-
-
Latest Discussions
-
To be fair to Sue, she doesn't have to explain or justify why she supports or wants to vote for any party. That is the same for everyone. We are free to decide which party best reflects what we think is important to us. Discussing the stances/ policies of parties, in a general discussion, can be done without targetting anyone commenting here. Politics is just a point of view at the end of the day. Different things are important to different people, often for very valid reasons. Let's be respectful of that. My opinion is that if say the Labour Party wants to understand why it is losing supporters to the Greens, it needs to listen to and understand the reasons why. That theme has been explored in this thread a little through the discussion around councillor McAsh. The same is true of the Tories losing support to Reform and the Libdems. Let's not also assume that every member of every party is completely on board with every policy of the leadership of that party either. You only have to look at how backbenchers have forced u-turns from Starmer's cabinet on things like Welfare Reform and WFA to see that. -
As a compromise I'd be prepared to trial the reintroduction of dog licensing. The annual licence fee would be the same as road tax for Range Rover (same carbon emissions as a dog) and would require owners to pass a responsible dog ownership exam, the dogs would need to pass training and a behaviour exam and their DNA would need to be kept on record to identify the owners who leave dog shit all over the pavements, so that they can be jailed. -
Yeah Ban people, that will solve all the planets environmental issues over night Leave the dogs as they aren't the problem, its normally bad ownership and management that leads to badly behaved dogs. Spartacus Ps Cat Rule -
Some people are all of the above. Would happily ban them, or send them to training school
-
Recommended Posts