Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
That's true the polls underestimated Trump's vote last time (and I am in truth concerned they might be again) however the pollsters have made adjustments to their MO to try and prevent a recurrence. Perhaps it hasn't worked but hopefully it has. And you never know they might have overdone it and be erring the other way now.
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
See, UNS is valuable to you if it suggests a Trump win. You can ignore it if it is not an optimal outcome for Trump. By the way you are right EC polling is the one to watch.
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
In all honesty, I thought the gradually-increasing-age-of-legality was quite clever, as it doesn't take away anyone's existing rights. I still thought it fundamentally wrong, though - in general, it shouldn't be the business of the state from stopping people making stupid decisions. [Disclaimer: I have smoked, what, 5 cigarettes in my life, all as a teenager. From memory, I don't think it's true that there is no upside - they do induce a pleasant buzz. Which is presumably why people disregard the downsides and do it. Didn't seem worth the money to me, but not entirely without upside. I refrained from any further experimentation after finding an unopened pack of B&H in the street, aged about 16, trying one, and finding the thought of ploughing sufficiently discouraging to never bother again. With, I think, some relief.]
There's no pleasant buzz other than of the sort you get from removing a shoe that's been on too tight for an hour.
Great news for you anyway that smoking turned you off straightaway and so you didn't get hooked. With me, I'm afraid that wasn't the case. I thought it looked cool - still do tbh - and my first few cigs as a teenager didn't make me cough enough to counteract that.
Question is, as a lifelong addict does my opinion on this carry a special weight? Is my support for banning smoking the equivalent of the pacifism of the returning soldier? I think perhaps it is.
All of my friends at school smoked. And then in sixth form I got a whole new set of friends. Who also took up smoking. Maybe it was my natural contrariness that kept me off smoking, despite it looking cool. (Similarly, I resisted when one by one they all got an ear pierced.)
I had to make to with the passive coolness caught from hanging round with smokers.
Yes you'd be ponging a bit, so you could always pretend you smoked but just 'didn't fancy one right now'. Best of both worlds there. Very precocious.
Re the build cost issue, it is fundamentally driven by labour and material cost. Scrapping building regulations would not significantly change the labour/material cost. There are issues with building regs but they mostly seem to be connected to rushed policy changes post Grenfell and panics about safety.
I showed some estate agents around my flat today. The flat is old with deep rooms which are very cool in summer. It is quite the contrast with modern single aspect flats with fans on and windows wide open. Apparently it is the amount of insulation is causing overheating. I would be interested if that is true, I suspect there is truth in it. The EPC is E and to get up to C you would need to put on some insulation inside the walls, that would destroy the entire character of the flat and probably then cause it to overheat in summer. The windows are over a hundred years old, they would be ripped out in favour of UPVC, around 50 windows in the flat gone. For what purpose? The energy bills are £80 a month. The damage would never be justified. It seems like total philistine regulation.
There isn't a lot of difference in the principle of Building Regulation across European countries. One interesting thing about the UK (maybe 'England') is that the methods are not compulsory as such. They are a combination of required outcomes and approved methods. If you convince your Control Officer that your alternative method meets the required outcome safely, you can do it with their approval; that's how innovation can happen. A good example is underfloor insulation of traditional houses by entirely filling the void with polystyrene beads, which has been done since the 1990s; the BCO needs to be convinced that your method will prevent moisture getting in and rotting the floor joists.
The main issues are a reluctance amongst developers to build to decent quality, and lack of capacity in Councils to monitor/enforce since the developers cannot be trusted.
The increasing quality required by building regs has been a key part of our reducing energy consumption per household by 25% since 2000, which is quite an achievement. That's *after* taking into account trends such as us running our houses at a higher temperature, and is bills cheaper than they would otherwise be. My image quota for the day: (2022 is anomalous due to the energy crisis, but is perhaps a measure of what we *can* achieve under current conditions when we need to do so.)
@darkage flat is interesting. I'm not sure what regulations if any require an EPC C - are you planning to rent it out? These regs are coming in in Scotland and will be here in England too at some stage. There are exemptions, and also funding available. I support this, as there is too much prior history of poor quality rentals.
If a building is overheating extensively in summer in the conditions, then it has not been designed or modified well enough, or perhaps conditions have changed and the owners have not adapted. A classic is to insulate, and to forget to ventilate.
Yes, you need an EPC of D or higher, C or higher from next year.
You're right about it keeping cool. South facing with big Victorian windows, so my flat is almost unbearable in the summer. I'm not sure how sustainable that is going to be going forward - I know that my friends in London really struggle with it already.
If there was a new regulation that overnight temperatures in a rented flat cannot exceed 25c or something, I would be in real trouble.
If new builds are required to have so much insulation that we start having to install air conditioning for the summer, is that not totally counter-productive to the target of reducing power consumption?
One of the advantages of air source heat pumps is that you can set them to work as air conditioners. It needs an engineer.
Currently the gov are not offering grants if you can do both.
Add solar panels and you have a free to run cooling system. But it requires a bit of faffing about to set it up.
That's one reason I keep talking about Air to Air Heat Pumps, which don't cost 5 figures, nor are they complex to control, or require ufh or large radiators, or are full of loadsagubbins to break down.
Becoming very popular on my energy-efficient self-build beat.
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
That's true the polls underestimated Trump's vote last time (and I am in truth concerned they might be again) however the pollsters have made adjustments to their MO to try and prevent a recurrence. Perhaps it hasn't worked but hopefully it has. And you never know they might have overdone it and be erring the other way now.
In 2016 the final RCP average had Hillary ahead by 3.2% and she won the national vote by 2.1%.
So far from making adjustments to correct their error in 2020 the pollsters overestimated the Democratic lead even more so, even if they did call the winner correct
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
That's true the polls underestimated Trump's vote last time (and I am in truth concerned they might be again) however the pollsters have made adjustments to their MO to try and prevent a recurrence. Perhaps it hasn't worked but hopefully it has. And you never know they might have overdone it and be erring the other way now.
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
That's true the polls underestimated Trump's vote last time (and I am in truth concerned they might be again) however the pollsters have made adjustments to their MO to try and prevent a recurrence. Perhaps it hasn't worked but hopefully it has. And you never know they might have overdone it and be erring the other way now.
Didn’t happen in the UK. Despite all the adjustments after 2019 they still massively overestimated Labour and underestimated Conservative.
However, polls in multiple countries are also routinely overestimate the far right, as they did here in July too.
Which makes the US difficult. Are they underestimating the main right wing candidate (Trump) or overestimating the far right candidate (Trump)?
Just got back in from walking the dog - have we done this?
Harris 48%, Trump 43% - USA Today/Suffolk University (polling 25/28th - so post Convention).
A national popular vote poll so of interest but not as relevant as the Emerson swing states poll also out today and taken post Convention which has it neck and neck, as it is the EC that will decide the outcome not the national popular vote
What is the term a for a Black Knight, Black Knighting another Black Knight?
I think Robert Browning was on to something in his 1841 poem Pippa Passes:
But at night, brother howlet, over the woods, Toll the world to thy chantry; Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods Full complines with gallantry: Then, owls and bats, Cowls and twats, Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods, Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!
Smoking income (from tax) exceeds the costs of treatment. If everyone stops smoking then it creates a shortfall in funding. At least, that was the case when I was at school, but I find it hard to believe the situation has changed since.
That's a classic economics fallacy. It would be much better if those smokers were spending money, paying tax and reaping the positive effects of some other item (running shoes or bicycles, for example).
I also don't think it's true any more.
It used to be the case that taxes on smoking paid for the entire NHS, in the 1980s when more people smoked and costs were lower, but not now.
Tax receipts from smoking last year: £8.8 billion.
I very much doubt if smoking related cancers and other illnesses only cost 5% of NHS budget.
On the basis that people will all eventually die of something, and that something will often cost lots of NHS money, I suspect that the lifetime costs of smokers to the NHS/social care is probably lower than non-smokers - they are mostly just bringing forward their expensive death by 10-20 years, rather than avoiding it forever. Every potential dementia sufferer who instead dies at 65 from lung cancer must cost vastly less, even accounting for the cancer treatment.
I'm not sure this is a strong argument for permitting smoking, but trying to justify banning it because of the cost to the NHS doesn't really pass the smell test.
Yes the real and stronger argument (for a ban) is that the end of cigarette smoking will foster a happier healthier population. Politicians shy away from that because it sounds a bit nanny state and opt instead for the more bloodless lowfalutin 'it will reduce pressure on the NHS'.
Are non-smokers happier, when controlled for other relevant factors like wealth?
Most smokers want to be non-smokers, suggesting so.
An interesting example of how social pressure has changed over time. Even 25 years ago most of the pressure in social terms was the other way. Not least I suspect because the ‘smoking is bad’ message was so ruthlessly pushed in schools.
And how Public Health interventions can actually work
Possibly.
It still amuses me 30 years later that at my primary school every child swore after every anti-smoking lesson that they would never, ever smoke.
Except me.
Guess who’s the only person in that class who never actually took up smoking…
One of my guilty little secrets, which I'm not proud of:
I've never smoked, and I've never had a lit cigarette in my mouth. Yet as I looked relatively old for my years at school, I used to go down from school in my civvies to the local shop (often the green shack) to buy cigarettes for other kids. I ended up making a little extra packet money that way.
The biggest issue was any of the masters seeing me going into the shops, so I often used to buy them in Uttoxeter instead.
How guilty should I feel about this? ...
Uttoxeter? Have you no shame??
Hey, I went to school in Uttcheter (*) for a couple of years, although I lived a short distance away across the border in civilised Derbyshire. I'd like to think my time in Uttcheter is the equivalent of working twenty years down a coal pit from a working-class bragging perspective.
In my time there, the place to buy drugs was the bus station; which was very near perhaps the best-kept public toilets in Britain (apparently due to Fry and Laurie...). I never took drugs, as I was doped up to my eyeballs on painkillers for much of the time anyway.
I've no doubt that the Hoover Institution is a filthy right wing, pro-Trump rag and also some of the issues it describes no longer apply or have changed.
But this is one (of many similar) articles which explains for the bewildered PB/Graun crowd why Trump won in 2016.
From what I've seen of Trump he is hugely entertaining in a laugh at not with kind of way but I don't think he threatens modern democracy. He will or will not be elected via a democratic system which I don't think is at risk.
I don't think it matters too much who is POTUS unless you are a US taxpayer or, during the Obama years, lived in the middle east and didn't have a bomb shelter.
But I do find it funny how triggered people on PB and the left in general are about him. Way beyond their betting books.
It is ludicrous. As is the fawning adoration for the current incumbent, complete with angry denials of his medical issues, depsite his barely concealed loathing for our country.
Comments
NEW THREAD
Becoming very popular on my energy-efficient self-build beat.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html#!
So far from making adjustments to correct their error in 2020 the pollsters overestimated the Democratic lead even more so, even if they did call the winner correct
However, polls in multiple countries are also routinely overestimate the far right, as they did here in July too.
Which makes the US difficult. Are they underestimating the main right wing candidate (Trump) or overestimating the far right candidate (Trump)?
But at night, brother howlet, over the woods,
Toll the world to thy chantry;
Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods
Full complines with gallantry:
Then, owls and bats,
Cowls and twats,
Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!
In my time there, the place to buy drugs was the bus station; which was very near perhaps the best-kept public toilets in Britain (apparently due to Fry and Laurie...). I never took drugs, as I was doped up to my eyeballs on painkillers for much of the time anyway.
(*) How the yokels pronounce it.
An interesting video about a civil-war floating whorehouse and licensed prostitution :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRj1GbyK0rg
Seriously; it's worth watching. If you can't, then read this:
https://www.history.com/news/civil-war-prostitution-nashville