The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive. British diets are shit and we don’t do enough exercise. If people are fat they should be told so.
Yet there seems to be more fear of eating disorders than of the epochal health challenge that is obesity.
Then we shouldn't have locked people in their homes for months on end, should we?
There is no scenario where anyone could ever owe Liz Truss an apology.
She owes the entire country a lifelong apology.
It's official, apparently there is nothing we can't do to or say about Liz Truss, she deserves it all.
For those of us who, on the other hand, aren't certifiably insane, we might want to reflect whether stories pass the sniff test before we credulously spread them about - it looks rather vindictive, not to mention gauche.
I hope Truss presses for an apology, and gets one.
Truss gets blamed for interest rates she didn't raise, a budget she didn't implement, and an election she didn't lose - I've really never seen the like.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
So by that logic we should soon have either a Rejoin referendum of a massively pro-remain government.
You really think the public wants to re-open that debate?
I think it will be a growing issue.
Brexit will be blamed for our turgid economy, and the red tape with Europe will be increasingly frustrating.
Cutting those barriers by rejoining the SM would be the quickest spur to growth. The surviving Brexiteers could even get their WFA back as a result.
Pretty optimistic that that is Starmer being a Proven Lawyer and only asking questions when he is sure of the answer.
Pretty much all the polling on Brexit is bad and moving away from the idea (even Euro membership isn't a complete deal-breaker any more.)
So no, the public doesn't want to reopen that debate, in part because it will reinvigorate some of the worst people and techniques in British politics. The art of government is actively waiting and preparing conditions where there wouldn't really need to be much of a debate. Probably when the Conservatives realise that being the Part of Brexit is a decomposing albatross that keeps them in opposition.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Sure, it's a free country. We cannot force people to be healthy, but in a few patients it will be a light bulb moment that spurs them to a healthier lifestyle and better life. The occasional successes make up for being ignored by the remainder.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
I feel Starmer's dilemma. I used to have a large antique portrait of Gladstone above my bed until a guy I brought back pointed out that it didn't exactly create an amorous mood. I reluctantly relegated him to the stairs after that.
There is no scenario where anyone could ever owe Liz Truss an apology.
She owes the entire country a lifelong apology.
It's official, apparently there is nothing we can't do to or say about Liz Truss, she deserves it all.
For those of us who, on the other hand, aren't certifiably insane, we might want to reflect whether stories pass the sniff test before we credulously spread them about - it looks rather vindictive, not to mention gauche.
I hope Truss presses for an apology, and gets one.
Truss gets blamed for interest rates she didn't raise, a budget she didn't implement, and an election she didn't lose - I've really never seen the like.
"For those of us who, on the other hand, aren't certifiably insane,"
I'd argue that a person who spewed the Kremlin's contradictory lines on MH17, or believed the Ukrainian biolabs shite, is not really in a position to say who is certifiable insane.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
The Tories on PB are increasingly unhinged. If Starmer walked on water they would complain that he was putting deserving boatman out of work.
What was the reaction like to Blair in '97? Similar?
No-one cared at this stage, the main excitement was around the latest release from Oasis.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
I feel Starmer's dilemma. I used to have a large antique portrait of Gladstone above my bed until a guy I brought back pointed out that it didn't exactly create an amorous mood. I reluctantly relegated him to the stairs after that.
I think this post needs some unpacking.
Yes I failed on grammar there. I used to hang around local auctions and bid on old Victorian pictures that no-one seemed to want. I amassed quite a collection of 19th Century worthies that I used to dedicate my bedroom with. When I started bringing guys back I cleared the more unsettling pictures out of my room. This is why I totally understand Starmer's dillema. It must be hard to get hot and bothered about social democracy with Mrs Thatcher glowering at you
It feels like we don’t have a lot of visibility where Tory MPs sit on the candidates. Maybe it’s just because the Tories are much less relevant than they used to be, but I feel we’d usually be able to plot the top 2 among MPs by low. I’m not sure I feel clued up? I suspect one will be Badenoch by virtue of her being the favourite. The other could be any of Jenrick, Cleverley and Tugendhat I think?
At this stage it's cutting it down to four, with Stride and Patel falling at the first hurdle IMO.
Jenrick and Tugenhat for the members ballot, with Jenrick winning the poisoned chalice.
Jenrick, Tugendhat and Cleverly for the final three, but a coin toss for who doesn't make the final two.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
There wasn't a right thing to do. That was and is the problem. Successive governments since the war had ended up in a particular and special situation, as we are now discovering. The population of the UK as a whole has no settled will to be in the EU and no settled will to be out of it. The referendum has created no permanent settlement, nor could it, and another referendum won't either.
The UK policy failure was not 2016, 2020 or now. It was in allowing an unbalanced FOM under Blair.
SKS's rhetoric abundantly confirms that there still is no right thing to do, though EFTA/EEA remains, as it has since 2016 easily the best and highly imperfect option.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
What measure would you take to make 'healthy eating' (*) affordable for the masses?
From my own non-expert perspective, healthy eating is about three main things: knowledge, skill, and time. You need to know what food is healthy and in what amounts; you need the skill to cook healthily, and the time to do it. (**)
What could the government do to help these in the short and long terms?
(*) However that is defined... (**) I did not say 'money', as it is, given the three above, possible to eat healthily and cheaply.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
I think it's absolutely inconsequential and you just have a higher resistance to change than most people
Thatcher is properly scary in the portrait. I wouldn't want her in my study either.
Starmer is a pretty vindictive person.
This is already becoming quite clear.
Re-arranging the office decor when you move in is hardly a sign of great vindictiveness. Maybe spare your outrage for stuff that matters?
The outrage does matter.
The tories are still in a very dangerous position. Not quite as existential as it was several months ago, but they're nowhere near out of the woods. The last thing the party needs are members like casino & hyufd shrugging their shoulders and quietly walking away. They've got to rebuild from something. Anything.
He's doing the tory party a great service, here.
Nah. Wise Tory heads will not fall for the bait.
The Tories need to rediscover what they are for rather than raging against everything for oppositions sake and cheap headlines.
Outrage about this is quite clever
It juices up parts of the Tory party, but it’s something they can all unite behind
It paints Starmer as petty and vindictive (it is the “Thatcher Room” so of course there should be a picture of Thatcher in it!)
It sets the frame that he is focused on small things that aren’t important rather than tackling big issues
(Edit: autocorrect wants to change “Tory party” to “Tory pity” 😂)
Officially callled "The Study"
I'd get rid of the awful curtains and carpet too - but that would cost money. The armchairs by the fireplace are pretty hideous too.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
So by that logic we should soon have either a Rejoin referendum of a massively pro-remain government.
You really think the public wants to re-open that debate?
I think it will be a growing issue.
Brexit will be blamed for our turgid economy, and the red tape with Europe will be increasingly frustrating.
Cutting those barriers by rejoining the SM would be the quickest spur to growth. The surviving Brexiteers could even get their WFA back as a result.
Pretty optimistic that that is Starmer being a Proven Lawyer and only asking questions when he is sure of the answer.
Pretty much all the polling on Brexit is bad and moving away from the idea (even Euro membership isn't a complete deal-breaker any more.)
So no, the public doesn't want to reopen that debate, in part because it will reinvigorate some of the worst people and techniques in British politics. The art of government is actively waiting and preparing conditions where there wouldn't really need to be much of a debate. Probably when the Conservatives realise that being the Part of Brexit is a decomposing albatross that keeps them in opposition.
It is sub-optimal statecraft to be in the situation where: We don't want to be in the EU We don't want to be out of the EU and We don't want to reopen the debate.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Sure, it's a free country. We cannot force people to be healthy, but in a few patients it will be a light bulb moment that spurs them to a healthier lifestyle and better life. The occasional successes make up for being ignored by the remainder.
What is the cost/benefit ratio?
The general principle is that prevention is better than cure. The downside is that the costs land now, whereas the benefits accrued over decades. And people and governments in general (and I suspect British people and governments are a bit worse than average) are terrible at making that sort of calculation.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Sure, it's a free country. We cannot force people to be healthy, but in a few patients it will be a light bulb moment that spurs them to a healthier lifestyle and better life. The occasional successes make up for being ignored by the remainder.
What is the cost/benefit ratio?
That's the question that this trial programme is trying to answer.
Honestly who blimmin cares if Thatch is on the wall of Downing Street or not?
Like others I find it slightly amusing that Starmer is so lilly-livered as to take it down because it “unsettles” him, but put up whatever artwork makes him happy. A beige square, or something.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
That is not how it works
If high blood pressure is detected or further tests diagnosed diabetes, then treatment will commence and monitored including year on year reviews
Prevention is better than a funeral
It's pretty cheap and easy to monitor your own blood pressure, but I never did until a checkup a year or so back. Probably saved me some serious long term health consequences, and with a bit of will power it was quite easy to get down within a month or two.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
It probably is just to assuage the left but can anyone weighing in on this please remind us what they posted when David Cameron installed a new kitchen, or Boris hung posh wallpaper?
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
What measure would you take to make 'healthy eating' (*) affordable for the masses?
From my own non-expert perspective, healthy eating is about three main things: knowledge, skill, and time. You need to know what food is healthy and in what amounts; you need the skill to cook healthily, and the time to do it. (**)
What could the government do to help these in the short and long terms?
(*) However that is defined... (**) I did not say 'money', as it is, given the three above, possible to eat healthily and cheaply.
And the biggest problem of these is time, in most cases, I would think.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
I feel Starmer's dilemma. I used to have a large antique portrait of Gladstone above my bed until a guy I brought back pointed out that it didn't exactly create an amorous mood. I reluctantly relegated him to the stairs after that.
It feels like we don’t have a lot of visibility where Tory MPs sit on the candidates. Maybe it’s just because the Tories are much less relevant than they used to be, but I feel we’d usually be able to plot the top 2 among MPs by low. I’m not sure I feel clued up? I suspect one will be Badenoch by virtue of her being the favourite. The other could be any of Jenrick, Cleverley and Tugendhat I think?
At this stage it's cutting it down to four, with Stride and Patel falling at the first hurdle IMO.
Jenrick and Tugenhat for the members ballot, with Jenrick winning the poisoned chalice.
Jenrick, Tugendhat and Cleverly for the final three, but a coin toss for who doesn't make the final two.
Yes, Cleverly in place of Tugenhat is quite possible.
I don't think any of them are up to much, but Cleverly is the least obnoxious and even made an effort in the GE while the others did their disappearing act.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
So by that logic we should soon have either a Rejoin referendum of a massively pro-remain government.
You really think the public wants to re-open that debate?
I think it will be a growing issue.
Brexit will be blamed for our turgid economy, and the red tape with Europe will be increasingly frustrating.
Cutting those barriers by rejoining the SM would be the quickest spur to growth. The surviving Brexiteers could even get their WFA back as a result.
Pretty optimistic that that is Starmer being a Proven Lawyer and only asking questions when he is sure of the answer.
Pretty much all the polling on Brexit is bad and moving away from the idea (even Euro membership isn't a complete deal-breaker any more.)
So no, the public doesn't want to reopen that debate, in part because it will reinvigorate some of the worst people and techniques in British politics. The art of government is actively waiting and preparing conditions where there wouldn't really need to be much of a debate. Probably when the Conservatives realise that being the Part of Brexit is a decomposing albatross that keeps them in opposition.
It is sub-optimal statecraft to be in the situation where: We don't want to be in the EU We don't want to be out of the EU and We don't want to reopen the debate.
I'd suggest that the best option would have been for a referendum on the Euro to have been held in, say, 2003. It would have been lost and thus a signal sent out that the British people weren't happy with the direction of movement. That would have changed the circumstances of the discussions on the constitution.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
What measure would you take to make 'healthy eating' (*) affordable for the masses?
From my own non-expert perspective, healthy eating is about three main things: knowledge, skill, and time. You need to know what food is healthy and in what amounts; you need the skill to cook healthily, and the time to do it. (**)
What could the government do to help these in the short and long terms?
(*) However that is defined... (**) I did not say 'money', as it is, given the three above, possible to eat healthily and cheaply.
A few things the Government could do:
*Encourage the adoption of real butter over 'spreads' and subsidise the production of healthy British dairy to do this.
*Look at the health of our bread - adulterating flour with chalk isn't an absorbable way to get calcium, and unabsorbed calcium is often found in arterial placque
*Look at updating our milk processing technology to phase out pasteurisation, which kills enzymes - valuable catalysts for the digestion processs, but leaves the sugars that those enzymes are present to help digest. It also destroys various vitamins. No wonder everyone develops intolerances. Pressurising the milk, to kill pathogens but leave enzymes in place, would be less Victorian and make us all far healthier without any dietary changes.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
And yet the latter has been and is being deliberately encouraged by the government with their push to put artificial sweeteners in everything.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
Partly that. Partly it must embarrass him on some level to have to see a leader with judgement, character, principles and guts every day when he has none of any of those.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
Ironically, the reduction in smoking might be partly responsible for the increase in girth. WFH will not help, where grazing from the fridge is available 24x7 and without having to walk down a flight of stairs and along the corridor to the vending machine for a packet of crisps.
Everything about the Trump Arlington story is bananas, but maybe the *most* bananas part was the actual plan itself: to secretly film a fake established memorial event & then claim Harris refused to attend. https://x.com/RTodKelly/status/1829158005700735314
I'm getting strong "Hitler moving imaginary armies around the map" vibes.
Thatcher is properly scary in the portrait. I wouldn't want her in my study either.
Starmer is a pretty vindictive person.
This is already becoming quite clear.
Another one obsessed with Thatcher. Is it some kind of national religion ?
Was Gordon Brown when he commissioned the portrait?
Pretty well, yes.
As I noted upthread, Blair and Brown failed to address, let alone reverse, the hollowing out of government; the rejection of industrial strategy; the long term structural problems of the housing market; the economic neglect of the regions.
Good job we've got the strategic visionary genius Starmer then, eh?
If he gets house building restarted, benefitting local government in the process, he'll be the first PM in three decades actually to do something about one of Thatcher's great failures.
Meanwhile you're moaning about a picture.
That 'if' is doing a heck of a lot of heavy lifting.
And I have to repeat myself: it's not just about building houses; it's about building communities. And also note that build quality also needs to be addressed: something I've been harping on about on here for years.
It's not doing any heavy lifting; it's a straightforward conditional.
Also, can we place 'is doing a lot of heavy lifting' on the banned PB cliche list, please.
Can we put 'banned PB cliche list' on the banned list, please? The concept of banning cliches is fairly pathetic.
I'll explain why the 'if' is doing heavy lifting. Firstly, that entire sentence was wrong. Its not a case of getting house building restarted, as f-loads of houses are being built, as I can see after a few minutes of walking. It is a case of building *more* houses. Secondly, I have my doubts that he will be able to increase the rate of build so that it is *enough*, given the massive demand. Are houses like roads; the more we build, the more we need? Thirdly, we want good houses, not shite poorly-built ones that barely qualify as 'houses'.
Perhaps the reason why the PM's over the last three decades have not been able to tackle the problem is that the problem is fairly intractable, especially given the demand?
One of the interesting questions we should be asking is why we need such massive increases in housing. There are on average 2.36 residents per household in the UK. There were 192k homes built in 2022, and looking at the number of buildings sites everywhere, that number has probably gone up since. That's enough homes for ~450k people at current household sizes.
Why are we adding enough room for 450k people a year without remotely making a dent in house prices? It doesn't take a genius to answer this, when immigration is running at 750k/year.
Looking at it like this, the entire cost of the residental constitution sector is actually the costs of importing those ~70% of net migrants for whom we are actually building houses.
If we did the only longtime sensible thing and went to net zero immigration, in ten years time we would barely need a residential construction sector, as there would be enough houses to go round and the population would be stable.
Almost all the economic problems the country has boil down to the continued attempts to inflate GDP via the means of mass immigration run as a Ponzi scheme.
Yes I suspect Tory MPs will put Tugendhat in the final 2 to members with either Badenoch or Jenrick.
Tugendhat is the most One Nation and centrist and liberal of the candidates on the whole, Stride is also fishing in a similar pool but has less support. David Miliband was similarly the centrist candidate in the Labour leadership race after they lost power in 2010 and Ken Clarke for the Tories when they last lost office in 1997. Neither won although they got respectable results.
So the odds are Jenrick or Badenoch will play the Hague or Ed Miliband role and become Leader of the Opposition. Miliband though had more luck than Hague and had early poll leads against Cameron that Hague could not against Blair
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Sure, it's a free country. We cannot force people to be healthy, but in a few patients it will be a light bulb moment that spurs them to a healthier lifestyle and better life. The occasional successes make up for being ignored by the remainder.
What is the cost/benefit ratio?
That's the question that this trial programme is trying to answer.
Thatcher is properly scary in the portrait. I wouldn't want her in my study either.
Starmer is a pretty vindictive person.
This is already becoming quite clear.
Another one obsessed with Thatcher. Is it some kind of national religion ?
Was Gordon Brown when he commissioned the portrait?
Pretty well, yes.
As I noted upthread, Blair and Brown failed to address, let alone reverse, the hollowing out of government; the rejection of industrial strategy; the long term structural problems of the housing market; the economic neglect of the regions.
Good job we've got the strategic visionary genius Starmer then, eh?
If he gets house building restarted, benefitting local government in the process, he'll be the first PM in three decades actually to do something about one of Thatcher's great failures.
Meanwhile you're moaning about a picture.
It's not Thatcher's failure that we had a huge immigration-driven expansion in the population since she was PM.
Although the big increases in cross border migration came in the aftermath of the Single European Act that she championed.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
Ironically, the reduction in smoking might be partly responsible for the increase in girth. WFH will not help, where grazing from the fridge is available 24x7 and without having to walk down a flight of stairs and along the corridor to the vending machine for a packet of crisps.
Or, indeed, walking a few minutes to and from the train station/bus stop in the morning and evening.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
Which is precisely why this outreach programme is being trialled. People ignore the health MOT with only a 40% take up. Even if someone knows they are obese and unable to lose weight they may well benefit from having the consequential diabetes, blood pressure and cholesterol treated.
Every week I see new patient with established complications of diabetes due to late diagnosis, often because of no symptoms. Some of them will be permanently disabled as a result.
Then make it so that when someone does need to see a doctor they don't have to wait months because they're all working part time.
Yes, improving retention of NHS staff would help. How could we possibly encourage that?
Allow them free access to the prescription medicine drawer?
The removal of Thatcher's portrait from No.10 certainly seems a goid start, I must sy.
As cryptic as as an oracle from Greece should always be.
Just reinforces the fact that he is a shit.
And a good morning to you too, Mr Root !
On the topic of Delphi, I highly recommend a trip to everyone. I even managed a trip in-season this year, but early in the morning, and it's also been starting to get cooler here, these last few days.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
All well and good, but the problem is that the Blair government had ducked them repeatedly when they should have been used as you described - because the British public would have voted down every single EU treaty without fail, and Blair was intelligent enough to know that. If we'd been allowed to restrict the EU to a basic trading framework, then Brexit would never have happened.
Having signed up to all sorts of EU stuff against the clear wishes of the public, given it couldn't easily be unpicked piece by piece, the next best thing was a straight forward in/out vote.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
What measure would you take to make 'healthy eating' (*) affordable for the masses?
From my own non-expert perspective, healthy eating is about three main things: knowledge, skill, and time. You need to know what food is healthy and in what amounts; you need the skill to cook healthily, and the time to do it. (**)
What could the government do to help these in the short and long terms?
(*) However that is defined... (**) I did not say 'money', as it is, given the three above, possible to eat healthily and cheaply.
Better food education in schools would help in the long term.
Regarding affordability, we could take a look at what government did in WWII. With far fewer resources, and with massive import restrictions, they still managed to create the healthiest generation compared to those which preceded, and which followed the war.
The simplest quick intervention would be to legislate to cut the amount of salt in processed food.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
Unquestionably obesity has skyrocketed in the last half century, and not just in the UK. It's not purely about food, as other lifestyle and demographic changes are important.
In British food context I would put the blame on:
1) Microwave ovens and the increased shift to ready-meals at home. These are usually high in carb, salt, sugar and/or fat. The same meal cooked from scratch usually has less of these.
2) More often eating out, and this being centred on easy to prepare, easy to store, easy to eat fast food based around fried fat and carbohydrate.
3) A snacking culture with constant temptation from sweets, biscuits and cakes. People don't just have crisps, cakes, chocolate, pop etc as an occasional treat anymore.
Thatcher is properly scary in the portrait. I wouldn't want her in my study either.
Starmer is a pretty vindictive person.
This is already becoming quite clear.
Another one obsessed with Thatcher. Is it some kind of national religion ?
Was Gordon Brown when he commissioned the portrait?
Pretty well, yes.
As I noted upthread, Blair and Brown failed to address, let alone reverse, the hollowing out of government; the rejection of industrial strategy; the long term structural problems of the housing market; the economic neglect of the regions.
Good job we've got the strategic visionary genius Starmer then, eh?
If he gets house building restarted, benefitting local government in the process, he'll be the first PM in three decades actually to do something about one of Thatcher's great failures.
Meanwhile you're moaning about a picture.
That 'if' is doing a heck of a lot of heavy lifting.
And I have to repeat myself: it's not just about building houses; it's about building communities. And also note that build quality also needs to be addressed: something I've been harping on about on here for years.
It's not doing any heavy lifting; it's a straightforward conditional.
Also, can we place 'is doing a lot of heavy lifting' on the banned PB cliche list, please.
Can we put 'banned PB cliche list' on the banned list, please? The concept of banning cliches is fairly pathetic.
I'll explain why the 'if' is doing heavy lifting. Firstly, that entire sentence was wrong. Its not a case of getting house building restarted, as f-loads of houses are being built, as I can see after a few minutes of walking. It is a case of building *more* houses. Secondly, I have my doubts that he will be able to increase the rate of build so that it is *enough*, given the massive demand. Are houses like roads; the more we build, the more we need? Thirdly, we want good houses, not shite poorly-built ones that barely qualify as 'houses'.
Perhaps the reason why the PM's over the last three decades have not been able to tackle the problem is that the problem is fairly intractable, especially given the demand?
One of the interesting questions we should be asking is why we need such massive increases in housing. There are on average 2.36 residents per household in the UK. There were 192k homes built in 2022, and looking at the number of buildings sites everywhere, that number has probably gone up since. That's enough homes for ~450k people at current household sizes.
Why are we adding enough room for 450k people a year without remotely making a dent in house prices? It doesn't take a genius to answer this, when immigration is running at 750k/year.
Looking at it like this, the entire cost of the residental constitution sector is actually the costs of importing those ~70% of net migrants for whom we are actually building houses.
If we did the only longtime sensible thing and went to net zero immigration, in ten years time we would barely need a residential construction sector, as there would be enough houses to go round and the population would be stable.
Almost all the economic problems the country has boil down to the continued attempts to inflate GDP via the means of mass immigration run as a Ponzi scheme.
Is the "massive" increase in housebuilding that massive? A much smaller UK population was building 350000 homes a year in the mid 1930s and 400000 a year in the mid 1960s.
Sustained lack of building since the 1980s and changing lifestyles is much more of an issue than the increased demand from immigration.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
In 2016 there was no sane way out. A referendum was used to ask us (yes or no) whether the central plank of policy of the last 40 years had actually been a mistake. This was because we hadn't been asked at the key moments over that 40 year period.
As it turned out the real killer was extending FOM to countries with very different levels of development from the UK. Lincolnshire did not riot over French and German accountants. The SM, as guided by the UK veto as it developed, should never have got to that point, especially without our referendum consent.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Nah they will be given statins and BP meds
For being overweight?
For blood pressure and lipid disorders caused by obesity.
If people cant/won't lose weight you can still mitigate the damage with cheap pharmaceuticals.
40% doing these NHS check-ups seems a pretty good hit rate to me.
Dr. Foxy, not sure if you can answer this, and fair enough if not, but I've a vague memory of hearing that if the total quantity of food eaten is the same, it's still healthier to just eat a few meals rather than meals plus snacking. Is that true?
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
Which is precisely why this outreach programme is being trialled. People ignore the health MOT with only a 40% take up. Even if someone knows they are obese and unable to lose weight they may well benefit from having the consequential diabetes, blood pressure and cholesterol treated.
Every week I see new patient with established complications of diabetes due to late diagnosis, often because of no symptoms. Some of them will be permanently disabled as a result.
Then make it so that when someone does need to see a doctor they don't have to wait months because they're all working part time.
Yes, improving retention of NHS staff would help. How could we possibly encourage that?
Allow them free access to the prescription medicine drawer?
Sadly, self prescription is no longer permitted by the GMC.
It used to be quite handy for anti-malarials etc when I was working abroad. Now I have to buy from dodgy online pharmacies like everyone else.
Thatcher is properly scary in the portrait. I wouldn't want her in my study either.
Starmer is a pretty vindictive person.
This is already becoming quite clear.
Another one obsessed with Thatcher. Is it some kind of national religion ?
Was Gordon Brown when he commissioned the portrait?
Pretty well, yes.
As I noted upthread, Blair and Brown failed to address, let alone reverse, the hollowing out of government; the rejection of industrial strategy; the long term structural problems of the housing market; the economic neglect of the regions.
Good job we've got the strategic visionary genius Starmer then, eh?
If he gets house building restarted, benefitting local government in the process, he'll be the first PM in three decades actually to do something about one of Thatcher's great failures.
Meanwhile you're moaning about a picture.
That 'if' is doing a heck of a lot of heavy lifting.
And I have to repeat myself: it's not just about building houses; it's about building communities. And also note that build quality also needs to be addressed: something I've been harping on about on here for years.
It's not doing any heavy lifting; it's a straightforward conditional.
Also, can we place 'is doing a lot of heavy lifting' on the banned PB cliche list, please.
Can we put 'banned PB cliche list' on the banned list, please? The concept of banning cliches is fairly pathetic.
I'll explain why the 'if' is doing heavy lifting. Firstly, that entire sentence was wrong. Its not a case of getting house building restarted, as f-loads of houses are being built, as I can see after a few minutes of walking. It is a case of building *more* houses. Secondly, I have my doubts that he will be able to increase the rate of build so that it is *enough*, given the massive demand. Are houses like roads; the more we build, the more we need? Thirdly, we want good houses, not shite poorly-built ones that barely qualify as 'houses'.
Perhaps the reason why the PM's over the last three decades have not been able to tackle the problem is that the problem is fairly intractable, especially given the demand?
One of the interesting questions we should be asking is why we need such massive increases in housing. There are on average 2.36 residents per household in the UK. There were 192k homes built in 2022, and looking at the number of buildings sites everywhere, that number has probably gone up since. That's enough homes for ~450k people at current household sizes.
Why are we adding enough room for 450k people a year without remotely making a dent in house prices? It doesn't take a genius to answer this, when immigration is running at 750k/year.
Looking at it like this, the entire cost of the residential constitution sector is actually the costs of importing those ~70% of net migrants for whom we are actually building houses.
If we did the only longtime sensible thing and went to net zero immigration, in ten years time we would barely need a residential construction sector, as there would be enough houses to go round and the population would be stable.
Almost all the economic problems the country has boil down to the continued attempts to inflate GDP via the means of mass immigration run as a Ponzi scheme.
Is the "massive" increase in housebuilding that massive? A much smaller UK population was building 350000 homes a year in the mid 1930s and 400000 a year in the mid 1960s.
Sustained lack of building since the 1980s and changing lifestyles is much more of an issue than the increased demand from immigration.
Why were we building like mad in the 1930s? Population growth (mostly because more kids survived infancy, plus increasing life expectancy). Why are we building like mad now? Population growth, this time because of an immigration Ponzi scheme.
I've just run the numbers above, and pointed out that immigration is swallowing up every single new house and then some. We built less houses in the 80s - you need a better argument as to why that isn't that case than just asserting to the contrary.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
So by that logic we should soon have either a Rejoin referendum of a massively pro-remain government.
You really think the public wants to re-open that debate?
I think it will be a growing issue.
Brexit will be blamed for our turgid economy, and the red tape with Europe will be increasingly frustrating.
Cutting those barriers by rejoining the SM would be the quickest spur to growth. The surviving Brexiteers could even get their WFA back as a result.
Pretty optimistic that that is Starmer being a Proven Lawyer and only asking questions when he is sure of the answer.
Pretty much all the polling on Brexit is bad and moving away from the idea (even Euro membership isn't a complete deal-breaker any more.)
So no, the public doesn't want to reopen that debate, in part because it will reinvigorate some of the worst people and techniques in British politics. The art of government is actively waiting and preparing conditions where there wouldn't really need to be much of a debate. Probably when the Conservatives realise that being the Part of Brexit is a decomposing albatross that keeps them in opposition.
Not one poll has Rejoin the EU ahead if Euro membership is a requirement
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
In 2016 there was no sane way out. A referendum was used to ask us (yes or no) whether the central plank of policy of the last 40 years had actually been a mistake. This was because we hadn't been asked at the key moments over that 40 year period.
As it turned out the real killer was extending FOM to countries with very different levels of development from the UK. Lincolnshire did not riot over French and German accountants. The SM, as guided by the UK veto as it developed, should never have got to that point, especially without our referendum consent.
Whilst all of this is true, there's a reason why we hadn't been asked at key points, specifically by Blair and Brown.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
Yes I suspect Tory MPs will put Tugendhat in the final 2 to members with either Badenoch or Jenrick.
Tugendhat is the most One Nation and centrist and liberal of the candidates on the whole, Stride is also fishing in a similar pool but has less support. David Miliband was similarly the centrist candidate in the Labour leadership race after they lost power in 2010 and Ken Clarke for the Tories when they last lost office in 1997. Neither won although they got respectable results.
So the odds are Jenrick or Badenoch will play the Hague or Ed Miliband role and become Leader of the Opposition. Miliband though had more luck than Hague and had early poll leads against Cameron that Hague could not against Blair
Don't see it. TT would have had more luck with the Ellwoods and Mordaunts of this world.
Jenrick, Cleverly, Badenoch and TT to last four, Jenrick and Cleverly (coming from third with TT's transfers) to last two I reckon....
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
NHS guidelines are 30 grams per day of sugar. Thats about 10.5kg per year. As the Poles consume over 4 times that amount and the Belgians nearly 5 times, it would be good to know if their populations are all dropping down dead at 40 etc so that we can evaluate the wisdom of the NHS guidance.
Belgian life expectantancy is just over the EU average at nearly 82 years, and about a year ahead of the UK. Could it be that Belgian chocolate has life extending powers, and should we not be told. 'Eat lots of Belgian (and Swiss) Cholcolate and Live for Ever' would be an extremely attactive slogan for me.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
In fact, both Denmark and the Netherlands have higher car ownership rates than Britain.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
Everything about the Trump Arlington story is bananas, but maybe the *most* bananas part was the actual plan itself: to secretly film a fake established memorial event & then claim Harris refused to attend. https://x.com/RTodKelly/status/1829158005700735314
I'm getting strong "Hitler moving imaginary armies around the map" vibes.
He's been flailing around for an attack which might damage Harris, and has so far failed miserably. I don't think he's used to that.
Hillary would have spent a lot of effort on this sort of thing; Harris has worked out how to deal with him: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/cnn-harris-walz-interview ...She quickly cast off a question about Trump’s comments that she “happened to turn Black” in recent years: “Same old, tired playbook,” she said. “Next question, please.”..
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
Unquestionably obesity has skyrocketed in the last half century, and not just in the UK. It's not purely about food, as other lifestyle and demographic changes are important.
In British food context I would put the blame on:
1) Microwave ovens and the increased shift to ready-meals at home. These are usually high in carb, salt, sugar and/or fat. The same meal cooked from scratch usually has less of these.
2) More often eating out, and this being centred on easy to prepare, easy to store, easy to eat fast food based around fried fat and carbohydrate.
3) A snacking culture with constant temptation from sweets, biscuits and cakes. People don't just have crisps, cakes, chocolate, pop etc as an occasional treat anymore.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
The problem with that is, before mass car use families and social groups were geographically much tighter than they are today.
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
All well and good, but the problem is that the Blair government had ducked them repeatedly when they should have been used as you described - because the British public would have voted down every single EU treaty without fail, and Blair was intelligent enough to know that. If we'd been allowed to restrict the EU to a basic trading framework, then Brexit would never have happened.
Having signed up to all sorts of EU stuff against the clear wishes of the public, given it couldn't easily be unpicked piece by piece, the next best thing was a straight forward in/out vote.
Which is the problem with referendums properly used. They promote a risk adverse political environment where little gets decided.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
In 2016 there was no sane way out. A referendum was used to ask us (yes or no) whether the central plank of policy of the last 40 years had actually been a mistake...
And now nearly two third of the country say that Brexit was a mistake.
The referendum merely kept the argument going from the opposite perspective, for another couple of decades, I think.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
In fact, both Denmark and the Netherlands have higher car ownership rates than Britain.
That doesn't mean they use them for short journeys in the same way we do. That's why it's lazy to call people campaigning for active travel anti-car.
The only way in which I might be described as anti-car is that it would be great if all households didn't require more than one, freeing up lots of space and money.
Thatcher is properly scary in the portrait. I wouldn't want her in my study either.
Starmer is a pretty vindictive person.
This is already becoming quite clear.
Another one obsessed with Thatcher. Is it some kind of national religion ?
Was Gordon Brown when he commissioned the portrait?
Pretty well, yes.
As I noted upthread, Blair and Brown failed to address, let alone reverse, the hollowing out of government; the rejection of industrial strategy; the long term structural problems of the housing market; the economic neglect of the regions.
Good job we've got the strategic visionary genius Starmer then, eh?
If he gets house building restarted, benefitting local government in the process, he'll be the first PM in three decades actually to do something about one of Thatcher's great failures.
Meanwhile you're moaning about a picture.
That 'if' is doing a heck of a lot of heavy lifting.
And I have to repeat myself: it's not just about building houses; it's about building communities. And also note that build quality also needs to be addressed: something I've been harping on about on here for years.
It's not doing any heavy lifting; it's a straightforward conditional.
Also, can we place 'is doing a lot of heavy lifting' on the banned PB cliche list, please.
Can we put 'banned PB cliche list' on the banned list, please? The concept of banning cliches is fairly pathetic.
I'll explain why the 'if' is doing heavy lifting. Firstly, that entire sentence was wrong. Its not a case of getting house building restarted, as f-loads of houses are being built, as I can see after a few minutes of walking. It is a case of building *more* houses. Secondly, I have my doubts that he will be able to increase the rate of build so that it is *enough*, given the massive demand. Are houses like roads; the more we build, the more we need? Thirdly, we want good houses, not shite poorly-built ones that barely qualify as 'houses'.
Perhaps the reason why the PM's over the last three decades have not been able to tackle the problem is that the problem is fairly intractable, especially given the demand?
One of the interesting questions we should be asking is why we need such massive increases in housing. There are on average 2.36 residents per household in the UK. There were 192k homes built in 2022, and looking at the number of buildings sites everywhere, that number has probably gone up since. That's enough homes for ~450k people at current household sizes.
Why are we adding enough room for 450k people a year without remotely making a dent in house prices? It doesn't take a genius to answer this, when immigration is running at 750k/year.
Looking at it like this, the entire cost of the residental constitution sector is actually the costs of importing those ~70% of net migrants for whom we are actually building houses.
If we did the only longtime sensible thing and went to net zero immigration, in ten years time we would barely need a residential construction sector, as there would be enough houses to go round and the population would be stable.
Almost all the economic problems the country has boil down to the continued attempts to inflate GDP via the means of mass immigration run as a Ponzi scheme.
Is the "massive" increase in housebuilding that massive? A much smaller UK population was building 350000 homes a year in the mid 1930s and 400000 a year in the mid 1960s.
Sustained lack of building since the 1980s and changing lifestyles is much more of an issue than the increased demand from immigration.
Then in the 70s and 80s growth slowed and stopped, and housebuilding slowed too.
Then in the 90s and 00s there was an even bigger growth in population due to immigration, but without housebuilding to meet the demand. I don't think any of these points can be reasonably denied.
I'm with the Prole on this. We're paying the price of immigration with unafforadable housing prices. Immigration has made and is continuing to make the lives of our children worse than their parents. There is an economic cost to reducing immigration, but there is also a massive economic cost to not reducing immigration. It is, as he says, a ponzi scheme.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
In 2016 there was no sane way out. A referendum was used to ask us (yes or no) whether the central plank of policy of the last 40 years had actually been a mistake...
And now nearly two third of the country say that Brexit was a mistake.
The referendum merely kept the argument going from the opposite perspective, for another couple of decades, I think.
But that's a very different thing to wanting to rejoin, especially as the previous terms of membership will no longer be available.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
He should have gone for "arousing and distracting".
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
The Tories on PB are increasingly unhinged. If Starmer walked on water they would complain that he was putting deserving boatman out of work.
Preferred LBJ's version: "If I walked across the Pontiac the headline would be "LBJ can't swim"."
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
In 2016 there was no sane way out. A referendum was used to ask us (yes or no) whether the central plank of policy of the last 40 years had actually been a mistake...
And now nearly two third of the country say that Brexit was a mistake.
The referendum merely kept the argument going from the opposite perspective, for another couple of decades, I think.
Judging by recent European legislation that affects my own biz, I suspect we're now 'out' at just the right time for those of us who want to remain out. What do I mean by this? Within the next decade I foresee Europe diverging from us with regard to internal economic regulation, rather than external trade. I doubt that this would be tolerable either for Whitehall or SMEs and make rejoining one of those 'too difficult' tasks.
I suspect there will be a fudge on extended visas, retirement visas etc - probably on a per country basis.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
The problem with that is, before mass car use families and social groups were geographically much tighter than they are today.
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
This is the crux of the problem. You either have to make active travel relatively more attractive, or increase the marginal cost of car journeys.
Not sure how, but the socially optimal outcome would be to make car ownership cheaper but car use more expensive.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
He should have gone for "arousing and distracting".
Seems like he did it to give some performative 'red meat' to traditonal Labour supporters to me. Which Tories getting pissed off about it has helped. But fairly pathetic thin gruel.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
The problem with that is, before mass car use families and social groups were geographically much tighter than they are today.
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
This is the crux of the problem. You either have to make active travel relatively more attractive, or increase the marginal cost of car journeys.
Not sure how, but the socially optimal outcome would be to make car ownership cheaper but car use more expensive.
Yes, when I lived in London the balance tipped for me - excellent public transport, and sky-rocketing parking fees. Outside London it's sadly impractical.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
Cameron held an EU referendum to satisfy his right-wing; Starmer has removed a portrait of a PM from 30 years ago to satisfy his equivalent.
Cameron held an EU referendum because the public wanted one; and it could easily be argued that politics needed one. The fact that leave won shows that there was a massive demand; and as Corbyn showed, the demand was not just on the Conservative Party's right wing.
IMV if we had not had an EU referendum in 2016 we would have either had one by now, or have a very right-wing government that would make Sunak's look like Corbyn's.
The issue of EU membership was a can that could only be kicked down the road so far.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think holding the referendum was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons you give.
But Cameron did it to head off the right-wing given his small majority. And I don't think there is any evidence that the country would suddenly swing to the right on the back of not having one, simply because we've had absolutely massive non-EU migration since then and just elected Labour.
I think asking the public to tick a box Yes/No because you aren't willing to make the case for what you think is the right policy is a completely inappropriate use of a referendum, and an abdication of responsibility. Referendums should only be used as a final endorsement or rejection from the public for an agreed and substantially worked out major constitutional change. Which is what they are in serious countries that have referendums in their constitutional toolkit. Which is what the word referendum means.
In 2016 there was no sane way out. A referendum was used to ask us (yes or no) whether the central plank of policy of the last 40 years had actually been a mistake...
And now nearly two third of the country say that Brexit was a mistake.
The referendum merely kept the argument going from the opposite perspective, for another couple of decades, I think.
Exactly. We don't want to be in, don't want to be out. That's a statecraft fail. The essential fail was at the point where the key pivot was decided wrongly, and when our veto could have changed things. The Single Market should not have required an unamendable FOM; this single change would have altered everything.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
NHS guidelines are 30 grams per day of sugar. Thats about 10.5kg per year. As the Poles consume over 4 times that amount and the Belgians nearly 5 times, it would be good to know if their populations are all dropping down dead at 40 etc so that we can evaluate the wisdom of the NHS guidance.
Belgian life expectantancy is just over the EU average at nearly 82 years, and about a year ahead of the UK. Could it be that Belgian chocolate has life extending powers, and should we not be told. 'Eat lots of Belgian (and Swiss) Cholcolate and Live for Ever' would be an extremely attactive slogan for me.
Are we to believe Belgium's sugar consumption is nearly 5x Luxembourg's? Or double the UK's for that matter?
I suspect that the simplest explanation is the numbers in the map are just wrong.
A staple complaint on pb.com has been that Johnson missed an opportunity during the pandemic to encourage the country to get into shape, and that a bit of money spent on prevention would be a lot cheaper than a fortune spent later on treatment.
I've no idea if what is proposed is the right way to go about things (sounds like it is a screening questionnaire, rather than physical appointments) but it's evidence that someone is asking the right questions and trying something new.
It's one of the better signs in the early days of Keir.
We have a major problem with obesity in Britain, diabetes, and blood pressure. Going out casefinding is a way of getting people to engage, particularly groups like midfle aged men in deprived areas rather shy of health issues.
We have a real problem with reducing healthy life expectancy in this country:
"For the three aggregated years 2020–22, although male life expectancy was 78.8 years, average healthy male life expectancy was only 62.4 years – ie, 16.4 of those years (21%) would have been spent in poor health. Female life expectancy was 82.8 years, of which 20.1 years (24%) would have been spent in poor health. Although females live an average of four years longer than males, they spend a higher proportion and more years of their lives in poor health.
Moreover, healthy life expectancy in England in 2020–22 was lower than in 2011–13, when the data series began, falling by 0.8 years in males and 1.2 years in females during that time. So not only has life expectancy stalled, but males and females spend more years in poor health. "
I raise an eyebrow concerning the Definition of "poor health". What does it mean? Are all ~18-19% of people defined as being "disabled" in "poor health", for example?
I think there is an opportunity for a degree of fudge here, just as happens with definitions of disability, especially on PB as we have a strong Captain Kirk tendency who sometimes say "LET THEM DIE !" or something similar.
On the Life Expectancy numbers, how much of that is down purely to Covid? So many having died due to Covid, is it going to bounce straight back?
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
The problem with that is, before mass car use families and social groups were geographically much tighter than they are today.
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
This is the crux of the problem. You either have to make active travel relatively more attractive, or increase the marginal cost of car journeys. .
And the latter option is much easier than the former, which is why councils go for it, and which is why motorists hate the concept.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
The problem with that is, before mass car use families and social groups were geographically much tighter than they are today.
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
This is the crux of the problem. You either have to make active travel relatively more attractive, or increase the marginal cost of car journeys.
Not sure how, but the socially optimal outcome would be to make car ownership cheaper but car use more expensive.
It isn't the 'crux' of a 'problem' - it is a wonderful privilege to have the freedom to own and run a wonderful, safe, dry conveyance that gives us the freedom to see loved ones or have adventures at will. It is a perverse stockholm syndrome mind state that thinks otherwise, right up there with being angry about 'cheap food', and 'cheap energy'. People who believe these things really need to look at the media they're consuming.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
He should have gone for "arousing and distracting".
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
Though when you get Poundburys, they are very popular. I have a hobbyhorse about a delivery model of public-sector-as-developer-of-private-housing. The public sector gets to specify what everything looks like, but sells units off to private householders. This makes sense to me, because the impact of development goes far beyond those who live in it. It should also enable slightly cheaper delivery of housing. The downside is that the public sector has a fairly chequered record as a developer. But I think it is worth a try.
Probably when the Conservatives realise that being the Part of Brexit is a decomposing albatross that keeps them in opposition.
Doubt it. There are enough Brexit Skoptsy in the northern oblasts to cause SKS serious electoral difficulties and we know well enough by now that he doesn't do radical or risky.
The path of least resistance is stay brexited with some fart-arsing around the edges that he hopes will be enough to keep the rejoiners on the right side of truculent.
Even RCP have had to concede, finally, that she is ahead there which has the consequence of their no toss up map switching to a Harris lead for the first time of 270-268. (They still have Trump ahead in Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia etc unlike some other aggregators).
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
The problem with that is, before mass car use families and social groups were geographically much tighter than they are today.
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
This is the crux of the problem. You either have to make active travel relatively more attractive, or increase the marginal cost of car journeys.
Not sure how, but the socially optimal outcome would be to make car ownership cheaper but car use more expensive.
Yes, when I lived in London the balance tipped for me - excellent public transport, and sky-rocketing parking fees. Outside London it's sadly impractical.
Living in thinly spread Cumberland I occasionally am in London and use the public transport system there. There is no possibility of having a public transport system in rural areas - most of UK land mass - that meets more than the most basic needs. In many areas there is none at all.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
Active travel has been described, fairly convincingly, as a miracle pill for a range of physical and mental health problems. Social connection and all that.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
The problem with that is, before mass car use families and social groups were geographically much tighter than they are today.
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
This is the crux of the problem. You either have to make active travel relatively more attractive, or increase the marginal cost of car journeys. .
And the latter option is much easier than the former, which is why councils go for it, and which is why motorists hate the concept.
Councils go for it because its a source of income and matches their objectives on health, congestion, air pollution, climate change, noise pollution...
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
NHS guidelines are 30 grams per day of sugar. Thats about 10.5kg per year. As the Poles consume over 4 times that amount and the Belgians nearly 5 times, it would be good to know if their populations are all dropping down dead at 40 etc so that we can evaluate the wisdom of the NHS guidance.
Belgian life expectantancy is just over the EU average at nearly 82 years, and about a year ahead of the UK. Could it be that Belgian chocolate has life extending powers, and should we not be told. 'Eat lots of Belgian (and Swiss) Cholcolate and Live for Ever' would be an extremely attactive slogan for me.
Are we to believe Belgium's sugar consumption is nearly 5x Luxembourg's? Or double the UK's for that matter?
I suspect that the simplest explanation is the numbers in the map are just wrong.
Yes, because small. Outliers in any data set in any direction are almost always small countries.
Comments
For those of us who, on the other hand, aren't certifiably insane, we might want to reflect whether stories pass the sniff test before we credulously spread them about - it looks rather vindictive, not to mention gauche.
I hope Truss presses for an apology, and gets one.
Truss gets blamed for interest rates she didn't raise, a budget she didn't implement, and an election she didn't lose - I've really never seen the like.
Pretty much all the polling on Brexit is bad and moving away from the idea (even Euro membership isn't a complete deal-breaker any more.)
So no, the public doesn't want to reopen that debate, in part because it will reinvigorate some of the worst people and techniques in British politics. The art of government is actively waiting and preparing conditions where there wouldn't really need to be much of a debate. Probably when the Conservatives realise that being the Part of Brexit is a decomposing albatross that keeps them in opposition.
The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies.
Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I'd argue that a person who spewed the Kremlin's contradictory lines on MH17, or believed the Ukrainian biolabs shite, is not really in a position to say who is certifiable insane.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
https://www.270towin.com/polls/latest-2024-presidential-election-polls/
The UK policy failure was not 2016, 2020 or now. It was in allowing an unbalanced FOM under Blair.
SKS's rhetoric abundantly confirms that there still is no right thing to do, though EFTA/EEA remains, as it has since 2016 easily the best and highly imperfect option.
From my own non-expert perspective, healthy eating is about three main things: knowledge, skill, and time. You need to know what food is healthy and in what amounts; you need the skill to cook healthily, and the time to do it. (**)
What could the government do to help these in the short and long terms?
(*) However that is defined...
(**) I did not say 'money', as it is, given the three above, possible to eat healthily and cheaply.
We don't want to be in the EU
We don't want to be out of the EU
and
We don't want to reopen the debate.
Like others I find it slightly amusing that Starmer is so lilly-livered as to take it down because it “unsettles” him, but put up whatever artwork makes him happy. A beige square, or something.
Probably saved me some serious long term health consequences, and with a bit of will power it was quite easy to get down within a month or two.
What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I can understand why.
https://npgshop.org.uk/products/william-ewart-gladstone-npg-x46687-print
I don't think any of them are up to much, but Cleverly is the least obnoxious and even made an effort in the GE while the others did their disappearing act.
*Encourage the adoption of real butter over 'spreads' and subsidise the production of healthy British dairy to do this.
*Look at the health of our bread - adulterating flour with chalk isn't an absorbable way to get calcium, and unabsorbed calcium is often found in arterial placque
*Look at updating our milk processing technology to phase out pasteurisation, which kills enzymes - valuable catalysts for the digestion processs, but leaves the sugars that those enzymes are present to help digest. It also destroys various vitamins. No wonder everyone develops intolerances. Pressurising the milk, to kill pathogens but leave enzymes in place, would be less Victorian and make us all far healthier without any dietary changes.
Why are we adding enough room for 450k people a year without remotely making a dent in house prices? It doesn't take a genius to answer this, when immigration is running at 750k/year.
Looking at it like this, the entire cost of the residental constitution sector is actually the costs of importing those ~70% of net migrants for whom we are actually building houses.
If we did the only longtime sensible thing and went to net zero immigration, in ten years time we would barely need a residential construction sector, as there would be enough houses to go round and the population would be stable.
Almost all the economic problems the country has boil down to the continued attempts to inflate GDP via the means of mass immigration run as a Ponzi scheme.
Tugendhat is the most One Nation and centrist and liberal of the candidates on the whole, Stride is also fishing in a similar pool but has less support. David Miliband was similarly the centrist candidate in the Labour leadership race after they lost power in 2010 and Ken Clarke for the Tories when they last lost office in 1997. Neither won although they got respectable results.
So the odds are Jenrick or Badenoch will play the Hague or Ed Miliband role and become Leader of the Opposition. Miliband though had more luck than Hague and had early poll leads against Cameron that Hague could not against Blair
On the topic of Delphi, I highly recommend a trip to everyone. I even managed a trip in-season this year, but early in the morning, and it's also been starting to get cooler here, these last few days.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands.
But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
https://x.com/EstherMcVey1/status/1829272301780508999
Having signed up to all sorts of EU stuff against the clear wishes of the public, given it couldn't easily be unpicked piece by piece, the next best thing was a straight forward in/out vote.
Regarding affordability, we could take a look at what government did in WWII. With far fewer resources, and with massive import restrictions, they still managed to create the healthiest generation compared to those which preceded, and which followed the war.
The simplest quick intervention would be to legislate to cut the amount of salt in processed food.
In British food context I would put the blame on:
1) Microwave ovens and the increased shift to ready-meals at home. These are usually high in carb, salt, sugar and/or fat. The same meal cooked from scratch usually has less of these.
2) More often eating out, and this being centred on easy to prepare, easy to store, easy to eat fast food based around fried fat and carbohydrate.
3) A snacking culture with constant temptation from sweets, biscuits and cakes. People don't just have crisps, cakes, chocolate, pop etc as an occasional treat anymore.
Sustained lack of building since the 1980s and changing lifestyles is much more of an issue than the increased demand from immigration.
As it turned out the real killer was extending FOM to countries with very different levels of development from the UK. Lincolnshire did not riot over French and German accountants. The SM, as guided by the UK veto as it developed, should never have got to that point, especially without our referendum consent.
It used to be quite handy for anti-malarials etc when I was working abroad. Now I have to buy from dodgy online pharmacies like everyone else.
I've just run the numbers above, and pointed out that immigration is swallowing up every single new house and then some. We built less houses in the 80s - you need a better argument as to why that isn't that case than just asserting to the contrary.
ahead if Euro membership is a requirement
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
As so often, we know roughly what to do- plan new communities by the maps of what communities looked like before mass car use. What's harder is selling that to electorates in advance, or getting commercial entities to deliver something a bit more expensive and complex than a standard new build estate. You need some kind of benevolent despot with a masterplan. And we don't like them. Even when they are called Charles Windsor, it's not always an easy sell.
Jenrick, Cleverly, Badenoch and TT to last four, Jenrick and Cleverly (coming from third with TT's transfers) to last two I reckon....
Belgian life expectantancy is just over the EU average at nearly 82 years, and about a year ahead of the UK. Could it be that Belgian chocolate has life extending powers, and should we not be told. 'Eat lots of Belgian (and Swiss) Cholcolate and Live for Ever' would be an extremely attactive slogan for me.
Hillary would have spent a lot of effort on this sort of thing; Harris has worked out how to deal with him:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/cnn-harris-walz-interview
...She quickly cast off a question about Trump’s comments that she “happened to turn Black” in recent years: “Same old, tired playbook,” she said. “Next question, please.”..
I live on the south coast but still travel to London regularly to meet up with friends, and my mum lives in Kent and I visit her there at least once a year. Along with occasional other social trips around the country, I need a car - doing all that by train would cost far too much both monetarily and in terms of time.
And once you have to have a car, it's the rare trip that using the car isn't the best option. Even when the two of us go into town for a meal or to the cinema, the car park cost is less than two return bus tickets.
The referendum merely kept the argument going from the opposite perspective, for another couple of decades, I think.
The only way in which I might be described as anti-car is that it would be great if all households didn't require more than one, freeing up lots of space and money.
https://closer.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Estimated-annual-population-1930-2019-UK.png
Then in the 70s and 80s growth slowed and stopped, and housebuilding slowed too.
Then in the 90s and 00s there was an even bigger growth in population due to immigration, but without housebuilding to meet the demand. I don't think any of these points can be reasonably denied.
I'm with the Prole on this. We're paying the price of immigration with unafforadable housing prices. Immigration has made and is continuing to make the lives of our children worse than their parents. There is an economic cost to reducing immigration, but there is also a massive economic cost to not reducing immigration. It is, as he says, a ponzi scheme.
I suspect there will be a fudge on extended visas, retirement visas etc - probably on a per country basis.
Not sure how, but the socially optimal outcome would be to make car ownership cheaper but car use more expensive.
"2024 Electoral College: No Toss-Up States | RealClearPolling" https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college
Though it would be even closer than Bush v Gore in 2000
I suspect that the simplest explanation is the numbers in the map are just wrong.
I think there is an opportunity for a degree of fudge here, just as happens with definitions of disability, especially on PB as we have a strong Captain Kirk tendency who sometimes say "LET THEM DIE !" or something similar.
On the Life Expectancy numbers, how much of that is down purely to Covid? So many having died due to Covid, is it going to bounce straight back?
I have a hobbyhorse about a delivery model of public-sector-as-developer-of-private-housing. The public sector gets to specify what everything looks like, but sells units off to private householders. This makes sense to me, because the impact of development goes far beyond those who live in it. It should also enable slightly cheaper delivery of housing. The downside is that the public sector has a fairly chequered record as a developer. But I think it is worth a try.
The path of least resistance is stay brexited with some fart-arsing around the edges that he hopes will be enough to keep the rejoiners on the right side of truculent.
Such policies are like gold dust.