05-Feb 2024 : LAB 45% / CON 24% / REF 12% / LDM 9%

[steve]

Desperate Don soon to having a uniform the same colour as his face?

youtu.be/nW3q6RzJZ9c?si=_0cXuJVKNbtgXiSc

[oldnat]

Surely even Labour will now accept that they don't have to supinely allow the Rwanda Bill to pass in the Lords - in the hope that the Conservatives will be equally nice to them?

[steve]

kay9

It's entirely possible that by 2064 the damaging self inflicted consequences of smoking won't be as significant alternatively it won't be the recreational drug of choice of any but a small minority.

People mentioned the probability of smuggling. Which will inevitably happen but not on a significant scale given the product would still be legally available in the UK.

There is no direct comparison of an age related rolling prohibition with previous prohibitions but the U.S. prohibition from 1920-33 had around an initial 70% compliance rate.
Given that only around 11% of the UK now smoke, unlike the USA where the majority of adults drank alcohol in 1920 this would see the percentage in the UK drop to a very small minority  as the oldest section of the population most likely to smoke aren't replaced by a new cohort over time.

[graham]

Apr 17, 2024 15:02:35 GMT crossbat11 said:

Apr 17, 2024 14:35:25 GMT pjw1961 said:

Result of the Tuesday LG by-election:

PEMBROKESHIRE UA; St Ishmaels (Con gain from Ind)

George (Con) 297 (43.4%)
Jenkins (No Desc) 242 (35.3%)
Harwood (Ind) 69 (10.1%)
Simister (Ind) 52 (7.6%)
Worsley (No Desc) 25 (3.6%)

Changes in vote share would be meaningless in this case (technically everyone would count as "new")

These are getting more interesting as every week goes by. Why a Tuesday and not a Thursday for polling day, and who are these "No Description" dudes making headway now?

We certainly needed something like this to move the debate on from whether Deadly's propensity to exploit uncovered and rain-affected wickets flattered his bowling figures and career average.

I know from my own experience that in Pembrokeshire party politics is not part of the culture in local elections- particularly in the more rural areas. A party label tends to weaken a candidate's prospects - and even when such a candidate is elected it tends to be 'in spite of' the party label rather than 'because of' it!

[jayblanc]

Apr 17, 2024 17:01:23 GMT leftieliberal said:

Apr 17, 2024 16:20:46 GMT jayblanc said:

The revenue will be replaced by the new revenue on Vape duty. And the incentive to smuggle back large amounts of smokes already existed, as did the prosecutions for avoiding duty by smuggling in such smokes. It may surprise you to know that stock piling up on bulk boxes of cigarettes from France was indeed illegal duty avoidance even when the UK was part of the EU, because specially licensed products such as Tobacco are an excluded product from the Common Market.

I'm not talking about smuggling, I'm talking about plain duty-free like this that Brittany Ferries are offering.

There's a strict limit on how much you can buy from a duty-free shop, and they won't sell you more than your duty-free allowances. Current duty free allowance is either 200 Cigarettes or 350gm Loose Tobaco. Trying to bring any more than that is duty avoidance, and risks prosecution. Since an average smoker has 9 smokes per day (much reduced from it's 1970's 21 a day peak!) this means the average smoker can only get a 22 day legal supply out of their trip. So unless they make a trip back and forth to Calls every 22 days, the average smoker can't stay stocked up.

[oldnat]

Although New Zealand had passed the legislation to progressively raise the minimum age for tobacco purchase, the incoming centre-right government repealed it, in order to raise more in tobacco duty.

Will the next UK government do the same?

[mercian]

Apr 17, 2024 15:01:49 GMT bardin1 said:

Apr 17, 2024 14:56:43 GMT jayblanc said:

A little clarification for how the law will work...

It will not criminalise smoking. Possession of tobacco by those born after 2009 is not going to be a crime.

What is happening is changes to the licensing of sale of tobacco and tobacco products. Anything containing Tobacco is being phased out by the year on year increase on restriction of sales. Enforcement will come on the sale and licensing end, as it already does, with the same expected levels of effectiveness. Additionally "Disposable Vapes" are being outright banned.

What it does not do is entirely ban or phase out all recreational Nicotine products due to industry lobbying. Vapes will not be entirely eliminated, and they will remain on sale without the phase-out ban, but there will be a stronger restriction on the amounts of nicotine, and how they are advertised, and a new tax levied against them. Vapes are in fact the greater concern in many ways, as they have already supplanted the Cigarette in terms of "The cool thing adults do".

Thanks

To be  honest I was too lazy to read all about it and that's a helpful summary.

I am more comfortable with it being at the sale end but it does seem pretty unworkable, A 15 year old who is currently smoking will be able to get their 18 year old brother to buy them. And they can continue doing that for the rest of their lives.

I used to get accosted by a homeless guy regularly at Uni asking for the price of  a fag (then about 5p IIRC)outside a newsagents in Edinburgh.

I have this vision of a bunch of 55 year olds in 2064 hanging around the same newsagent accosting 60 year olds to buy their fags for them...

For it to work, adults will have to be made to show a document with Date-of birth to buy cigarettes in a few years' time. Could any shopkeeper tell the difference between say an 18 and 19 year-old by sight?

[Danny]

Apr 17, 2024 12:24:22 GMT johntel said:

Just out of interest @mark, do you agree with the law to make people wear safety belts in cars? I suspect that the smoking ban will save a similar number of lives, though I don't have figures. 

Back then, I looked into the figures on deaths per driven mile. Compulsory seat belts caused a drop in deaths at the time they happened. But if you looked at the figure ten years later, they were pretty much back on trend as if nothing had happened. Rather like Truss caused a crash in conservative support, which recovered when Sunak took over, but is now back on the steady trend decline of conservatives support which has been going on now for some years.

Several factors were at work. legislation probably speeded up use of belts voluntarily, but people would have done this eventually anyway, it just pushed them to change their habits. There was a lot of publicity about road safety and police campaigns at the time this happened, which if it had happened without compulsion would still likely have led to more belts worn and fewer deaths.

On the other side of the scale, there is the question of perceived risk. If you think a journey is dangerous, then you take more care. This is recognised in road design, where doing things like straightening and widening roads can actually increase the accident rate, because if people think they need to take care at blind bends, they do actually slow down and pay attention. So again, the road safety campaign may have made people take more care, but reassuring them seat belts would save their lives might have persuaded them they could be more risky.

And of course there was a reduction in road deaths, leading to a shortage of transplant organs.

But the bottom line, made no difference in the long run.

[leftieliberal]

Apr 17, 2024 18:04:33 GMT jayblanc said:

Apr 17, 2024 17:01:23 GMT leftieliberal said:

I'm not talking about smuggling, I'm talking about plain duty-free like this that Brittany Ferries are offering.

There's a strict limit on how much you can buy from a duty-free shop, and they won't sell you more than your duty-free allowances. Current duty free allowance is either 200 Cigarettes or 350gm Loose Tobaco. Trying to bring any more than that is duty avoidance, and risks prosecution. Since an average smoker has 9 smokes per day (much reduced from it's 1970's 21 a day peak!) this means the average smoker can only get a 22 day legal supply out of their trip. So unless they make a trip back and forth to Calls every 22 days, the average smoker can't stay stocked up.

And what makes you think that won't happen? Look at Brittany Ferries prices and compare them with what you pay in a shop here.

[oldnat]

Apr 17, 2024 18:26:18 GMT mercian said:

Apr 17, 2024 15:01:49 GMT bardin1 said:

For it to work, adults will have to be made to show a document with Date-of birth to buy cigarettes in a few years' time. Could any shopkeeper tell the difference between say an 18 and 19 year-old by sight?

Simpler to look at current practice with age restricted products. Because shopkeepers obviously can't tell the difference between a 17 year-old and an 18 year-old by sight, anyone under 21 (and older if they look as if they might be that young) is already warned that they may need to show ID.

Since most adults will have such ID anyway (even if not the stupidly restrictive photo ID introduced by the Conservatives for English & GB elections) it would only be a problem for the small group of smokers who have none - so will rapidly get it if required!

In most US states, even an obviously elderly guy like me has to show ID to buy a drink in a bar, or strong liquor from the state-owned store.

[neilj]

The Lords again voted for ammendments to the Rwanda Bill
Back to the Commons

[oldnat]

Apr 17, 2024 18:40:07 GMT leftieliberal said:

Apr 17, 2024 18:04:33 GMT jayblanc said:

There's a strict limit on how much you can buy from a duty-free shop, and they won't sell you more than your duty-free allowances. Current duty free allowance is either 200 Cigarettes or 350gm Loose Tobaco. Trying to bring any more than that is duty avoidance, and risks prosecution. Since an average smoker has 9 smokes per day (much reduced from it's 1970's 21 a day peak!) this means the average smoker can only get a 22 day legal supply out of their trip. So unless they make a trip back and forth to Calls every 22 days, the average smoker can't stay stocked up.

And what makes you think that won't happen? Look at Brittany Ferries prices and compare them with what you pay in a shop here.

That's just like the arguments used against minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland - "Vans will drive across the border to stock up on cheap booze in England, so it will have no effect".

It was obvious nonsense at the time, and so it has proved to be.

Incidentally, while MUP was introduced in Scotland with a "sunset clause" which would have ended it at the end of this month, unless Holyrood chose to continue it, it has been continued with an increase which covers the reduced effect due to inflation.

The vote was 88 to 28 in favour of the continuation and increase. Naturally, the Conservatives were the opponents.

[Danny]

Apr 17, 2024 17:20:22 GMT steve said:

Given that only around 11% of the UK now smoke, unlike the USA where the majority of adults drank alcohol in 1920 this would see the percentage in the UK drop to a very small minority  as the oldest section of the population most likely to smoke aren't replaced by a new cohort over time.

I had a look at some figures, and the proportion of smokers in England fell from 20% to 13% between 2011 and 2022. The rate of fall is linear at about 3/4% a year, so we might predict if the trend continued that no one would be smoking in 20 years time if we do nothing whatsoever. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2022

The data also says peak usage is amongst 25-34 year olds. In the time period the biggest fall in usage was amongst 18-24 year olds where it fell from 26%-12%, at which rate it would be hitting zero in another 10 years anyway. So its entirely arguable this legislation is achieving nothing whatsoever, because the youngsters are already giving up anyway. Choosing never to start. The law is entirely a political stunt with no statistical justification at all.

Lowest smoking rate was amongst 65+ group at 8%, so between age 30 and 65 about half of people had given up. You then need to remember that most of the adverse effects of smoking resolve within ten years of quitting. So if a 30 year old quits, by 65 their risk is pretty much as if they had never smoked. If this law prevents people smoking from say 16-40, it will have a pretty tiny effect on overall health in the UK. People who gave up around 30-40 do not have much risk from their years of smoking.

So all in all its a complete stunt. 18 year olds are giving up anyway.  The actual damage from smoking is being exaggerated by taking the total number of smokers in the uk, wheras half of them will already give up before they are likely to come to harm from smoking.

Now, that says nothing whatever about vape usage, which has substituted a whole lot smoking. It is considered very much safer than tobacco smoking. its rife amongst teenagers. No one smokes at school, they vape.  The question is, if government now starts trying to attack vape usage, will it drive people back to actual cigarettes?

[mercian]

Apr 17, 2024 18:45:19 GMT oldnat said:

Apr 17, 2024 18:26:18 GMT mercian said:

For it to work, adults will have to be made to show a document with Date-of birth to buy cigarettes in a few years' time. Could any shopkeeper tell the difference between say an 18 and 19 year-old by sight?

Simpler to look at current practice with age restricted products. Because shopkeepers obviously can't tell the difference between a 17 year-old and an 18 year-old by sight, anyone under 21 (and older if they look as if they might be that young) is already warned that they may need to show ID.

Since most adults will have such ID anyway (even if not the stupidly restrictive photo ID introduced by the Conservatives for English & GB elections) it would only be a problem for the small group of smokers who have none - so will rapidly get it if required!

In most US states, even an obviously elderly guy like me has to show ID to buy a drink in a bar, or strong liquor from the state-owned store.

Will the smoking law apply in Scotland? Just wondering because I understand health matters are devolved (and because I'm thinking of smuggling opportunities).

[Danny]

Apr 17, 2024 18:54:14 GMT oldnat said:

Apr 17, 2024 18:40:07 GMT leftieliberal said:

And what makes you think that won't happen? Look at Brittany Ferries prices and compare them with what you pay in a shop here.

That's just like the arguments used against minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland - "Vans will drive across the border to stock up on cheap booze in England, so it will have no effect".

It was obvious nonsense at the time, and so it has proved to be.

Incidentally, while MUP was introduced in Scotland with a "sunset clause" which would have ended it at the end of this month, unless Holyrood chose to continue it, it has been continued with an increase which covers the reduced effect due to inflation.

The vote was 88 to 28 in favour of the continuation and increase. Naturally, the Conservatives were the opponents.

There was a lancet report which suggested in the first three years alcohol consumption fell 3%, and deaths for causes directly related to alcohol alone by 13%, or 156 deaths per year. However, the spectator published an article in 2023 which argues although there was a drop in deaths the first year after the tax was introduced, deaths have been climbing back every since. Alcohol deaths in Scotland peaked in 2006 and fell steadily to 2012, by about 450 a year. They then started rising again more slowly but were pretty much flat 2016/17/18 before the tax. In 2019 they dropped but by 2020 were back to higher than before the tax was introduced, and rising steadily again into 2021. www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-scotlands-minimal-alcohol-pricing-work-a-look-at-the-data/

Basically, there was a small drop in deaths the first year it was introduced but thereafter they went back to higher than trend beforehand.

Spectator argues the  lancet study claimed the tax had saved lives by heading off a rise in deaths which the authors predicted by comparison with England where deaths rose. Though they found no statistically significant reduction in hospital admission for diseases which might have alcohol as a contributory cause, just a drop in sudden deaths. Spectator questioned whether trying to make comparisons to England which has half the alcohol deaths of Scotland were very dubious. They also suggest a drop in just one year from a tax aimed at reducing alcohol usage is questionable, because how could it work in such a short timescale against a chronic disease caused by many years of alcohol abuse.

The actual outcome is that deaths from alcohol are now higher than before the tax was introduced, and sill twice those in England. The scottish government has reacted by pushing up the tax from 50p to 65p per unit of alcohol. We await events.

I can quite believe a 3% fall in alcohol sales within Scotland could be accounted for by people choosing to buy south of the border.

Oh, the lancet study found the biggest reduction in deaths was in deprived areas. Not sure if that means the rich paid no attention to the price rise, or whether the real cause of these deaths was poverty and social deprivation and drinking alcohol merely a symptom. There is a problem because some sorts of alcohol were always priced higher than the minimum level, so their price was completely unaffected. Its cheap drinks favoured by the poor which are affected, so its a tax directed at the poor.

[lefthanging]

Apr 17, 2024 18:26:18 GMT mercian said:

Apr 17, 2024 15:01:49 GMT bardin1 said:

For it to work, adults will have to be made to show a document with Date-of birth to buy cigarettes in a few years' time. Could any shopkeeper tell the difference between say an 18 and 19 year-old by sight?

Well no - but then they couldn't tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old either, so they already need to see ID under the current system.

In fact anybody who doesn't look obviously over 25 is automatically ID'd when buying cigarettes or alcohol anyway.

[steve]

Danny

That's utter bollocks
In 1974  3800 died on Britain's roads

In 1982, the year before the seat belt law was enforced, 2,443 people were killed on Britain's roads. By 2016, that figure had dropped to 816. This is a huge achievement, especially as the number of cars on the road has increased substantially in that time from around 20 million in 1980 to 33 million in 2020

[Danny]

Apr 17, 2024 19:48:40 GMT steve said:

Danny

That's utter bollocks

In 1982, the year before the seat belt law was enforced, 2,443 people were killed on Britain's roads. By 2016, that figure had dropped to 816. This is a huge achievement, especially as the number of cars on the road has increased substantially in that time.

View Attachment

You are forgetting that deaths were falling every year before the introduction of mandatory belting. You graph doesnt cover that...it gives the impression deaths fell because of the law, whereas my entire point was that if you look back before the law, the rate of fall just continued in the long run on the same trend.  Every year road authorities spend money eliminating sources of accidents from roads. Every year cars are manufactured to higher safety standards to keep people alive (including of course fitting of belts). And we have yet to mention how belts are now in many ways redundant, because airbags have the same or better effect and duplicate the benefit of belts.  Its very likely if the law on mandatory belts was repealed today, it would have no effect.

Your graph is also very odd in that it shows a sharp drop in deaths from 2006-2010. Whatever caused that? it makes my point that safety is all about multiple technical changes not one law.

(edit: seems there were some further changes in seat belt rules in 2006 but they dont looke like they affect many people. There also seem to have been changes in driver permitted hours for commercial vehicles, which perhaps might account for a sudden drop in road accidents)

(edit2: your stats do not appear to be adjusted per driven mile. Total number of miles driven has changed a lot over the years, so the more useful numbers are likely to be the number of deaths per mile of journey made, not the number dying each year. Its like a country with twice as many people having twice as many covid deaths, but not actually doing worse.)

[steve]

Danny

I suspect there's only one of us to see the results of not wearing a seatbelt in a serious road traffic accident.

[Danny]

Apr 17, 2024 20:09:21 GMT steve said:

Danny

I suspect there's only one of us to see the results of not wearing a seatbelt in a serious road traffic accident.

So I make a reasoned argument based upon statistics, not least those you supplied. You reply that its horrific dying in a car crash. How does your reply advance your case about the effectiveness of belts?

Its pretty horiffic being blown to bits in Ukraine, and yet people are volunteering. While we decline to just buy them some ammunition.

[mercian]

Apr 17, 2024 19:43:33 GMT lefthanging said:

Apr 17, 2024 18:26:18 GMT mercian said:

For it to work, adults will have to be made to show a document with Date-of birth to buy cigarettes in a few years' time. Could any shopkeeper tell the difference between say an 18 and 19 year-old by sight?

Well no - but then they couldn't tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old either, so they already need to see ID under the current system.

In fact anybody who doesn't look obviously over 25 is automatically ID'd when buying cigarettes or alcohol anyway.

Ok then. What about a 26 and 27 year old in a few years' time? They will both have to show id in theory, and so will anyone who might be 26 if that's where the cut-off has crept up to. 

[mercian]

Apr 17, 2024 19:48:40 GMT steve said:

Danny

That's utter bollocks
In 1974  3800 died on Britain's roads

In 1982, the year before the seat belt law was enforced, 2,443 people were killed on Britain's roads. By 2016, that figure had dropped to 816. This is a huge achievement, especially as the number of cars on the road has increased substantially in that time from around 20 million in 1980 to 33 million in 2020




View Attachment

But there have been plenty of other safety improvements in that time - safer cars, better design of road layouts, speed cameras and so on. They will all have contributed to reduced deaths.
EDIT: I see Danny's already made more or less the same point.

[steve]

Danny

The survivor in that accident was wearing a seat belt the back seat passenger wasn't and died!

It's not that complicated.


mercian
There's no dispute that vehicles are safer for their occupants now than they were in the 1980's

[mark61]

Further on the Rayner affair, Clearly the Conservatives and their allies are not giving up and seem to think they are on to something.  I'm not sure this is a big win for them even if AR is found to have done something wrong. they will have succeeded in forcing out a politician who is liked by many, obviously from a working class background, one of the few MP's who is,  over what at it's highest would be avoidance of a couple of £thousand of CGT before she was an MP and/or some minor irregularity concerning her address declaration.  Even John Major was once subject to scrutiny for the latter!

I know it is an obvious point but the tax avoidance on the other side of the house is of a magnitude which dwarfs the above, despite being rich beyond the dreams of avarice by ordinary peoples standards, Tory donors, Cabinet ministers, MP's and members of the Prime Ministers family still do not want to pay their fair share of tax nor show any appetite to recover Public Money from their friends and Cronies who Profiteered from the Covid Pandemic.

If AR falls, and in light of the above it seems unjust this will energise the Labour base, and maybe the Labour vote.   If she is vindicated the Tories will look Petty and vindictive.  The one thing that most British people have in common is a distaste for Bullies.

[oldnat]

Libertarians (and usually "populist" parties - aka as "opposition" parties) always see potential problems with any form of legislation that limits their freedom to do whatever they (or potential voters for opposition parties) like. 

Danny , on the other hand, is simply a contrarian. Such people do perform a useful function, in challenging received wisdom (because it isn't always right). However, contrarians are tiresome because they challenge everything - as if no one (but them, and their selected sources) can ever get anything right.

[oldnat]

Apr 17, 2024 21:03:13 GMT mark61 said:

Further on the Rayner affair, Clearly the Conservatives and their allies are not giving up and seem to think they are on to something.  I'm not sure this is a big win for them even if AR is found to have done something wrong. they will have succeeded in forcing out a politician who is liked by many, obviously from a working class background, one of the few MP's who is,  over what at it's highest would be avoidance of a couple of £thousand of CGT before she was an MP and/or some minor irregularity concerning her address declaration.  Even John Major was once subject to scrutiny for the latter!

I know it is an obvious point but the tax avoidance on the other side of the house is of a magnitude which dwarfs the above, despite being rich beyond the dreams of avarice by ordinary peoples standards, Tory donors, Cabinet ministers, MP's and members of the Prime Ministers family still do not want to pay their fair share of tax nor show any appetite to recover Public Money from their friends and Cronies who Profiteered from the Covid Pandemic.

If AR falls, and in light of the above it seems unjust this will energise the Labour base, and maybe the Labour vote.   If she is vindicated the Tories will look Petty and vindictive.  The one thing that most British people have in common is a distaste for Bullies.

Is there a single bit of evidence that "most British people" have a distaste for bullies? It is probably true that most people everywhere dislike being bullied, but are not necessarily averse to bullying others.

In any case, implying that "British people" are in any way unique in having a distaste for bullies is rather silly exceptionalism.

[mercian]

Apr 17, 2024 21:03:13 GMT mark61 said:

Further on the Rayner affair, Clearly the Conservatives and their allies are not giving up and seem to think they are on to something.  I'm not sure this is a big win for them even if AR is found to have done something wrong. they will have succeeded in forcing out a politician who is liked by many, obviously from a working class background, one of the few MP's who is,  over what at it's highest would be avoidance of a couple of £thousand of CGT before she was an MP and/or some minor irregularity concerning her address declaration.  Even John Major was once subject to scrutiny for the latter!

I know it is an obvious point but the tax avoidance on the other side of the house is of a magnitude which dwarfs the above, despite being rich beyond the dreams of avarice by ordinary peoples standards, Tory donors, Cabinet ministers, MP's and members of the Prime Ministers family still do not want to pay their fair share of tax nor show any appetite to recover Public Money from their friends and Cronies who Profiteered from the Covid Pandemic.

If AR falls, and in light of the above it seems unjust this will energise the Labour base, and maybe the Labour vote.   If she is vindicated the Tories will look Petty and vindictive.  The one thing that most British people have in common is a distaste for Bullies.

Morally you may have a point but (and I hope our legal experts will back me up) there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is simply organising your finances so that you reduce the amount of tax you pay within the law. I would argue that even having a cash ISA is a form of tax avoidance because otherwise you would pay tax on the interest above £1000. So some forms of tax avoidance are enabled and even encouraged by political parties of various colours.
My understanding is that what Rayner may have done would be tax evasion (i.e. illegal) even if accidental.  It is a relatively small amount of money but that's not really the point.  Tradesmen doing a job for cash in hand may not always declare it to the taxman. Though trivial, that too would be tax evasion. And add up the number of such jobs and the Treasury could be losing an awful lot.

  

[johntel]

Apr 17, 2024 21:03:13 GMT mark61 said:

...  The one thing that most British people have in common is a distaste for Bullies.

They don't like hypocrisy either.  Why didn't she just apologise and say she's been given bad advice?

Having said that I very much hope she's found not to have done anything wrong. 

[oldnat]

Apr 17, 2024 21:24:42 GMT johntel said:

Apr 17, 2024 21:03:13 GMT mark61 said:

...  The one thing that most British people have in common is a distaste for Bullies.

They don't like hypocrisy either.  Why didn't she just apologise and say she's been given bad advice?

Having said that I very much hope she's found not to have done anything wrong. 

"They (British people) don't like hypocrisy either."

Again, is there any evidence for "British people" disliking hypocrisy (among others, of course, - not in themselves) more than people anywhere else, or is that just another example of crass exceptionalism?

[pjw1961]

Apr 17, 2024 21:03:13 GMT mark61 said:

Further on the Rayner affair, Clearly the Conservatives and their allies are not giving up and seem to think they are on to something.  I'm not sure this is a big win for them even if AR is found to have done something wrong. they will have succeeded in forcing out a politician who is liked by many, obviously from a working class background, one of the few MP's who is,  over what at it's highest would be avoidance of a couple of £thousand of CGT before she was an MP and/or some minor irregularity concerning her address declaration.  Even John Major was once subject to scrutiny for the latter!

I know it is an obvious point but the tax avoidance on the other side of the house is of a magnitude which dwarfs the above, despite being rich beyond the dreams of avarice by ordinary peoples standards, Tory donors, Cabinet ministers, MP's and members of the Prime Ministers family still do not want to pay their fair share of tax nor show any appetite to recover Public Money from their friends and Cronies who Profiteered from the Covid Pandemic.

If AR falls, and in light of the above it seems unjust this will energise the Labour base, and maybe the Labour vote.   If she is vindicated the Tories will look Petty and vindictive.  The one thing that most British people have in common is a distaste for Bullies.

The theory is that (a) even a complete nonsense story distracts and wastes your opponent's time and energy and (b) mud always sticks. I know plenty of RoC types who are convinced Starmer did something wrong in "Beergate" despite it being total bollocks. 

I would report the Tory MPs involved for wasting police time - sauce for the goose and all that ...