Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Just 19% think the Chancellor’s changes will make them better off – politicalbetting.com

1468910

Comments

  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    Leon,

    I don't wish to be personal but is it not the case that these days you yourself struggle to pass the swimming costume test?
    Because people keep feeding him, probably.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,059
    Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)

    See also why vodka is cheap in Russia.
  • Leon said:

    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this

    Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.

    Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.

    Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Is it yet time to update this ?

    They're out of sorts in Sunderland
    And terribly cross in Kent,
    They're dull in Hull
    And the Isle of Mull
    Is seething with discontent,
    They're nervous in Northumberland
    And Devon is down the drain,
    They're filled with wrath
    On the firth of Forth
    And sullen on Salisbury Plain,
    In Dublin they're depressed, lads,
    Maybe because they're Celts
    For Drake is going West, lads,
    And so is everyone else.
    Hurray, hurray, hurray!
    Misery's here to stay.
    There are bad times just around the corner,
    There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky
    And it's no good whining
    About a silver lining
    For we know from experience that they won't roll by,
    With a scowl and a frown
    We'll keep our peckers down
    And prepare for depression and doom and dread,
    We're going to unpack our troubles from our old kit bag
    And wait until we drop down dead.…
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime

    It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing

    Iran as a thriving, young, modern Islamic democracy would be quite the prize for the world. Fingers crossed.
    There are two crucial countries where conservative Islam might be seriously challenged, and overturned. Egypt and Iran. I have long thought this

    Why? Because they have ancient, noble identities quite apart from Islam. Iran is Persia; Egypt is Egypt of the pharaohs as well as the caliphs

    I hope the patriarchal fucks in Tehran are trembling
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)

    Every study I have ever seen indicates the unhealthy have lower lifetime healthcare costs than the healthy.

    Now I am not saying its good to be unhealthy living on an individual basis, on a national basis though don't complain about a demographic time bomb while insisting people live a healthier lifestyle so they live longer....its not joined up government
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373
    Pagan2 said:

    I don’t think today’s announcements will affect me personally. However, indirectly I expect to be helping my children pay their mortgages.

    Did you miss the internment of scots announcement?
    That’s next week’s announcement. You’ve just pre announced a government secret.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,232
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    Pagan2 said:

    I don’t think today’s announcements will affect me personally. However, indirectly I expect to be helping my children pay their mortgages.

    Did you miss the internment of scots announcement?
    That’s next week’s announcement. You’ve just pre announced a government secret.
    Sadly the high court shut it down on the grounds feeding scots people on salad was cruel and unusual punishment
  • Leon said:

    Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime

    It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing

    One of the best 'documentaries' I've seen featuring regular Iranian people is 'A Taste of Iran' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n59zt (obviously, as per, not available on the iplayer). Iranian BBC World Service journalist going round and just having nice food cooked by locals and having a chat.

    Though most of the 'Iranian' people I know here are very, very certain that they are 'Persian'.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,232
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
    I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
    here is one for example
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/

    quote from article
    "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "

    NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.

    I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I don’t think today’s announcements will affect me personally. However, indirectly I expect to be helping my children pay their mortgages.

    Did you miss the internment of scots announcement?
    That’s next week’s announcement. You’ve just pre announced a government secret.
    Sadly the high court shut it down on the grounds feeding scots people on salad was cruel and unusual punishment
    I had salad for dinner! Does that make me a bad person?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,232
    Pagan2 said:

    Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)

    Every study I have ever seen indicates the unhealthy have lower lifetime healthcare costs than the healthy.

    Now I am not saying its good to be unhealthy living on an individual basis, on a national basis though don't complain about a demographic time bomb while insisting people live a healthier lifestyle so they live longer....its not joined up government
    I think this is true only if you ignore the economic costs of someone being ill for a sizable chunk of their working life. But I haven’t found any total economic cost studies yet.

    Also, there’s a time dependent issue here: we’re pushing the costs of obesity onto our healthcare service in the here & now, whereas the load those people might put on it if they were healthy is decades into the future.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Leon said:

    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409

    Wow. There is so much news the fierce anger in Iran passed me by

    That does look like critical for the regime
    One would hope that rule by weirdo geriatric 'clerics' would have a limited shelflife.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime

    It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing

    Iran as a thriving, young, modern Islamic democracy would be quite the prize for the world. Fingers crossed.
    There are two crucial countries where conservative Islam might be seriously challenged, and overturned. Egypt and Iran. I have long thought this

    Why? Because they have ancient, noble identities quite apart from Islam. Iran is Persia; Egypt is Egypt of the pharaohs as well as the caliphs

    I hope the patriarchal fucks in Tehran are trembling
    Egypt has a military government effectively now which overthrew the previous Islamist government
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
    I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
    here is one for example
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/

    quote from article
    "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "

    NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.

    I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
    I quoted another study I found which wasnt a newspaper.

    Frankly all I am doing here is suggesting that claiming the obese,smokers and drinkers cost the country more money than the healthy living people is unproven so lets stop claiming they are the problem.
  • Leon said:

    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this

    Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.

    Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.

    Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
    The 'morality police' are nothing more than thugs with guns; worse, they were often young thugs with guns.

    Mrs J has an interesting (and funny) anecdote about one of her interactions with their paramilitary predecessors when she was a child over there in the 1980s, just after the revolution. She's led a much more interesting life than me...
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,232
    Dynamo said:

    Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)

    See also why vodka is cheap in Russia.
    Vodka is everywhere in Russia because the Russian state relied on tax revenues from alcohol sales for centuries.

    Not even the Soviets were able to break free of it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    edited September 2022
    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)

    Every study I have ever seen indicates the unhealthy have lower lifetime healthcare costs than the healthy.

    Now I am not saying its good to be unhealthy living on an individual basis, on a national basis though don't complain about a demographic time bomb while insisting people live a healthier lifestyle so they live longer....its not joined up government
    I think this is true only if you ignore the economic costs of someone being ill for a sizable chunk of their working life. But I haven’t found any total economic cost studies yet.

    Also, there’s a time dependent issue here: we’re pushing the costs of obesity onto our healthcare service in the here & now, whereas the load those people might put on it if they were healthy is decades into the future.
    Most people I know that have been out of work for sizable chunks of their life its not down to obesity or drinking or smoking but mental health
  • Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime

    It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing

    Iran as a thriving, young, modern Islamic democracy would be quite the prize for the world. Fingers crossed.
    There are two crucial countries where conservative Islam might be seriously challenged, and overturned. Egypt and Iran. I have long thought this

    Why? Because they have ancient, noble identities quite apart from Islam. Iran is Persia; Egypt is Egypt of the pharaohs as well as the caliphs

    I hope the patriarchal fucks in Tehran are trembling
    Iran is not Persia, Persia is Iran. Iran is their own name for the country: land of order. As opposed to the lands around it: Turan, land of chaos.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,232
    edited September 2022
    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
    I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
    here is one for example
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/

    quote from article
    "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "

    NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.

    I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
    I quoted another study I found which wasnt a newspaper.
    It was the same study!
    Pagan2 said:



    Frankly all I am doing here is suggesting that claiming the obese,smokers and drinkers cost the country more money than the healthy living people is unproven so lets stop claiming they are the problem.

    Fair. Lets stick to what we do know: we have an aging population that is costing more every year to treat & the only way round that is not to treat people who get ill when they get old. Anyone want to volunteer?
  • Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    moonshine said:

    MaxPB said:

    moonshine said:

    We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.

    They'll tell themselves that when we have the first bond sale failure in the next few weeks. We stuck it to those bond traders!
    This is melodramatic
    Once government is out of debt, THEN we can govern without worrying about what the bond traders think.
  • Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)

    Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets.

    When I was in Hungary and Yugoslavia mid-1980s most men smoked, many like chimneys, more so than US & UK, even more than France! Prices for domestic brands were affordable for local and cheap for American smokers such as I was way back then.

    Cheapest were Albanian imports that cost about a nickle a pack and kicked like a mule. Reminiscent of old-school "Picayune" non-filtered cigarettes, popular back in the day in New Orleans & south Louisiana.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142

    Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.

    (I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)

    Also (3) if smokers are choosing to smoke and the external costs are not negative to the state, why stop them? J S Mill wouldn't.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,634
    GIN1138 said:

    Roger said:



    Even it's backers notably Rocco Forte are saying all the wrong things. 'Rich people have to be encouraged because they're the people who understand wealth'. (I paraphrase) 'Chambermaids and barmen don't'

    Given what you've posted on here over the years I'd have thought you would entirely with the sentiment Rog. :D
    There's something quite endearing about someone without guile. Kwarteng is the same. He answers questions like a disinterested observer. Politicians can't do that.

    I suspect he won't last.
  • I've found something positive to say about Chloe Smith.

    She takes up a lot less space on the front bench than Therese Coffey.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
    I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
    here is one for example
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/

    quote from article
    "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "

    NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.

    I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
    I quoted another study I found which wasnt a newspaper.
    It was the same study!
    Pagan2 said:



    Frankly all I am doing here is suggesting that claiming the obese,smokers and drinkers cost the country more money than the healthy living people is unproven so lets stop claiming they are the problem.

    Fair. Lets stick to what we do know: we have an aging population that is costing more every year to treat & the only way round that is not to treat people who get ill when they get old. Anyone want to volunteer?
    Lifetime care budgets, you can insure against exceeding it. Once you reach it insurance pays or you dont get treated
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409

    Sounds promising, but we’ve been here before.
    Dictatorships can be depressingly good at clinging on.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    PB's resident shock jock- shocks!

    Don't be so silly.
  • Leon said:

    I think I among others suggested HMQ deceased might quite quickly become yesterday's chip papers. Wasn't expecting to be quite so prescient..

    Yes, fair play. I confess I have already forgotten THE QUEUE
    Didn't you forget to join it?
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,059
    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)

    Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506
    Cookie said:

    moonshine said:

    MaxPB said:

    moonshine said:

    We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.

    They'll tell themselves that when we have the first bond sale failure in the next few weeks. We stuck it to those bond traders!
    This is melodramatic
    Once government is out of debt, THEN we can govern without worrying about what the bond traders think.
    Wasn’t there an irony about the Clinton years. He was quoted as saying the only thing that Govt’s should fear was the power of the bond markets. And he neutered their power so much that it allegedly caused a problem (where do pension funds invest if there’s no Govt debt?). So Bush, big tax cuts for the rich, and the problem has gone forever.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    alex_ said:

    Cookie said:

    moonshine said:

    MaxPB said:

    moonshine said:

    We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.

    They'll tell themselves that when we have the first bond sale failure in the next few weeks. We stuck it to those bond traders!
    This is melodramatic
    Once government is out of debt, THEN we can govern without worrying about what the bond traders think.
    Wasn’t there an irony about the Clinton years. He was quoted as saying the only thing that Govt’s should fear was the power of the bond markets. And he neutered their power so much that it allegedly caused a problem (where do pension funds invest if there’s no Govt debt?). So Bush, big tax cuts for the rich, and the problem has gone forever.

    He forgot to mention the danger of little black dresses then?
  • Pagan2 said:

    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)

    Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
    Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.

    One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,664
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime

    It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing

    One of the best 'documentaries' I've seen featuring regular Iranian people is 'A Taste of Iran' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n59zt (obviously, as per, not available on the iplayer). Iranian BBC World Service journalist going round and just having nice food cooked by locals and having a chat.

    Though most of the 'Iranian' people I know here are very, very certain that they are 'Persian'.
    Therein lies the danger for Iran too. They shed their conservative Islamic identity and become nationalist instead. See Russia after shaking off its communist identity, or Turkey after the fall of the Ottomans.

    Or, in reverse, Burma getting into religious persecution after temporarily shedding the junta and Libya going batshit Islamist after losing Gaddafi.

    Not many examples of extremist ideological states becoming non-extremist after losing an ideology, unless it was one imported or forced on them like the former communist Eastern European countries. Post war Germany and Japan were occupied so the dynamic is different there.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,059
    Sorry for the typos. (I can spell, but you wouldn't have to look far to find a better typist than I am.)
  • Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373

    Pagan2 said:

    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)

    Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
    Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.

    One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
    Hopefully the right wing unionists that always threaten to emigrate south if they have to pay more tax than they would in England actually follow through with their threats this time. And don’t let the door hit their parasitic arses on the way out.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409

    Wow. There is so much news the fierce anger in Iran passed me by

    That does look like critical for the regime
    One would hope that rule by weirdo geriatric 'clerics' would have a limited shelflife.
    So you are in favour of reforming the House of Lords then?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    Pagan2 said:

    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)

    Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
    Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.

    One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
    Best I could find was cost to nhs 2015
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015

    this was 2.6 billion

    here is a chart of tobacco revenues which includes 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/

    both years 9.485 billion

    now I may be mathematically challenged here but I think in my mind 9.485 is a bigger number than 2.6 by a factor of at least 2
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,232
    5Y Gilt rates just hit 4%

    Mortgage rates are going to spike.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409

    Wow. There is so much news the fierce anger in Iran passed me by

    That does look like critical for the regime
    One would hope that rule by weirdo geriatric 'clerics' would have a limited shelflife.
    So you are in favour of reforming the House of Lords then?
    Touche.

    Reform? Yes.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    Just had a cheery email from British Gas telling me that thanks to the price cap, based on last year's usage, my energy bill for the forthcoming 12 year period is likely to be around £6,500.
    Hopefully, a new roof and solar panels over the winter should cut this quite drastically...?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
  • Leon said:

    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this

    Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.

    Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.

    Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
    Reminds me of this bit from V For Vendetta where the morality police murder a young girl:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yde6t4WG5uY&ab_channel=WinstonWolf
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    Leon said:

    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this

    Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.

    Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.

    Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
    Reminds me of this bit from V For Vendetta where the morality police murder a young girl:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yde6t4WG5uY&ab_channel=WinstonWolf
    she was graffiting though....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    edited September 2022
    moonshine said:

    We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.

    I have two problems with this. First, Kwarteng lacks a clear explanation of what he's trying to do. I can in principle support a calculated risk, where you might fail in an objective, but on balance it was worth it. But you do need to state your objective and reasons why you might achieve it, neither of which Kwarteng has remotely done.

    I am struggling to understand Kwarteng's aims The only rational explanation from the evidence is that Kwarteng thinks rich people aren't rich enough and poor people relatively not poor enough. But I can't think why a politician would see advantage in persuing that ideology.

    Also, the past is not a guide to the future yadda yadda. However policy today - the here and now - is a total clusterfuck. Maybe it will all be wonderful later. Why should we believe that? So it is all voodoo.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
    You evade the question what percentage of diabetics does it affect?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,338
    If this is a gamble (as all the informed commentary indicates) and it goes bad, should we be expecting Truss to be kicked out, and how quickly might it happen ?

    It does seem like a 'from the gut' response of massive significance, poorly thought through, and cobbled together in a few hours; and the initial response is not positive.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Or in short: it's expensive to be poor.
    See also rent.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Or in short: it's expensive to be poor.
    See also rent.
    more expensive to be russian though
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    In 2012, Kwasi Kwarteng wrote for the @iealondon that there should be a legal requirement to balance the “structural” budget every single year. This is the precise opposite of what he has just done. HT @PickardJE https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1573397556159283207/photo/1
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 235

    maxh said:

    Logging onto PB tonight to catch up on the budget stuff, I am struck by the near universality of the sentiment against what the government has announced today. I am used to the middle ground on PB being more right-leaning and Tory-sympathetic than me, so to see you all denouncing this lot as crazies is at least a little bit heartening.

    I wonder what impact this will have on popular opinion? The things that will stand out, I think, are the top rate cut and the bankers' bonuses. Neither strike me as things that will go down well with the public.

    There is a energy help to households package buried beneath this “tax cuts for the rich, not much in it for me” wail from voters - maybe they should have just kept to crisis help today to enjoy poll bouncing kudos on that - the other more controversial elements after conferences, using the conference to sell and get buy in to the tax cutting policy,

    Did they have to do both today, is it political own goal?
    One of the interesting things about this government is that, as far as I can see from sporadic catching up on news etc. they seem to be distinctly less populist i.e. 'enjoying poll bouncing kudos' seems low on the agenda.

    Other more sympathetic observers might attribute this to integrity. I attribute it to them being a bunch of f***ing idiots, and naive to boot. I think its what you get a couple of years after clearing out your talent because they won't drink the kool aid on Brexit.
  • Cookie said:

    Just had a cheery email from British Gas telling me that thanks to the price cap, based on last year's usage, my energy bill for the forthcoming 12 year period is likely to be around £6,500.
    Hopefully, a new roof and solar panels over the winter should cut this quite drastically...?

    12 years ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Leon said:

    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this

    Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.

    Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.

    Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
    Reminds me of this bit from V For Vendetta where the morality police murder a young girl:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yde6t4WG5uY&ab_channel=WinstonWolf
    Never actually seen the movie. One of a long list of 'Yeah, must get round to that' films.
  • Pagan2 said:

    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)

    Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
    Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.

    One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
    It's been claimed on pb.com that the existing modest differential in income tax rates between Scotland and England already resulted in such behaviour change, and as a result the higher tax rates in Scotland didn't bring in the predicted additional income.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,477
    Rightmove:

    "Raising the threshold to £250,000 means that a third of all homes currently for sale (33%) are now completely exempt from stamp duty in England (up from 7% when the threshold was £125,000)"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Scott_xP said:

    In 2012, Kwasi Kwarteng wrote for the @iealondon that there should be a legal requirement to balance the “structural” budget every single year. This is the precise opposite of what he has just done. HT @PickardJE https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1573397556159283207/photo/1

    He was very new in parliament then, probably hadn't grown as cynical about risking everything in order to win and please party backers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    edited September 2022
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
    You evade the question what percentage of diabetics does it affect?
    10-15% at some point. It varies with ethnicity, less common in Asian diabetics, more in whites. The other way round for kidney failure.

    There are about 4 million diabetic people in the country.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    Pagan2 said:

    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)

    Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
    Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.

    One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
    It's been claimed on pb.com that the existing modest differential in income tax rates between Scotland and England already resulted in such behaviour change, and as a result the higher tax rates in Scotland didn't bring in the predicted additional income.
    I rewcall the howling from the Unionists and the provision of extra pay from MoD for senior officers to cover the differential (or was that just a proposal?) between rUK and Scottish IT. But there never was a proposal to pay lower ranks extra money to cover the cost of having to serve in England. For some unaccountable reason.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,355
    edited September 2022
    Italy 1 England 0

    England's answer - bring on Shaw
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    I suspect mr Pratchett is probably too busy arguing with maggots to be that litigious
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    Good thing there is fair use for non commercial stuff, as without it this site would have been shut down for overuse of Pratchett quotes long ago.
  • Is Kwarteng on downers? This interview with Chris Mason:

    MASON: Do you think the economy is in recession?

    KWARTENG: Technically, the Bank of England said that there was a recession, I think it’ll be shallow and I hope that we can rebound and grow

    MASON: So you’re acknowledging that there is going to be a recession

    KWARTENG: I’m not acknowledging that, no no I said that there is technically a recession. We’ve had two quarters of very little, negative growth and I think these measures are gonna help us drive growth.

    MASON: A recession is a recession and you’re saying we’re in recession

    KWARTENG: I’m not saying we’re in recession, I’m referring to what the Bank has said. And I think we’re gonna drive growth with these policies

    MASON: What’s the difference between a technical recession and a recession?

    KWARTENG: There’s a big difference. Technically, the economists say two consecutive quarters, but I think we’re going to grow the economy, that’s what we’re doing, that’s what we’re focused on.

    What a terrible exchange. Hopefully Mason went onto to discuss more useful things like why has Kwarteng decided a tax-cut from 45% to 40% is a priority for growth, setting aside that it is ludicrously regressive.
    Its an illuminating exchange. The UK is in a recession. That the CofE can't accept that is a Big Problem. Denial of reality means that your analysis is wrong and your policies are wrong.
    The difference between -0.1/-0.1/0 and -0.1/0/-0.1 is meaningless. But one is technically a recession and the other is not.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited September 2022
    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    I suspect mr Pratchett is probably too busy arguing with maggots to be that litigious
    Sadly. But his executors/heirs will be very much alive. And they will hold the IP (except for the case where it is assigned elsewhere).
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
    You evade the question what percentage of diabetics does it affect?
    10-15% at some point. It varies with ethnicity, less common in Asian diabetics, more in whites. The other way round for kidney failure.

    There are about 4 million diabetic people in the country.
    So it affects around 400k people to 600k and how many cant work after given I have worked with many people more severely disabled that that
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,244
    It's a novel approach to canvassing and voting:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63013356

    Might give Liz Truss ideas....
  • Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    I suspect mr Pratchett is probably too busy arguing with maggots to be that litigious
    Literary estates can be far more venal than the original author. They have no other assets to fall back on.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    Cookie said:

    Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.

    I feel for you my son had a choice between passing his 11plus or attend gang recruitment centre 1
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142

    Cookie said:

    Just had a cheery email from British Gas telling me that thanks to the price cap, based on last year's usage, my energy bill for the forthcoming 12 year period is likely to be around £6,500.
    Hopefully, a new roof and solar panels over the winter should cut this quite drastically...?

    12 years ?
    No, 12 months. Tut!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025

    Pagan2 said:

    SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."

    You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.

    (Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)

    Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
    Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.

    One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
    It's been claimed on pb.com that the existing modest differential in income tax rates between Scotland and England already resulted in such behaviour change, and as a result the higher tax rates in Scotland didn't bring in the predicted additional income.
    Anecdotal, but I know a lot of people that have moved between Scotland and England. Both ways but more to Scotland for perceived lifestyle improvements. No-one to my knowledge has mentioned income tax differentials.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    ...
    Chris said:

    All is not lost for the Conservatives. They could still win the next election if they adopt Kremlin referendum voting procedures in the disputed territories.

    A knock on the door by soldiers and a paper tally totted up by said soldiers. It might give the Government the result it requires.

    You're suggesting the Donbas could send MPs to Westminster?
    Good call, they worship the UK Conservatives in Ukraine.
  • Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    I need to start reading Pratchett. Had a brief dalliance a long time ago. Need to sort my shit out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Oh random twitter folk, you never let us down. I know the US has electoral issues, but even so...

    From what I’m seeing in this referendum, with IDs, paper ballots, & a clear chain of custody, the DPR, LPR, Kherson, Zaporozhye regions have far more fair & transparent elections than the U.S., in SPITE of attempted shelling by Ukraine. Yet the U.S media-politic calls it a sham.

    https://twitter.com/FiorellaIsabelM/status/1573256902389403651
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    I need to start reading Pratchett. Had a brief dalliance a long time ago. Need to sort my shit out.
    "Making Money" would seem a decent start in the current economic climate.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    Ta again. I may contact the Pratchett estate to test the water.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    kle4 said:

    Oh random twitter folk, you never let us down. I know the US has electoral issues, but even so...

    From what I’m seeing in this referendum, with IDs, paper ballots, & a clear chain of custody, the DPR, LPR, Kherson, Zaporozhye regions have far more fair & transparent elections than the U.S., in SPITE of attempted shelling by Ukraine. Yet the U.S media-politic calls it a sham.

    https://twitter.com/FiorellaIsabelM/status/1573256902389403651

    did we just find dynamo's twitter handle?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    I'd agree. Strip it down - and for that matter paraphrase some or all of it, . So you can have

    'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'

    or (partly paraphrasing)

    "'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.' So ran Captain Vimes' theory of socioeconomic unfairness, as imagined by TP in Whatever Book It Was."

    Or simply paraphrase the whole, so nobody can get you for (c), while mentioning the source, so nobody can get you for plagiarism.

    The other point is that in copyright stuff, 'commercial' doesn't mean what you might think it does any more (but this is mainly an issue for stuff like academic/scholarly journals produced by learned societies and local history or natural history societies, not so much here).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373
    Cookie said:

    Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.

    At least if you have to move to a better catchment area, you won’t have to pay as much Stamp Duty.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    kle4 said:

    On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.

    Galadriel is the token female in a tale of patriarchal hegenomy and is thus painted as a whimsical bimbo despite in reality being a strong woman with her own motivations....do I get a woke medal?
  • Another aspect of KK's offering today - he explicitly said he was trying to increase jobs in London. Not the UK. Not England. Certainly not The North. Fecking London. Let's hope that they all buy their lunch from Pret to save the economy.
  • I've found something positive to say about Chloe Smith.

    She takes up a lot less space on the front bench than Therese Coffey.

    And she's dead good at interviews https://youtu.be/V8cv1PLONn4
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    Ta again. I may contact the Pratchett estate to test the water.
    Other PB-ers are right. Literary estates are often way more aggressive than living authors (because all the estates care about is income, whereas the great, late and loaded Mr Pratchett probably didn’t give a fig). Tread carefully
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    $1.08 and a bit. Oh dear. Lowest £ for decades - at least 30 years, maybe more?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,933
    edited September 2022

    Italy 1 England 0

    England's answer - bring on Shaw

    He is playing that disgusting pus-filled buboe Harry Maguire. Defeat is nailed on. And he's brought on Luke Shaw. SHAW? Fuxsake why?

    And thats me as a United fan...
  • Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?

    "Fair usage"or "fair dealing" is the rule

    https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

    It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all

    Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?

    'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
    Right on the edge I would say!

    Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive

    Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which

    Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
    I'd agree. Strip it down - and for that matter paraphrase some or all of it, . So you can have

    'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'

    or (partly paraphrasing)

    "'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.' So ran Captain Vimes' theory of socioeconomic unfairness, as imagined by TP in Whatever Book It Was."

    Or simply paraphrase the whole, so nobody can get you for (c), while mentioning the source, so nobody can get you for plagiarism.

    The other point is that in copyright stuff, 'commercial' doesn't mean what you might think it does any more (but this is mainly an issue for stuff like academic/scholarly journals produced by learned societies and local history or natural history societies, not so much here).
    Thanks, who needs pros when you have PB!

    My even shorter paraphrase would be:

    Buy goood stuff if you can afford it, it's cheaper in the long run.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Pagan2 said:

    kle4 said:

    On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.

    Galadriel is the token female in a tale of patriarchal hegenomy and is thus painted as a whimsical bimbo despite in reality being a strong woman with her own motivations....do I get a woke medal?
    Possibly. I should have specified those who moan about the portrayal not being true to the character are barking up the wrong tree. It could well be terrible for other reasons.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    👀 NEW Conservative peer Gavin Barwell tonight on @LBC to @AndrewMarr9: “I think the UK needs a centre right party, and… we face the same dilemma maybe that moderates in the Labour Party faced during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.”
    #MiniBudget @GavinBarwell
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kle4 said:

    On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.

    Galadriel is the token female in a tale of patriarchal hegenomy and is thus painted as a whimsical bimbo despite in reality being a strong woman with her own motivations....do I get a woke medal?
    Possibly. I should have specified those who moan about the portrayal not being true to the character are barking up the wrong tree. It could well be terrible for other reasons.
    I confess to not having watched it....I just thought I should overreact without having seen it as training for joining twitter
This discussion has been closed.