractive, or to encourage those to cut down significantly. It's a form of prod economics. Humans are far more sensitive to financial cost than health risks.

Sources:

Tax income from smoking: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/tobacco-duties/#:~:text=Tobacco duties are levied on,per cent of national income.

NHS spend on treating smoking related illnesses: https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated#:~:text=Smokers' need for health and,first time, residential care costs.

I'm a bit dubious about the claims that smoking costs the NHS more than is brought in through taxes, even if only because that research was commissioned by an anti-smoking organisation. It includes stuff like a lack of spending on other goods in the economy instead of buying ciggies, social care costs for people who smoke and also a loss of taxes due to people who smoke leaving the world of work earlier through ill health or dying earlier. But who is to say that all that money not spent on cigs would be spent elsewhere in the economy? It could go into savings or whatever. The social care thing. Who is to say that a non-smoker wouldn't need the same length of care as a smoker, but at a later age? Also, if a smoker is going to die earlier, they'll be taking money out of the nations pension pot for a lesser time. Also, if you die earlier from smoking you're probably less likely to keep needing joint replacements and ongoing eye tests and all that fun stuff constantly in later life. I bet they didn't instruct the people who they themselves commissioned to do the research to include all of these things, did they? It is a terrible habit, and it's obviously no good for people. Just questioning the accuracy of the possibly not so independent research.

 

[rob666]

The smoking ban has support from all parties, so should make it to law...perverts charter though, here little girl, I will get your ciggies for you, but do me a favour.
Smoking tax revenues have been less than the cost to the nhs for a couple of decades now, older smokers cost a lot more than younger smokers.
Most of the rest will not happen, including education changes, because the Tories remain divided, and dead in the water.

 

[Rob]

It's hard to oppose the smoking ban, which is why it would easily pass through the house even with a free vote. The difficulties are going to be enforcing it, and the additional burden that will fall on shopkeepers who are already facing a tough time with increase in shoplifting and other antisocial behaviour in their stores.

I know it is going to be looked at, but vapes are a really big issue. Vaping clearly has a use, it is a great way to help people stop smoking and does work. But, and I may be wrong here, I suspect those that use it for this originally intended purpose have refillable electronic vapes rather than single use disposable vapes. These single use vapes are clearly aimed at younger people, and the vaping industry cares little that they widely appear to under 18s despite making out that it is merely a coincidence.

You see these single use vapes everywhere now. Vape stores are so common on the high street and all convenience stores have them displayed behind the tills. Again I have no stats to back this up but you do wonder if more kids vape than would have smoked if vapes didn't exist. The long term risks of vaping are completely unknown, and the quantity of them send to landfill is astonishing.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I'm a bit dubious about the claims that smoking costs the NHS more than is brought in through taxes, even if only because that research was commissioned by an anti-smoking organisation. It includes stuff like a lack of spending on other goods in the economy instead of buying ciggies, social care costs for people who smoke and also a loss of taxes due to people who smoke leaving the world of work earlier through ill health or dying earlier. But who is to say that all that money not spent on cigs would be spent elsewhere in the economy? It could go into savings or whatever. The social care thing. Who is to say that a non-smoker wouldn't need the same length of care as a smoker, but at a later age? Also, if a smoker is going to die earlier, they'll be taking money out of the nations pension pot for a lesser time. Also, if you die earlier from smoking you're probably less likely to keep needing joint replacements and ongoing eye tests and all that fun stuff constantly in later life. I bet they didn't instruct the people who they themselves commissioned to do the research to include all of these things, did they? It is a terrible habit, and it's obviously no good for people. Just questioning the accuracy of the possibly not so independent research.

I chose ASH as my source, as it's the same one given in the government's own Kahn Review on Smoking, which is the paper being used to back up this policy. Link below. (PDF warning) - The Khan review Making smoking obsolete - GOV.UK https://assets.publishing.service.g...81366/khan-review-making-smoking-obsolete.pdf

The review does take into account a shorter lifespan, and then reflects that with the impact to society and economics as a whole. Someone who dies early isn't taking their pension, no, but nor are they any longer taking an economic impact. They're not earning any money, so they're not spending any money. It's not simply a case of they die earlier, it's the cost of days off to treat illnesses, the family days off to support them when they're ill. It's a well researched and thought out piece. It's also building on similar research made by Professor David Nutt.

The Smoking ban will be tricky to police when it starts, but eventually it'll get easier. In the extreme, everyone who is allowed to smoke will eventually die. In the lesser, as the age of the last people who are allowed to smoke increases, it'll be much easier to tell by sight who is and isn't allowed to smoke.

More children vape now than who smoked in years previous. I don't have the numbers to hand at the moment, but if I get some spare time later I'll drop a link.

 

[BarryZola]

I chose ASH as my source, as it's the same one given in the government's own Kahn Review on Smoking, which is the paper being used to back up this policy. Link below. (PDF warning) - The Khan review Making smoking obsolete - GOV.UK https://assets.publishing.service.g...81366/khan-review-making-smoking-obsolete.pdf

The review does take into account a shorter lifespan, and then reflects that with the impact to society and economics as a whole. Someone who dies early isn't taking their pension, no, but nor are they any longer taking an economic impact. They're not earning any money, so they're not spending any money. It's not simply a case of they die earlier, it's the cost of days off to treat illnesses, the family days off to support them when they're ill. It's a well researched and thought out piece. It's also building on similar research made by Professor David Nutt.

The Smoking ban will be tricky to police when it starts, but eventually it'll get easier. In the extreme, everyone who is allowed to smoke will eventually die. In the lesser, as the age of the last people who are allowed to smoke increases, it'll be much easier to tell by sight who is and isn't allowed to smoke.

More children vape now than who smoked in years previous. I don't have the numbers to hand at the moment, but if I get some spare time later I'll drop a link.

Ok, that looks well researched and clearly by many experts in their field. I now accept the figures

 

[Matt.GC]

The difficulties are going to be enforcing it, and the additional burden that will fall on shopkeepers who are already facing a tough time with increase in shoplifting and other antisocial behaviour in their stores.

I see your point. During the 2000's and early 2010's when national and local government had a policy of making retailers the fall guys for social problems in the wake of the Licencing Act 2003, it was a horrible time to enforce age restricted sales. It was reported at the time (sorry, I don't have the source to hand) that enforcing age restricted sales was the number 1 cause of assaults and abuse on retail workers. But all that has significantly eased in recent years.

Then there was the self imposed restriction put on high caffeine energy drinks when they exploded in popularity. Kids now just simply nick them instead. Some Independent stores don't impose such restrictions and just serve the kids anyway and I'm sure a few will do the same with fags, even it becomes law.

During Covid, we were expected to police restrictions with what I can only describe as the worst behaviour I've ever seen from the general public of this country. I had a trolley picked up and thrown at me during that period, partially fracturing my wrist.

As long as we don't return to the disproportionately heavy enforcement of the olden days, the age restriction on fags going up every year should be easy. Tobacco is a dying industry anyway, they're sold from behind kiosks and when I review age restrictions and refusals, it's usually alcohol, energy drinks and painkillers where challenges are made with the likes of lottery, cigarettes and knives being low down on the list. There's been considerations in the industry for a few years now about gradually exiting the tobacco industry as it's sold for small margins, is a high risk area for stock loss and is labour intensive to sell. Hopefully this will speed this up a bit.

But I'd far prefer something to be done about the normalisation of shop theft and all the abuse, assaults and misinformation that comes with it. Problem with that is, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and I think it's far too big of a problem to ever go back. Body worn camera's, items behind locked doors, security tagged butter and higher prices all round will probably be here to stay unfortunately.

 

[jon81uk]

But I'd far prefer something to be done about the normalisation of shop theft and all the abuse, assaults and misinformation that comes with it. Problem with that is, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and I think it's far too big of a problem to ever go back. Body worn camera's, items behind locked doors, security tagged butter and higher prices all round will probably be here to stay unfortunately.

I have been wondering if some supermarkets will get to the point soon where the cost of extra staff to operate counters with high value items stored out the back (Argos style) is lower than the cost of the thefts. Although I think the main issue at the moment isn't so much the high value stuff, its high levels of low value theft.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I have been wondering if some supermarkets will get to the point soon where the cost of extra staff to operate counters with high value items stored out the back (Argos style) is lower than the cost of the thefts. Although I think the main issue at the moment isn't so much the high value stuff, its high levels of low value theft.

That's how grocers operated up until the 50s. You'd go up to the counter and the person serving you would run around the shop getting the things on your list for you. They say things go in cycles.

https://heritagecalling.com/2023/01...heralded-the-birth-of-the-modern-supermarket/

Of course another option is the Teco concept virtual store in South Korea (not sure it still exists though) Massive printed posters (or digital signage) of mock supermarket isles. You walk along, scan a QR code next to the product you want, enter a quantity and it's added to your virtual basket. - https://archello.com/project/tesco-opens-worlds-first-virtual-store

 

[BarryZola]

I think some petrol stations late at night still do the running around the shop collecting things for you (probably only smaller items though).

 

[jon81uk]

That's how grocers operated up until the 50s. You'd go up to the counter and the person serving you would run around the shop getting the things on your list for you. They say things go in cycles.

I doubt we will return to that method for most items, the range of products now is so large. But maybe with some high value stuff like wines and spirits, cosmetics or similar, it might be the system where you take a card and hand it to the cashier then collect from the kiosk.

 

[Matt.GC]

I have been wondering if some supermarkets will get to the point soon where the cost of extra staff to operate counters with high value items stored out the back (Argos style) is lower than the cost of the thefts. Although I think the main issue at the moment isn't so much the high value stuff, its high levels of low value theft.

Depends how you define low value theft. There's this rediculous misconception doing the rounds that impoverished people are stealing to eat and that's the cause of the problem. To be honest, if it's the case that people are stealing tinned goods, pasta, bread etc to feed themselves then the low value of those products wouldn't be that noticeable.

But it you're referring to the normalisation of theft, like buy one, take your own luxury item for free which I'm seeing a lot of, then followed by a mouth full of abuse, maybe a punch in the face and the audacity to complain about being asked to pay for something that you don't own then you're right.

But it's the gangs, addicts and professionals that have gone into hyperdrive at the moment. They've always existed of course, but now they've been given the thumbs up from national government, numerous police forces, celebrities and sympathetic journalists spreading misinformation, it's gone crazy. Due to the alarming increase in assaults and use of weapons, we're all being told to back off more than we ever have. Some police forces now don't even attend certain 999 calls from shops at all or investigate assaults anymore. My local force has a special section on their website designed to make us stop reporting where they demand that all CCTV is uploaded to their website or they won't do anything. Of course, very few internal CCTV systems currently have the ability to do this and taking a recording on your phone is no longer accepted as evidence in court and for some reason, you're not even allowed to drop footage off at a police station anymore. So we just don't bother reporting. This leaves us in a situation where every single member of this forum could walk in to a shop tomorrow, let's say for arguments sake nick around £50 worth of stuff and the worst that would happen is you'll be inconvenienced by a security guard and have the stuff taken back off you in most cases. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, shop theft is mostly legal.

They won't increase staffing levels. Payroll always goes down and not up. They're currently investing in CCTV systems that can meet police demands to upload (I suppose some forces will then have to find another way of stopping us from bothering them?), body worn camera's and AI surveillance that notifies remote CCTV centres when offenders enter stores with facial recognition. Negotiations are going on with suppliers to plant more security tags within packaging. Some stores are removing SKU's from ranges that generate high levels of theft so we'll probably see less choice in the future. Some chains are now starting to roll out locked glass doors for high value things such as spirts where you have to press a button to alert staff to get the product for you, similar to how perfume cabinets in Boots work. Kiosks are being secured with screens (a bit like you get in a bank but not as full on) and barriers at self-service checkouts that won't let you out without proof of payment. Store layouts are starting to revert back to how they used to be a few decades ago, with 1 way opening entrance gates and alarmed checkout barriers to restrict exit from stores without going through a checkout first.

Some of this will be paid for by price rises, but the market is so competitive, there's a very low limit to that. The majority will likely be paid for by a mixture of payroll cuts from continuing to take out food counters, customer Cafes, staff canteens etc and store closures. Online food is cost intensive, but dark stores where customers won't even be able to enter the store and only online picking takes place will probably be a part of the future. A good thing I suppose if it keeps me employed until retirement. But we're approaching the point where stock loss is nearing parity with wastage costs, it was under half that 2 decades ago.

 

[jon81uk]

Some chains are now starting to roll out locked glass doors for high value things such as spirts where you have to press a button to alert staff to get the product for you, similar to how perfume cabinets in Boots work

Yep this is exactly what I mean, there is a small extra cost in a member of staff having to fetch the item out the cabinet but it must be reaching the point where theft of that sort of higher value stuff is at the point where its worth adding to the stuff staff need to do. Although as you say its unlikely they will actually add more staff but instead just expect them to do more with less.

I agree in general though that shops are going back to twenty years ago with the one way stuff.

I shop at Costco a bit and they are quite staff intensive, no self-scan or similar of course. But they check every trolley against the receipt on the way out and they have found something in my trolley before that hadn't been scanned. It means 1-3 (depending how busy) staff on the exit, but I bet their stock loss is very very low.

 

[rob666]

Back in my college days, the local off licence had a cage on entry...one customer at a time let in on a buzzer.
He got your order, delivered it to a smaller cage on the counter, you paid at a "bankers till" at the side, then he unlocked the small cage to get access to your goods, he then let you out of the shop after closing the cage.
The baseball bat and fire extinguisher were on hand for the naughty, there was no shoplifting.
Middlesbrough 1980's.
Still happens around the edge of Liverpool as well, or it did a couple of years ago.

 

[Matt.GC]

Back in my college days, the local off licence had a cage on entry...one customer at a time let in on a buzzer.
He got your order, delivered it to a smaller cage on the counter, you paid at a "bankers till" at the side, then he unlocked the small cage to get access to your goods, he then let you out of the shop after closing the cage.
The baseball bat and fire extinguisher were on hand for the naughty, there was no shoplifting.
Middlesbrough 1980's.
Still happens around the edge of Liverpool as well, or it did a couple of years ago.

Aww man, I wish they'd let me take a baseball bat to work. I was rolling around on the floor grappling a guy across the road from the shop the other day (of course, in 2023, it's customary for bystanders to watch and film it to post on social media rather than help). A quick wallop round the back of his head would have ended it much quicker. Instead I ended up on my back on the pavement somehow, and these days getting up from that position now takes a lot longer than it used to.

I had a thorough ticking off from the better half (because the barber grassed me up when she took the boys to get their hair cut) "you're not 20 anymore, you can't just go round chasing criminals like you used to. What if you did your back again? I'd have to come and get you!". But I feel a nice big wooden bat would solve that problem somewhat .

 

[Benzin]

Labour winning BOTH By-Elections last night is an absolute shock. Both safe Tory seats with 19k and 24k leads turned around.

Red Tory he might be, but the tides are certainly turning for Starmer.

 

[Jonathan]

The Tories can blame low turnouts all they like, but the fact remains that they’ve lost two seats where they had huge majorities. Wonderful news to wake up to.

 

[BarryZola]

Let's be honest. The Tories have been so woeful and corrupt during the past few years that you could vote for pretty much any other party and it couldn't be any worse. So that's what people will do. I can't think of any reason why anyone would vote Tory this time around, apart from if you're the kind of person who benefits from the dodgy contracts they give out and such-like. At least last time they had Brexit to offer people. Now they have nothing. Absolutely nothing.