So glad younger people are more clued up:
1 Like
The Greens manifesto sounds like something from a Hans Christian Anderson fairy story.
Stop all wars, love thy neighbour and rejoin the EU…and live happy ever after…
Are they living in the real world, and did the people who voted for them (if it wasn’t rigged) actually read the manifesto before they voted?
OGF which party’s manifesto was not the stuff of fiction?
4 Likes
Because it reduces the enormous profit associated with illegal substances making it unattractive to gangs.
I am all in favour of it
2 Likes
Farage is sounding more and more like a temu trump by the day.
In case you missed them OGF 
2 Likes
Even funnier is that some look at the Reform manifesto and think its credible and the right thing for the UK. That’s a fairy tell written by Grimm
1 Like
Perhaps and that would certainly work for cannabis, but if opiates would be on prescription then this would not stop the illegal gang route. Also they would surely not produce and legalise meth in any country?
The prescribed amounts do not feed addicts’ constantly increased appetite for a high. Governments could not condone making people dependent. GPs would not prescribe anywhere near enough.
Addiction programmes require enormous financial and professional input per person, often failing time and again. There’s a mental health crisis and addiction is part of this. It’s far easier for Governments to ignore this mess and make glib statements about long term plans to manage addiction.
I’m not sure how the Greens could fund any of these promises. Printing more money?
The approach that the Green party are putting forward for drugs is essentially that which has been in place for years in Portugal. See article below. It is generally viewed as successful.
BTW not sure why you are being so derogatory about Green’s and claiming they’ll be printing money. That, after all, was exactly what the quantitative easing policy was … run by Labour and Tory governments. Plus, reducing drug related crime and drug health issues will save money.
3 Likes
Personally I always put the Greens first and the sitting member (Labor) last because only marginal seats get a lot of money spent on them.
The only good thing I can say is that Labor in my electorate now does have to go to preferences to win whereas a few elections ago they got the 50% plus one vote without preferences.
Can’t say I’ve ever been that excited after putting a cross on a piece of paper.
Different strokes…
Gangs would find something else just as dangerous and ‘illegal’ to make a profit from.
1 Like
Fair enough, voting is not mandatory. But if you do not vote then you negate anything you get to say politically. Not voting means that you are not bothered who is in power. So don’t comment and don’t complain. About anything.
You might want to check the post Boomer was responding to! 
1 Like
I feel your pain, voting is much more exciting here, you get to number each box
BTW that is the Greens “How to Vote” card not the actual ballot paper
By not voting doesn’t mean that you don’t have an opinion Lincs. Isn’t that what a forum discussion is all about?
You are right, of course.
However, what can be irritating is anyone who pushes an opinion or criticism about stuff going on but fails to exercise their vote. That’s having an opinion but not willing to act on it. Fortunately I still get to vote in UK elections (and I bet that fact irritates you).
1 Like
Surprisingly I agree with you about the people who fail to vote, the people who say that there is no point in voting are cutting off their nose to spite their face and allowing some rubbish party to step in as with the voting in my neck of the woods. The labour councilors are a tight nit lot round here and can always drum up enough support to keep filling the council with labour councilors…
Fortunately, at the last by elections Reform took the lions share of the vote and now outnumber the Doncaster councilors by a large amount. Unfortunately, I blame Starmer for the swing, and a decent labour leader will probably reverse the tide.
I’m not irritated by the fact that you still get to vote Lincs, what does irritate me is the woke EU supporting party that you will most likely vote for… 
I’m going to split hairs here. I think there is an important distinction between supporting the UK making moves back into the EU (I phrase it that way as rejoining won’t be simple) and supporting the EU itself and all it does. So, yes, I will be voting for a party that puts moving back into the EU front and centre of their manifesto. I will definitely not vote for any party that promotes and wants to continue the damage leaving the EU has done to the UK. That’s because I want what is best overall for the UK.
However I can see flaws in the EU, in how it is run, in some decisions it makes or does not make. Improvements can and should be made. A strong economic bloc, a strong voice in world politics, a strong euro is all needed in this increasingly fractured world. The UK is weaker being sat to one side of that. The Green party can clearly see that.
1 Like
I enjoyed reading about the bleating Reform have been sounding over their by-election “shadow win”. They have been channeling their inner Trump-baby to make spurious claims of voter wrong doing. When of course the only doing wrong was sensibly not voting for Reform. The below is a post that summed it up nicely:
“A spokesperson for Reform told us “this landmark result for Reform is a slap in the face for Labour; Reform were only kept from the winning position by radical islamist fundamentalists, who, historically, have a tendency to vote for white women, especially those representing a party run by a gay white Jewish guy. It was a foregone conclusion really”.”
1 Like
I didn’t say I don’t vote, I said I don’t get excited about it, at least, not in the way Bruce was intimating. 
1 Like