spw-dev

FWIW my comment about misunderstanding green policy wasn’t really aimed at you.

I agree, but you did comment saying that Zack needs to find language to combat these things on a video of him doing exactly that.

Most of the criticism of green policies we see are based on total misunderstandings of what they actually are.

Zack himself even said that open borders (while aspirational) isn’t a practical policy

The problem here is that many of his supporters think this is a good thing, they see it as him being ‘successful’

Given how accurate polls have been recently there’s every chance they already have

By never being left in the first place.

Tell me again how a couple of half arsed attempts at breakfast clubs means this government is doing a great job.

Great response 👏

Given how accurate polls have been recently it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that reform and greens are actually the other way around

Labour making up Green policies to attack

All it means is that there are rules, that’s a good thing.

Brilliant 😂

The green policy is essentially the opposite, pull the heaviest users into tightly controlled medical schemes, tightly regulate anything that’s sold legally, and keep illegal dealing an offence.

It is a minefield, which is exactly why ‘legalise everything and tax it like alcohol’ isn’t the policy. Alcohol and tobacco already show what happens when dangerous drugs are extremely easy to buy: huge harm and huge costs that far exceed anything brought in through tax.

The aim is to squeeze and undercut the illegal market over time by moving demand, bit by bit, into safer, controlled channels. That’s not an overnight flip but a long process that would be implemented in stages over many years, with different models for different drugs depending on their risks.

Second, it’s not that ‘recreational use stays totally illegal forever’, it’s that any legal access for non‑addicts would be tightly regulated and phased: age limits, licences, purchase caps, health checks, with unlicensed street dealing still a crime.

Two bits to separate here. First, the Green approach is to shrink the criminal market by taking its core customers – the heaviest‑using, most desperate addicts – into NHS‑run schemes, so they’re not funding gangs. That alone dents a huge chunk of the profits.

The Greens’ direction of travel is to eventually bring all drugs into some kind of legal regulation, but nowhere near a model where you can stroll into a normal pharmacy for a bag of coke

Recreational use of things like cocaine or ecstasy would not suddenly be ‘fine’ - any legal access for non‑dependent users would still be heavily restricted, and open street dealing would remain illegal.

No, the really tightly controlled medical schemes are aimed at addicts with serious dependency, not at casual users who just want to get high at the weekend.

Dealing outside those medical or licensed systems would still be a criminal offence, and the whole idea is to make the official route safer, cheaper and more reliable so that addicts have far less incentive to turn to illegal, exploitative dealers selling unknown, often more dangerous substances.

They want to replace street dealers with tightly controlled NHS‑style prescribing for high‑risk drugs (only for dependent users, under supervision) and regulated, age‑restricted legal channels for lower‑risk drugs like cannabis.

Nobody is suggesting we allow tescos to sell heroin.

Crazy to think that two things can be true at the same time

That has nothing to do with the bill though. It’s about planning military action, not reacting to emergency situations.

any further UK military action, using our bases or forces, should only go ahead if there’s a lawful basis, a viable objective and the consent of MPs – exactly what Starmer himself argued for in his leadership campaign.

We’re not talking about pausing an immediate act of self‑defence while missiles are in the air – international law already covers that. The bill Ellie Chowns has tabled is about what happens after that moment:

What?

He doesn’t need to be an MP to support it – the Prime Minister can say ‘this bill has the support of the government and myself’ even if he doesn’t get a vote.

He quite literally argued for this kind of law during his Labour leadership campaign. This is the kind of thing he was elected for.

Extreme hard left lunacy

So hot right now.