Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
The head of nhs appears to have said it can't happen because NHS would be overwhelmed with fat people wanting drugs.
As if the NHS isn't already completely overwhelmed.
If England were going down the foreign manager route, why not Poch or Klopp?
Klopp doesn't want it for now - maybe ever - he's taken an upstairs role at Red Bull to take a break and get away from the pressures of day-to-day management, having said he's worn out. Probably the last job he wants is England, and it's rumoured that Red Bull role is basically to keep his oar in until he's had a break and Nagelsmann leaves the Germany job.
Poch's not available. He's just taken over the US national team. But anyway, his stock has fallen a bit in recent years and he's only won Ligue 1 and the French Cup when at PSG, when the point of getting an overseas manager is to get someone who can combine coaching acumen with some record of getting teams over the line, as Tuchel did with Chelsea.
Who would want to be the Editor of Bloomberg, trying to get senile Trump through an interview and trying to get him to stay even vaguely in touch with some smatterings of reality?
Thankless.
It’s just weird watching that. He seems completely doolally.
He's totally gone.
And yet. They'll elect him in three weeks.
You said that last time.
You might be right this time but it’s too close to call at the moment.
If England were going down the foreign manager route, why not Poch or Klopp?
Klopp doesn't want it for now - maybe ever - he's taken an upstairs role at Red Bull to take a break and get away from the pressures of day-to-day management, having said he's worn out. Probably the last job he wants is England, and it's rumoured that Red Bull role is basically to keep his oar in until he's had a break and Nagelsmann leaves the Germany job.
Poch's not available. He's just taken over the US national team. But anyway, his stock has fallen a bit in recent years and he's only won Ligue 1 and the French Cup when at PSG, when the point of getting an overseas manager is to get someone who can combine coaching acumen with some record of getting teams over the line, as Tuchel did with Chelsea.
Poch was available in the time the FA have been hunting. And if you think Poch stock has fallen, Tuchel is not exactly stellar, failed at PSG (under the remit of win the Champions League with infinite money), failed at Chelsea, failed at Bayern Munich.
IF you think that Kamala Harris making a reasoned & reasonable appeal to Black men re: convictions using marijuana, is ipso facto wacky, then check out THIS news story:
New York Times (via Seattle Times) - How a man imprisoned in New York could sway a key House race in Alaska
In the race for Alaska’s sole seat in the House of Representatives, candidates are defined by credentials specific to the state.
The Democratic incumbent, Mary Peltola, is an Alaska Native who grew up in a fishing family. Her Republican challenger, Nick Begich III, hails from an Anchorage political dynasty. John Wayne Howe, a third-party candidate, has mined for gold and battled a bear.
Then there is Inmate 00932-005, campaigning from the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution in New York, some 4,000 miles from Alaska. He is Eric Hafner, running in a state he has never set foot in and cannot visit soon.
Hafner, 33, is serving 20 years for threatening public officials in New Jersey, where he grew up. Now in his dubious quest to become one himself, he has emerged as an unlikely factor in the fight for control of Congress.
Hafner has been a fringe congressional candidate at least twice before: in Hawaii in 2016 as a Republican and in Oregon two years later as a Democrat. This year, his Alaska candidacy withstood Democratic challenges in two courts and has pundits discussing the national implications of his possibly tipping the race, which could be key to control of the House. . . .
He entered as a Democrat, even without the support of the state party, which backs Peltola.
His paltry 467 votes, less than half a percent of the 109,000 cast, left him far behind the top finishers, Peltola and Begich, but still in a respectable sixth place among 12 candidates.
That wasn’t bad for a man in a federal lockup, but wasn’t enough to advance to the top-four general election ballot next month — at least until the third- and fourth-place finishers, both Republicans, dropped out, leaving Begich as the sole Republican. With that, Hafner was smack in the middle of a House race seen as one of a handful where the Democrat is vulnerable.
Democrats immediately began worrying that even while sitting in Otisville, about 70 miles northwest of New York City, Hafner, as a second Democrat, might pull votes from Peltola. Pundits speculated about whether he could play spoiler in a tight race between her and Begich. . . .
Federal law allows candidates to run for office in states where they do not live, as long as they plan to move there once elected. This seems difficult for Hafner, whose sentence ends in 2036 . . .
It is bizarre how the US system lets people stand for party X without party X's approval.
Why bizarre? Different than what you're used to, but there's PLENTY about UK elections that strikes the rest of the world as the b-word!
NOTE that our Founding Fathers (bunch of traitorous louts to youse?) wanted to prevent the rise of "factions" in Congress and etc., which they saw as the bane of British politics.
That of course did NOT stop the (inevitable?) rise of political parties, high degrees of party affiliation, and even higher of party discipline among electeds. Though NOT to the highest level (next to USSR or PRC) achieved in Dear Old Blighty.
Nevertheless, the high-enough degree of political discipline led to certain amont of bossism, with Tammany Hall in New York, and similar in other places, representing the pinacle.
Which in tern led to moves to limit power of party hacks and henchpeople, in particular over nominations. Thus the Rise of the Primary (also voter initiatives, referendums and recalls) starting at the dawn of 20th century in Wisconsin, and expanding from sea to sea, with many variations on the theme from state to state - an intereting example of ying/yang of American federalism.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
If England were going down the foreign manager route, why not Poch or Klopp?
I would have hung on for Pep, but the Tuchel contract is only 18 months so let’s give him a whirl. Could be an interesting ride.
I can't see Pep doing international football. His systems are so complex it can't really be deployed when you only get days to work with players.
Poch has been signed up by the US.
Pep has said he’d like to coach an international team apparently. In any case, Tuchel isn’t a bad appointment in my view. He has the coaching credentials. It could work.
Whether the FA blazers will cherish a rabble rouser who has a difficult relationship with pen-pushers is another matter.
If England were going down the foreign manager route, why not Poch or Klopp?
Klopp doesn't want it for now - maybe ever - he's taken an upstairs role at Red Bull to take a break and get away from the pressures of day-to-day management, having said he's worn out. Probably the last job he wants is England, and it's rumoured that Red Bull role is basically to keep his oar in until he's had a break and Nagelsmann leaves the Germany job.
Poch's not available. He's just taken over the US national team. But anyway, his stock has fallen a bit in recent years and he's only won Ligue 1 and the French Cup when at PSG, when the point of getting an overseas manager is to get someone who can combine coaching acumen with some record of getting teams over the line, as Tuchel did with Chelsea.
I don't think Klopp would ever have taken it, the only national team he'll ever manage is Germany and when he does they'll start winning stuff again. There's no scenario where Klopp manages England into a WC and we knock Germany out along the way, which is why he wouldn't take the job and you've got to respect him for that.
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
IMF!? What are you smoking Max?
Tax rises will be used to address the terrible financial situation the Tories have left behind, not IMF bail-outs.
The problem is that one can always raise tax rates. It's quite a lot more difficult to achieve sustained increases to the tax take. And it's virtually impossible to do either of these without destroying any hint of growth in the economy.
The only possibile fix that doesn't involve the IMF is to get something for nothing, and cut business costs by deregulation. But regulation has been on a one way ratchet since the end of WW2, and the idiots in the Labour Party are the last people on earth willing to reverse this even though it is the underlying cause of most of the malaise.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
These drugs do work, if you believe the claim that obesity is the biggest health epidemic out there, you would welcome it. Is it going to be like that hiv drug that allows gay men to raw dog like it’s the early eighties and not catch the disease being prescribed on the nhs in Scotland. The morality of one isn’t much different to the morality of the other.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
The head of nhs appears to have said it can't happen because NHS would be overwhelmed with fat people wanting drugs.
As if the NHS isn't already completely overwhelmed.
But I thought the nanny state types were insistent that fatties were costing the NHS billions? Surely if we can make them all thin with a wonder drug, that's the NHS's problems solved. (or have the more sane types in the NHS realised they will just die of something else equally expensive later?).
If England were going down the foreign manager route, why not Poch or Klopp?
I would have hung on for Pep, but the Tuchel contract is only 18 months so let’s give him a whirl. Could be an interesting ride.
I can't see Pep doing international football. His systems are so complex it can't really be deployed when you only get days to work with players.
Poch has been signed up by the US.
Pep has said he’d like to coach an international team apparently. In any case, Tuchel isn’t a bad appointment in my view. He has the coaching credentials. It could work.
Whether the FA blazers will cherish a rabble rouser who has a difficult relationship with pen-pushers is another matter.
I don't think the FA had a huge amount of choice. None of the high profile English managers that were seen as the future once are ripping up sticks e.g Potter, Howe, etc.
I think I am right in saying that Georgia is one of the states that doesn’t record party allegiance. Do we have any idea who they were voting for?
Does it show mail-ins by precinct? That could be one way if so?
Have no clue re: Georgia re: ballot returns (either via mail OR in-person early voting).
HOWEVER in WA State, every weeknight (starting next week) our Secretary of State's office posts ballot return info for all ballots returned by voters as of that day. Including voter name, state voter ID number, county, precinct, date & method of return (mail, drop box. Also whether or not the ballot has been validated/accepted for counting, has been challenged (at least temporarily) and for what reason (mostly for lack of signature or mismatched sig).
Using this info, parties, candidates, hacks like me, whomever, can match it to voter registration records.
If England were going down the foreign manager route, why not Poch or Klopp?
I would have hung on for Pep, but the Tuchel contract is only 18 months so let’s give him a whirl. Could be an interesting ride.
I can't see Pep doing international football. His systems are so complex it can't really be deployed when you only get days to work with players.
Poch has been signed up by the US.
Pep has said he’d like to coach an international team apparently. In any case, Tuchel isn’t a bad appointment in my view. He has the coaching credentials. It could work.
Whether the FA blazers will cherish a rabble rouser who has a difficult relationship with pen-pushers is another matter.
I don't think the FA had a huge amount of choice. None of the high profile English managers that were seen as the future once are ripping up sticks e.g Potter, Howe, etc.
Agreed. Potter or Howe would have been underwhelming appointments. I think Tuchel was probably the best of those available.
One thing I don’t get with you William is how you square you purported support for Ukraine with your endless Trump shilling. It’s just bizarre.
I don’t think Biden has been particularly great for Ukraine and I think people are overestimating Trump’s ability to be worse. Plus the second order effects of Trump might be beneficial for Ukraine, such as giving other NATO members a freer hand.
"Tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary" says Trump before quickly moving onto outlining what he calls 'The Weave' which is his word for the long, rambling, incoherent digressions from whatever the question actually is.
Total meltdown at Bloomberg interview but it will not move one vote frankly.
If only the vote could be today because what is the point of anymore of this crap?
The price of Trump Media, which is somewhat a proxy for the market’s expectation of Trump’s electoral result, plummeted during the interview.
One thing I don’t get with you William is how you square you purported support for Ukraine with your endless Trump shilling. It’s just bizarre.
I'm not WilliamGlen, but I'm not sure that's all that that hard to explain. I'm strongly pro-Ukrane, think we should give them more military aid not less. If I was voting purely on the Ukraine policies of the US candidates, I'd back Harris every time.
But, if I was an American voter, I would be considering primarily each candidate in the context of *President of the United States of America*. And I would vote for Trump, if only on the grounds that whilst he's an obnoxious idiot, he doesn't actively hate people like me and Harris clearly does.
Located on Peel Ports site in North Ayrshire, Highview Power has already successfully secured the developing rights for Hunterston. The plant will be built in two stages; the first will be the grid connection and works to provide grid stability services; the second phase will be a full LAES build-out – the planning process will now commence for the second phase. The Hunterston project will support 1,000 jobs onsite during construction and 650 jobs in the supply chain….
…Julian Leslie, Director of Strategic Energy Planning and Chief Engineer, NESO, added: “Technology such as Highview Power’s LDES proposals will quite simply unlock the power of renewable energy in our energy system, stabilise our grid system, and allow for the delivery of a 100% zero carbon electricity system. In our Holistic Transition Pathway, we have identified a 81GWh requirement for LDES by 2030 to decarbonise the grid and this announcement paves the way to realise this goal.”
Highview Power’s programme of four will also include a project in Aberdeenshire, strategically positioned to support the onshoring of renewable energy resources from the North Sea and the critical need for grid stability at this location. Further details on this next phase will be forthcoming over the coming months.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ’s) recently announced investment support scheme will provide further momentum to technologies such as Highview Powers’ helping to unlock investment and accelerate decarbonisation plans.
Highview Power’s June funding round was led by the UK Infrastructure Bank (UKIB) and the British multinational energy and services company Centrica, alongside a syndicate of investors including Sumitomo, Rio Tinto, Goldman Sachs, KIRKBI and Mosaic Capital…
Isn't the problem with the sort of storage that the round cycle losses are truly horrible?
Yes and no. Round trip efficiency is currently something like 50-60%, I think ? Which is nowhere near batteries.
But it has the advantage over batteries (for the next decade at least) of capacity; it can be delivered now with standard industrial components. And the energy it will be storaging is currently wasted completely - and costs government about £1bn a year in constraint payments.
Which adds up to a competitive price per kWh supplied back to the grid - and replaces another slug of fossil fuel capacity.
Where that fits in when there’s unlimited solar power available globally at much lower prices is an interesting question.
Alcohol gets a really easy ride as a drug because it’s legal and its use is so widespread. But it’s a very hard drug, with severe social consequences around its misuse.
Professor David Nutt was hired as drugs tsar to propose an evidence-based drugs strategy for the UK.
When he showed Blair’s government the evidence, they sacked him.
(The graph in the news story below ranks most recreational drugs in terms of risk.)
Which says absolutely nothing about causation or risk.
Victims perceived the offender(s) to be under the influence of alcohol in 53% of violent incidents measured by the 2013/14 CSEW. This is equivalent to an estimated 704,000 ‘alcohol-related’ violent incidents. While the volume of incidents has fallen, the proportion of violent incidents that were ‘alcohol-related’ has remained relatively steady over the last ten years
Alcohol was a particularly prevalent factor in violent incidents between strangers, 64% of which were perceived to be alcohol-related (CSEW 2013/14)
In the combined datasets of the 2012/13 and 2013/14 CSEW, 70% of violent incidents occurring at the weekend, and 70% of violent incidents occurring in the evening or night, were alcohol-related
The proportions of violent incidents that were alcohol-related increased as the afternoon and evening progressed, from 23% of violent incidents occurring between noon and 6pm, to 52% were between 6pm and 10pm and 83% occurred between 10pm and midnight
70% of violent incidents which took place in a public space were alcohol-related compared with 40% of incidents that occurred in the home and 43% of incidents that happened in and around the workplace
Where injuries were sustained these were typically more severe in incidents of alcohol-related violence compared with other violent incidents. Victims in alcohol-related violent incidents were more likely to have received cuts (15%, compared with 9% of victims in non alcohol-related incidents) or to have suffered concussion or loss of consciousness (5%, compared with 1% of victims in non alcohol-related incidents) as a result of the incident
Which says absolutely nothing about causation or risk.
One thing I don’t get with you William is how you square you purported support for Ukraine with your endless Trump shilling. It’s just bizarre.
I'm not WilliamGlen, but I'm not sure that's all that that hard to explain. I'm strongly pro-Ukrane, think we should give them more military aid not less. If I was voting purely on the Ukraine policies of the US candidates, I'd back Harris every time.
But, if I was an American voter, I would be considering primarily each candidate in the context of *President of the United States of America*. And I would vote for Trump, if only on the grounds that whilst he's an obnoxious idiot, he doesn't actively hate people like me and Harris clearly does.
Did she refuse to take your order when she was working at McDonalds, or throw it in your face?
I get that many people find it easy to hate politicos (I once did). But that politicos commonly hate people? Even (or especially) loveable people like you, and maybe me? Just don't buy that.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
These drugs do work, if you believe the claim that obesity is the biggest health epidemic out there, you would welcome it. Is it going to be like that hiv drug that allows gay men to raw dog like it’s the early eighties and not catch the disease being prescribed on the nhs in Scotland. The morality of one isn’t much different to the morality of the other.
We know they work; that’s not what the trial is about. It’s a post approval trial to look at the cost/benefit of prescribing.
"Tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary" says Trump before quickly moving onto outlining what he calls 'The Weave' which is his word for the long, rambling, incoherent digressions from whatever the question actually is.
Total meltdown at Bloomberg interview but it will not move one vote frankly.
If only the vote could be today because what is the point of anymore of this crap?
The price of Trump Media, which is somewhat a proxy for the market’s expectation of Trump’s electoral result, plummeted during the interview.
Just had a look at Trump Media over the last few months. Utterly bonkers ups and downs. Makes Bitcoin look stable and dull.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
These drugs do work, if you believe the claim that obesity is the biggest health epidemic out there, you would welcome it. Is it going to be like that hiv drug that allows gay men to raw dog like it’s the early eighties and not catch the disease being prescribed on the nhs in Scotland. The morality of one isn’t much different to the morality of the other.
One thing I don’t get with you William is how you square you purported support for Ukraine with your endless Trump shilling. It’s just bizarre.
I'm not WilliamGlen, but I'm not sure that's all that that hard to explain. I'm strongly pro-Ukrane, think we should give them more military aid not less. If I was voting purely on the Ukraine policies of the US candidates, I'd back Harris every time.
But, if I was an American voter, I would be considering primarily each candidate in the context of *President of the United States of America*. And I would vote for Trump, if only on the grounds that whilst he's an obnoxious idiot, he doesn't actively hate people like me and Harris clearly does.
Did she refuse to take your order when she was working at McDonalds, or throw it in your face?
I get that many people find it easy to hate politicos (I once did). But that politicos commonly hate people? Even (or especially) loveable people like you, and maybe me? Just don't buy that.
TBF, Trump is undeniably a hater. I haven’t seen much (any) evidence Harris is.
The editorial is a disgrace. You can be for or against the appointment but the xenophobia in that comment piece is sinister.
On a footballing note, this take is just laughable. This is literally akin to swapping Bill Nelson for Barack Obama and then complaining about it because Obama is Black. The upgrade from Southgate to Tuchel is so big that I'm surprised the headline wasn't in German to celebrate. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1846322571199107525
I can’t comment on the sporting assessment. But your takes on the Mail are spot on.
Alcohol gets a really easy ride as a drug because it’s legal and its use is so widespread. But it’s a very hard drug, with severe social consequences around its misuse.
Professor David Nutt was hired as drugs tsar to propose an evidence-based drugs strategy for the UK.
When he showed Blair’s government the evidence, they sacked him.
(The graph in the news story below ranks most recreational drugs in terms of risk.)
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
With all due respect, why are we even members of the UN?
Better to save ourselves some dues than be a member of an organization that has Saudi Arabia and Syria on its human rights committee
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
Starmer may have said he will expand UNSC membership, he hasn't said he will give up the and nor is there any change to the Falklands or Gibraltar despite giving Chagos to Mauritius while keeping the military base. The rest of your post has some validity however
One thing I don’t get with you William is how you square you purported support for Ukraine with your endless Trump shilling. It’s just bizarre.
I'm not WilliamGlen, but I'm not sure that's all that that hard to explain. I'm strongly pro-Ukrane, think we should give them more military aid not less. If I was voting purely on the Ukraine policies of the US candidates, I'd back Harris every time.
But, if I was an American voter, I would be considering primarily each candidate in the context of *President of the United States of America*. And I would vote for Trump, if only on the grounds that whilst he's an obnoxious idiot, he doesn't actively hate people like me and Harris clearly does.
To be honest... If I was "An American voter, considering primarily each candidate in the context of *President of the United States of America*"....
I think I would take my proverbial "bottle of whisky and revolver" and consider my position.... 😂
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
With all due respect, why are we even members of the UN?
Better to save ourselves some dues than be a member of an organization that has Saudi Arabia and Syria on its human rights committee
Yes, someone has to call time on it and it might as well be us.
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
With all due respect, why are we even members of the UN?
Better to save ourselves some dues than be a member of an organization that has Saudi Arabia and Syria on its human rights committee
As by definition a United Nations to have any meaning has to have every nation of the globe represented in it, including us and Saudi and Syria
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
With all due respect, why are we even members of the UN?
Better to save ourselves some dues than be a member of an organization that has Saudi Arabia and Syria on its human rights committee
Because
* For all its faults the UN is the major forum where the countries if the world can meet, interact and discuss issues. To leave it because of discomfort with other countries is the equivalent of incels leaving public spaces because of discomfort with women * It is the world forum in which the British wield the most clout
Like the other countries of the world or hate them, they still exist and we have to work out how to peacefully (or otherwise) coexist.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
With all due respect, why are we even members of the UN?
Better to save ourselves some dues than be a member of an organization that has Saudi Arabia and Syria on its human rights committee
As by definition a United Nations to have any meaning has to have every nation of the globe represented in it, including us and Saudi and Syria
Hillary would have won in 2016 if she basically hadn't said anything significant. I hope Harris doesn't end up being in the same category.
Hilary Clinton did NOT lose in 2016 because of dissing "deplorables" or any other dumb thing she said.
Rather, she lost because, as in 2008, HC ran a sub-par POTUS campaign. For example, missing /dissing Wisconsin in the 2016 endgame (similar to how she & her campaign were clueless re: caucuses in 2008).
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
With all due respect, why are we even members of the UN?
Better to save ourselves some dues than be a member of an organization that has Saudi Arabia and Syria on its human rights committee
Because
* For all its faults the UN is the major forum where the countries if the world can meet, interact and discuss issues. To leave it because of discomfort with other countries is the equivalent of incels leaving public spaces because of discomfort with women * It is the world forum in which the British wield the most clout
Like the other countries of the world or hate them, they still exist and we have to work out how to peacefully (or otherwise) coexist.
When you say "wields the most clout", what do you mean?
The more I see Starmer the more I think Gordon Brown.....
Unfair on Gordon, actually.
He could, when in the mood, deliver an engaging speech. Not Blair level, but really quite good.
Starmer is to Brown what Sunak was to Cameron.
Yes, and while I don't buy the Gordon-was-brilliant-at-economics line, he certainly understood the importance of somebody earning some money to pay for everything.
What brilliant at economics line? It was widely accepted that Brown relied on Ed Balls for economics advice. You might remember this from 1994, long before Labour reached office:-
Now there was a man who could make a good, tub-thumping speech. He was also the political genius who named the council tax, so voters would not blame the government.
Gordon Brown wrote great speeches but delivered them badly. Peter Lilley was the same on the Tory side. It was Gordon who coined tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime for Tony Blair.
I actually think Starmer is a traitor. He's pushing to add more permanent UNSC members which dilutes out power from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10. He's a complete joke. How long until the leftist voices who hate that we have a permanent seat start to gun for it and push him to give it up entirely.
This government is absolutely terrible and I don't see any redeeming qualities.
This government's main redeeming quality is that it keeps the other lot out.
I actually think Starmer is a traitor. He's pushing to add more permanent UNSC members which dilutes out power from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10. He's a complete joke. How long until the leftist voices who hate that we have a permanent seat start to gun for it and push him to give it up entirely.
This government is absolutely terrible and I don't see any redeeming qualities.
This government's main redeeming quality is that it keeps the other lot out.
I actually think Starmer is a traitor. He's pushing to add more permanent UNSC members which dilutes out power from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10. He's a complete joke. How long until the leftist voices who hate that we have a permanent seat start to gun for it and push him to give it up entirely.
This government is absolutely terrible and I don't see any redeeming qualities.
This government's main redeeming quality is that it keeps the other lot out.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
That is indeed why we do drug trials, to find the answers to such questions.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
So this is weird. I cannot log in on the politicalbetting.com site, but I can on the vf.politicalbetting.com site. Does anyone know why that would be the case?
It will be something to do with “cross-site tracking” or “3rd party cookies” in your browser security configuration.
If it’s possible to whitelist PB then do so, but if your browser doesn’t let you do this (Safari on iPad has this issue) then leave them enabled and just use the vf site instead. These settings prevent the likes of Google and Facebook tracking your browsing around the web for targeting adverts, and are increasingly the default in browsers now.
£2.5k in kennel fees? Were they paid danger money?
Dogs are expensive. The putting-down cost would have been £500, perhaps more for a dog that size. For a comparison, normal kennel costs would be £20-30 a day, plus - as you say - 'danger money'.
I was very amused by that completely-not-out-of-touch Conservative Party video ad claiming that all the old people with posh houses and one or more dogs, were suddenly going to starve or freeze to death for the sake of losing a £150 benefit.
If the owner appealed it would have to be held throughout the period of the Appeal. They have 21 days just to make the Appeal, so that would be £500-600+ of kennel costs just for a start at normal not police kennel cost levels. Plus Court delay.
There's the sort of nit-picking legal culture around this that Nick Freeman uses to get his celebrity clients off taking responsibility for themselves.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
The (slightly tongue in cheek) tip was intended for best actor. That's not always correlated with how well a movie does.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
Most of us have the potential to be either, I think ? But I strongly endorse your approach; it tends to encourage the good in people.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
That's why the whole thing is set up as a trial, not that any of our right leaning media (except maybe Times Radio?) will report such an inconvenient fact.
I was listening a little to GB News (Martin Daubney) on the courtesy car yesterday on the way back to collect my own, and they were framing it as a free perk for 'morbidly obese benefit claimants'. And obsessing over 'forcing them back into work' because 'should we be giving them benefits?'.
No concept of how NICE does a cost-benefit, nor of what works. Just Martin Daubney furiously masturbating his fiction-based outrage.
By the same token, it seems that afaics David Lammy holding a single meeting on defence cooperation amounts to taking us back into the EU.
It's (imo) somewhat like one of the Bloggerheads' campaign video about Billy Brit, the BNP plushie, from 2010. The underlying themes don't change . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ges0MDNsKWE
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
I go by the 1-9-80-9-1 idea. 1% of people are genuinely bad and nasty; evil by some measures. 9% of people are bad. 80% of us muddle along the middle, mostly doing good, but occasionally straying. 9% of people are mostly good, whereas 1% of people will always try to do the right thing, however much it hurts them. Angels, perhaps.
I have known people in every category, although that mostly only becomes obvious over time. But it is also very common for people to think they are a different category to what they are: bad people who think they are angels; or good people who always try to do better because they are bad.
(This is not an original concept of mine; it came from an ex-MP who talked about it during the expenses scandal.)
I think the key is not just trusting people, as you say, but also creating an environment where the 80% can be tempted towards the good side of their temperament, rather than the bad.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
I did say "(obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...),"
It's still a valid question though. If you are already thin, does this category of drug have no effect, or does it cause other health problems in those who are thin?
As for the policy (which I have not commented on yet...) - it's an interesting idea. Probably a very costly one, but it is easy to see how the benefits might vastly outweigh those costs. Personally, I'd also go for combining it with exercise, but the exercise-to-lose-weight argument has been going on for decades, and hasn't worked for vast numbers of people.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
I go by the 1-9-80-9-1 idea. 1% of people are genuinely bad and nasty; evil by some measures. 9% of people are bad. 80% of us muddle along the middle, mostly doing good, but occasionally straying. 9% of people are mostly good, whereas 1% of people will always try to do the right thing, however much it hurts them. Angels, perhaps.
I have known people in every category, although that mostly only becomes obvious over time. But it is also very common for people to think they are a different category to what they are: bad people who think they are angels; or good people who always try to do better because they are bad.
(This is not an original concept of mine; it came from an ex-MP who talked about it during the expenses scandal.)
I think the key is not just trusting people, as you say, but also creating an environment where the 80% can be tempted towards the good side of their temperament, rather than the bad.
Some of those who always “do good” can be manipulated quite easily into doing bad things. I’m not sure it is worse to be governed by the 9% who are mostly bad than the 9% who are mostly good. Watching on twitter it is clear those who see themselves as good and righteous people can often do the most horrendous things, because they see themselves as good and righteous.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
They can get hold of it now, the online pharmacies rarely make much of a check of bmi. Like misusing any pharmaceutical product you can quickly find a forum that will tell you the right things to say and which place will not bother checking.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
That's why the whole thing is set up as a trial, not that any of our right leaning media (except maybe Times Radio?) will report such an inconvenient fact.
I was listening a little to GB News (Martin Daubney) on the courtesy car yesterday on the way back to collect my own, and they were framing it as a free perk for 'morbidly obese benefit claimants'. And obsessing over 'forcing them back into work' because 'should we be giving them benefits?'.
No concept of how NICE does a cost-benefit, nor of what works. Just Martin Daubney furiously masturbating his fiction-based outrage.
By the same token, it seems that afaics David Lammy holding a single meeting on defence cooperation amounts to taking us back into the EU.
It's (imo) somewhat like one of the Bloggerheads' campaign video about Billy Brit, the BNP plushie, from 2010. The underlying themes don't change . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ges0MDNsKWE
There are so many things in healthcare that could be connected to increasing economic productivity. One for instance is laser eye surgery with lens replacement. The technology and procedure is so routine now that, it could be offered as part of a standard “so you are fifty now?” service. And on the vein of weight loss, weight loss surgery, again if you have a bmi of 40, get the surgery. Once you get to that size your productivity really collapses unless you are already nested in a profession or self employed.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
I go by the 1-9-80-9-1 idea. 1% of people are genuinely bad and nasty; evil by some measures. 9% of people are bad. 80% of us muddle along the middle, mostly doing good, but occasionally straying. 9% of people are mostly good, whereas 1% of people will always try to do the right thing, however much it hurts them. Angels, perhaps.
I have known people in every category, although that mostly only becomes obvious over time. But it is also very common for people to think they are a different category to what they are: bad people who think they are angels; or good people who always try to do better because they are bad.
(This is not an original concept of mine; it came from an ex-MP who talked about it during the expenses scandal.)
I think the key is not just trusting people, as you say, but also creating an environment where the 80% can be tempted towards the good side of their temperament, rather than the bad.
Some of those who always “do good” can be manipulated quite easily into doing bad things. I’m not sure it is worse to be governed by the 9% who are mostly bad than the 9% who are mostly good. Watching on twitter it is clear those who see themselves as good and righteous people can often do the most horrendous things, because they see themselves as good and righteous.
Speak to people one on one. And avoid Twitter. And remember the person you are talking too is likely as good and moral as you are.
Once in my life have been fucked by a psychopathic liar I trusted. But you know what? You can only lose 100% of your money. You can make 10,000% because other people are too naturally untrustworthy.
There is far more money to be made trusting other human beings than distrusting them.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
I go by the 1-9-80-9-1 idea. 1% of people are genuinely bad and nasty; evil by some measures. 9% of people are bad. 80% of us muddle along the middle, mostly doing good, but occasionally straying. 9% of people are mostly good, whereas 1% of people will always try to do the right thing, however much it hurts them. Angels, perhaps.
I have known people in every category, although that mostly only becomes obvious over time. But it is also very common for people to think they are a different category to what they are: bad people who think they are angels; or good people who always try to do better because they are bad.
(This is not an original concept of mine; it came from an ex-MP who talked about it during the expenses scandal.)
I think the key is not just trusting people, as you say, but also creating an environment where the 80% can be tempted towards the good side of their temperament, rather than the bad.
Some of those who always “do good” can be manipulated quite easily into doing bad things. I’m not sure it is worse to be governed by the 9% who are mostly bad than the 9% who are mostly good. Watching on twitter it is clear those who see themselves as good and righteous people can often do the most horrendous things, because they see themselves as good and righteous.
I'd argue that calling someone 'good' from the view of themselves they give on Twitter is not accurate. People's online characters are often far out from how they are in reality. Someone whose online timeline is full of all the charity work they do can be an utter sh*t. Which is why you can sometimes only categorise someone once you have known them a while.
And yes, people can always be manipulated to do bad things,
But the opposite is also true: some of those who generally do 'bad' things can be manipulated to do good. It might only be from blatant self-interest; but at least it'd be good.
Which is why I said it is important to create an environment where people are encouraged to do more good. Sadly, many environments do the exact opposite.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
I did say "(obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...),"
It's still a valid question though. If you are already thin, does this category of drug have no effect, or does it cause other health problems in those who are thin?
As for the policy (which I have not commented on yet...) - it's an interesting idea. Probably a very costly one, but it is easy to see how the benefits might vastly outweigh those costs. Personally, I'd also go for combining it with exercise, but the exercise-to-lose-weight argument has been going on for decades, and hasn't worked for vast numbers of people.
I can see demand being very, very high.
If you have no need for it, and it has side effects which it does, then it is certainly bad for you even before considering the anorexia. So yes anorexics shouldn't take it and we should make it hard for them to obtain it.
About 26% of the UK is obese, another 38% overweight. About 2% have anorexia/bulemia/similar. The priority is clear.
And yes demand will be massive as awareness rises. Surveys in the US, from six months ago, where they get bombarded with medical adverts, had 6% of Americans having tried them and 3% using them. The numbers will be higher by now. In a year or two it will be the same here.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
I did say "(obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...),"
It's still a valid question though. If you are already thin, does this category of drug have no effect, or does it cause other health problems in those who are thin?
As for the policy (which I have not commented on yet...) - it's an interesting idea. Probably a very costly one, but it is easy to see how the benefits might vastly outweigh those costs. Personally, I'd also go for combining it with exercise, but the exercise-to-lose-weight argument has been going on for decades, and hasn't worked for vast numbers of people.
I can see demand being very, very high.
If you have no need for it, and it has side effects which it does, then it is certainly bad for you even before considering the anorexia. So yes anorexics shouldn't take it and we should make it hard for them to obtain it.
About 26% of the UK is obese, another 38% overweight. About 2% have anorexia/bulemia/similar. The priority is clear.
And yes demand will be massive as awareness rises. Surveys in the US, from six months ago, where they get bombarded with medical adverts, had 6% of Americans having tried them and 3% using them. The numbers will be higher by now. In a year or two it will be the same here.
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
IMF!? What are you smoking Max?
Tax rises will be used to address the terrible financial situation the Tories have left behind, not IMF bail-outs.
The problem is that one can always raise tax rates. It's quite a lot more difficult to achieve sustained increases to the tax take. And it's virtually impossible to do either of these without destroying any hint of growth in the economy.
The only possibile fix that doesn't involve the IMF is to get something for nothing, and cut business costs by deregulation. But regulation has been on a one way ratchet since the end of WW2, and the idiots in the Labour Party are the last people on earth willing to reverse this even though it is the underlying cause of most of the malaise.
That’s an ideological view, that the only possible fix is deregulation. I would suggest that investment has a much better, historical track record of producing growth.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
I did say "(obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...),"
It's still a valid question though. If you are already thin, does this category of drug have no effect, or does it cause other health problems in those who are thin?
As for the policy (which I have not commented on yet...) - it's an interesting idea. Probably a very costly one, but it is easy to see how the benefits might vastly outweigh those costs. Personally, I'd also go for combining it with exercise, but the exercise-to-lose-weight argument has been going on for decades, and hasn't worked for vast numbers of people.
I can see demand being very, very high.
If you have no need for it, and it has side effects which it does, then it is certainly bad for you even before considering the anorexia. So yes anorexics shouldn't take it and we should make it hard for them to obtain it.
About 26% of the UK is obese, another 38% overweight. About 2% have anorexia/bulemia/similar. The priority is clear.
And yes demand will be massive as awareness rises. Surveys in the US, from six months ago, where they get bombarded with medical adverts, had 6% of Americans having tried them and 3% using them. The numbers will be higher by now. In a year or two it will be the same here.
‘Overweight’ won’t be eligible.
Depends if another reason such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol which are not unusual. Also some overweight now are on the path to future obesity in terms of future demand.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
It shouldn’t be available to people with anorexia, but there are many reports of people with anorexia getting hold of it and using it. This is a problem.
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
IMF!? What are you smoking Max?
Tax rises will be used to address the terrible financial situation the Tories have left behind, not IMF bail-outs.
The problem is that one can always raise tax rates. It's quite a lot more difficult to achieve sustained increases to the tax take. And it's virtually impossible to do either of these without destroying any hint of growth in the economy.
The only possibile fix that doesn't involve the IMF is to get something for nothing, and cut business costs by deregulation. But regulation has been on a one way ratchet since the end of WW2, and the idiots in the Labour Party are the last people on earth willing to reverse this even though it is the underlying cause of most of the malaise.
That’s an ideological view, that the only possible fix is deregulation. I would suggest that investment has a much better, historical track record of producing growth.
If you are talking about infrastructure investment, it costs billions and we don't have those billions. I also think putting infrastructure in and hoping for it to stimulate growth is putting the cart before the horse.
Deregulation isn't the only way to cut business costs, but it is one good way. Tax cuts are another. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to increase supply, to drive down the cost of energy, food and housing in the longer term. Because at the moment, when the economy starts going, it drives up inflation, and the Bank tries to shut it down by attacking it - so we're trapped in a wire loop game. Increasing supply is the only way to break that.
We need to do all three though. And probably try with infrastructure investment too. It's an all of the above thing, not an a la carte menu.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
I go by the 1-9-80-9-1 idea. 1% of people are genuinely bad and nasty; evil by some measures. 9% of people are bad. 80% of us muddle along the middle, mostly doing good, but occasionally straying. 9% of people are mostly good, whereas 1% of people will always try to do the right thing, however much it hurts them. Angels, perhaps.
I have known people in every category, although that mostly only becomes obvious over time. But it is also very common for people to think they are a different category to what they are: bad people who think they are angels; or good people who always try to do better because they are bad.
(This is not an original concept of mine; it came from an ex-MP who talked about it during the expenses scandal.)
I think the key is not just trusting people, as you say, but also creating an environment where the 80% can be tempted towards the good side of their temperament, rather than the bad.
The basic rule of being a good person IMHO is to treat others as you would want to be treated. Follow that and you'll never go too far wrong. Some go beyond that and treat others far better than they expect others to treat them. I guess these are the 1% in your taxonomy. I would put my dad in this category. I think it is actually quite difficult being one of these people, and difficult for those close to them too. I've never aspired to that, enlightened self interest is my approach. I hope I'm somewhere near the top of the 80% or the bottom of your 9%. The worst group to be in I would guess is your bottom 9%, people broken by their own life experiences, cut adrift from others and lost in a cycle of bad behaviour and bad outcomes. I've known people like this, they make others' lives a misery but they harm themselves far more.
Since we are talking a little about weight loss drugs, could anyone taking it privately flag up what the cost is approximately, and what form / frequency you use (ie injection or tablet)?
Looking at the NHS indicative costs for semaglutide, a daily tablet is significantly less expensive.
(Interesting, because sometimes the ease of use of a tablet over an injection may be one factor among several that could make the tablet be priced the higher of the two.)
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
I did say "(obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...),"
It's still a valid question though. If you are already thin, does this category of drug have no effect, or does it cause other health problems in those who are thin?
As for the policy (which I have not commented on yet...) - it's an interesting idea. Probably a very costly one, but it is easy to see how the benefits might vastly outweigh those costs. Personally, I'd also go for combining it with exercise, but the exercise-to-lose-weight argument has been going on for decades, and hasn't worked for vast numbers of people.
Labours weight loss jabs for obese, unemployed people does feel like a desperate, out of ideas pitch like Alan Partridge to the BBC controller -"Monkey tennis? 😏🥴 Aha! 😏
Yeah, sounds like the kind of mad idea a government would come up with after a decade in power, rather than just 3 months...
FFS, it’s a drug trial, looking at the cost/benefit of prescribing Ozempic to obese people. Partly funded by the manufacturer.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
I mean the NHS offering fat people drugs to make them thinner is one thing and is probably a good thing from an NHS perspective, but where's the evidence that doing this will make people more likely to enter work and get off benefits?
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Obesity causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, back pain, cancer, depression and other mental health and physical problems. These impact work and productivity. Best not answer your last question.
I'm sceptical about the depression bit. IMV depression is a much more complex condition than that, and if someone who is sad because of their weight is suddenly the correct size - in other words, the 'cause' of their depression is fixed - then the 'cause' will move onto other things. Weight is a contributory factor to depression, rather than a cause.
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
Of course it shouldn't be prescribed to anorexics and to do so is illegal and would remain so. Strange example.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
I did say "(obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...),"
It's still a valid question though. If you are already thin, does this category of drug have no effect, or does it cause other health problems in those who are thin?
As for the policy (which I have not commented on yet...) - it's an interesting idea. Probably a very costly one, but it is easy to see how the benefits might vastly outweigh those costs. Personally, I'd also go for combining it with exercise, but the exercise-to-lose-weight argument has been going on for decades, and hasn't worked for vast numbers of people.
The Apprentice film (about a young Donald Trump) has been pretty widely panned. Trouble is with extreme partisanship, not to mention foreign trolls and bots, it is hard to know who to trust.
Oh, that's easy. I follow the principle of meeting everyone, talking to everyone, and trusting everyone.
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
I go by the 1-9-80-9-1 idea. 1% of people are genuinely bad and nasty; evil by some measures. 9% of people are bad. 80% of us muddle along the middle, mostly doing good, but occasionally straying. 9% of people are mostly good, whereas 1% of people will always try to do the right thing, however much it hurts them. Angels, perhaps.
I have known people in every category, although that mostly only becomes obvious over time. But it is also very common for people to think they are a different category to what they are: bad people who think they are angels; or good people who always try to do better because they are bad.
(This is not an original concept of mine; it came from an ex-MP who talked about it during the expenses scandal.)
I think the key is not just trusting people, as you say, but also creating an environment where the 80% can be tempted towards the good side of their temperament, rather than the bad.
The basic rule of being a good person IMHO is to treat others as you would want to be treated. Follow that and you'll never go too far wrong. Some go beyond that and treat others far better than they expect others to treat them. I guess these are the 1% in your taxonomy. I would put my dad in this category. I think it is actually quite difficult being one of these people, and difficult for those close to them too. I've never aspired to that, enlightened self interest is my approach. I hope I'm somewhere near the top of the 80% or the bottom of your 9%. The worst group to be in I would guess is your bottom 9%, people broken by their own life experiences, cut adrift from others and lost in a cycle of bad behaviour and bad outcomes. I've known people like this, they make others' lives a misery but they harm themselves far more.
You always wonder yourself where you would be. I don’t suffer fools, I have absolutely no sympathy for people jumping on boats from a very safe France. I think people who routinely use food banks are their own worst enemy and do so as a consequence of bad decisions. On the other hand, if a friend or family was short I would without hesitation pay for their groceries, and have done. Yesterday I scrapped someone else’s car in a supermarket reversing out. I left my name and number under the windscreen wiper. When I got back out of the supermarket I saw the car owner looking at the note, went over and chatted and told him to message or ring me and I will get it sorted for him. If I am walking my dogs and they do a poo I’ll pcik up a nearby poo from someone else’s dog as well. I have ran community events, fun days etc. but I can also say mean and spiteful thigns about people I dislike.
Comments
Poch has been signed up by the US.
As if the NHS isn't already completely overwhelmed.
Poch's not available. He's just taken over the US national team. But anyway, his stock has fallen a bit in recent years and he's only won Ligue 1 and the French Cup when at PSG, when the point of getting an overseas manager is to get someone who can combine coaching acumen with some record of getting teams over the line, as Tuchel did with Chelsea.
You might be right this time but it’s too close to call at the moment.
NOTE that our Founding Fathers (bunch of traitorous louts to youse?) wanted to prevent the rise of "factions" in Congress and etc., which they saw as the bane of British politics.
That of course did NOT stop the (inevitable?) rise of political parties, high degrees of party affiliation, and even higher of party discipline among electeds. Though NOT to the highest level (next to USSR or PRC) achieved in Dear Old Blighty.
Nevertheless, the high-enough degree of political discipline led to certain amont of bossism, with Tammany Hall in New York, and similar in other places, representing the pinacle.
Which in tern led to moves to limit power of party hacks and henchpeople, in particular over nominations. Thus the Rise of the Primary (also voter initiatives, referendums and recalls) starting at the dawn of 20th century in Wisconsin, and expanding from sea to sea, with many variations on the theme from state to state - an intereting example of ying/yang of American federalism.
Criticise the hype by all means, but don’t show yourself more ignorant than the minister.
Whether the FA blazers will cherish a rabble rouser who has a difficult relationship with pen-pushers is another matter.
And it's virtually impossible to do either of these without destroying any hint of growth in the economy.
The only possibile fix that doesn't involve the IMF is to get something for nothing, and cut business costs by deregulation. But regulation has been on a one way ratchet since the end of WW2, and the idiots in the Labour Party are the last people on earth willing to reverse this even though it is the underlying cause of most of the malaise.
Is it going to be like that hiv drug that allows gay men to raw dog like it’s the early eighties and not catch the disease being prescribed on the nhs in Scotland. The morality of one isn’t much different to the morality of the other.
(or have the more sane types in the NHS realised they will just die of something else equally expensive later?).
HOWEVER in WA State, every weeknight (starting next week) our Secretary of State's office posts ballot return info for all ballots returned by voters as of that day. Including voter name, state voter ID number, county, precinct, date & method of return (mail, drop box. Also whether or not the ballot has been validated/accepted for counting, has been challenged (at least temporarily) and for what reason (mostly for lack of signature or mismatched sig).
Using this info, parties, candidates, hacks like me, whomever, can match it to voter registration records.
https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1846228061173256714
But, if I was an American voter, I would be considering primarily each candidate in the context of *President of the United States of America*. And I would vote for Trump, if only on the grounds that whilst he's an obnoxious idiot, he doesn't actively hate people like me and Harris clearly does.
Round trip efficiency is currently something like 50-60%, I think ?
Which is nowhere near batteries.
But it has the advantage over batteries (for the next decade at least) of capacity; it can be delivered now with standard industrial components.
And the energy it will be storaging is currently wasted completely - and costs government about £1bn a year in constraint payments.
Which adds up to a competitive price per kWh supplied back to the grid - and replaces another slug of fossil fuel capacity.
Where that fits in when there’s unlimited solar power available globally at much lower prices is an interesting question.
I get that many people find it easy to hate politicos (I once did). But that politicos commonly hate people? Even (or especially) loveable people like you, and maybe me? Just don't buy that.
It’s a post approval trial to look at the cost/benefit of prescribing.
Available from your local sexual health clinic
https://x.com/WUTangKids/status/1846276051657257313
Sounds like Pravda praising Stalin.
At least they had the excuse of the fear of being shot.
https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1846322571199107525
I can’t comment on the sporting assessment.
But your takes on the Mail are spot on.
https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/
* Kamela is in the lead but a few points down on 2020
* Trumps mix has changed: fewer in-person votes, more postal votes than 2020.
In short, what we knew already: TCTC
Better to save ourselves some dues than be a member of an organization that has Saudi Arabia and Syria on its human rights committee
I think I would take my proverbial "bottle of whisky and revolver" and consider my position.... 😂
* For all its faults the UN is the major forum where the countries if the world can meet, interact and discuss issues. To leave it because of discomfort with other countries is the equivalent of incels leaving public spaces because of discomfort with women
* It is the world forum in which the British wield the most clout
Like the other countries of the world or hate them, they still exist and we have to work out how to peacefully (or otherwise) coexist.
The two issues seem to me to completely unrelated and surely it's just as likely benefit-claiming fat people will use the drug to become thinner/healthier and still find a multitude of reasons not to work?
But, what do I know... lol! 🤷♂️
Rather, she lost because, as in 2008, HC ran a sub-par POTUS campaign. For example, missing /dissing Wisconsin in the 2016 endgame (similar to how she & her campaign were clueless re: caucuses in 2008).
Michael Heseltine speech to Tory conference 1994 - "IT WASN'T BROWN'S; IT WAS BALLS!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NB3neSNfmg
Now there was a man who could make a good, tub-thumping speech. He was also the political genius who named the council tax, so voters would not blame the government.
Gordon Brown wrote great speeches but delivered them badly. Peter Lilley was the same on the Tory side. It was Gordon who coined tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime for Tony Blair.
Just saw 'The Apprentice' in a theater.
Recommend!
It's hard to see, say, show, or read anything *interesting* about Trump at this point. This movie is very interesting.
And Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn! Amazing.
https://x.com/JamesFallows/status/1846336405523378620
Most people are good, whether democrat or republican, left wing or right wing. Meet people, like people, and listen to people and you won't go far wrong.
More money has been lost by not trusting people, than by trusting them.
There are lying scumbag psychopaths. Like Donald Trump. But they are few and far between.
If it’s possible to whitelist PB then do so, but if your browser doesn’t let you do this (Safari on iPad has this issue) then leave them enabled and just use the vf site instead. These settings prevent the likes of Google and Facebook tracking your browsing around the web for targeting adverts, and are increasingly the default in browsers now.
I was very amused by that completely-not-out-of-touch Conservative Party video ad claiming that all the old people with posh houses and one or more dogs, were suddenly going to starve or freeze to death for the sake of losing a £150 benefit.
If the owner appealed it would have to be held throughout the period of the Appeal. They have 21 days just to make the Appeal, so that would be £500-600+ of kennel costs just for a start at normal not police kennel cost levels. Plus Court delay.
There's the sort of nit-picking legal culture around this that Nick Freeman uses to get his celebrity clients off taking responsibility for themselves.
That's not always correlated with how well a movie does.
But I strongly endorse your approach; it tends to encourage the good in people.
I was listening a little to GB News (Martin Daubney) on the courtesy car yesterday on the way back to collect my own, and they were framing it as a free perk for 'morbidly obese benefit claimants'. And obsessing over 'forcing them back into work' because 'should we be giving them benefits?'.
No concept of how NICE does a cost-benefit, nor of what works. Just Martin Daubney furiously masturbating his fiction-based outrage.
By the same token, it seems that afaics David Lammy holding a single meeting on defence cooperation amounts to taking us back into the EU.
It's (imo) somewhat like one of the Bloggerheads' campaign video about Billy Brit, the BNP plushie, from 2010. The underlying themes don't change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ges0MDNsKWE
But that isn't a reason not to have this policy.
As with all such things, I'm also concerned about abuse of this drug. As an example, if anorexics or borderline anorexics were to get this drug (obvs. not on the NHS so not directly relevant...), then what effect does it have? A magic weight-loss drug might be very appealing to someone who is already thin, but thinks they are fat.
People are weird on this. For years we seek to improve productivity and find ways we can reduce govt spending. A technological breakthrough comes along that does both and we wrap ourselves in weird knots over it.
I have known people in every category, although that mostly only becomes obvious over time. But it is also very common for people to think they are a different category to what they are: bad people who think they are angels; or good people who always try to do better because they are bad.
(This is not an original concept of mine; it came from an ex-MP who talked about it during the expenses scandal.)
I think the key is not just trusting people, as you say, but also creating an environment where the 80% can be tempted towards the good side of their temperament, rather than the bad.
It's still a valid question though. If you are already thin, does this category of drug have no effect, or does it cause other health problems in those who are thin?
As for the policy (which I have not commented on yet...) - it's an interesting idea. Probably a very costly one, but it is easy to see how the benefits might vastly outweigh those costs. Personally, I'd also go for combining it with exercise, but the exercise-to-lose-weight argument has been going on for decades, and hasn't worked for vast numbers of people.
I can see demand being very, very high.
Once in my life have been fucked by a psychopathic liar I trusted. But you know what? You can only lose 100% of your money. You can make 10,000% because other people are too naturally untrustworthy.
There is far more money to be made trusting other human beings than distrusting them.
And yes, people can always be manipulated to do bad things,
But the opposite is also true: some of those who generally do 'bad' things can be manipulated to do good. It might only be from blatant self-interest; but at least it'd be good.
Which is why I said it is important to create an environment where people are encouraged to do more good. Sadly, many environments do the exact opposite.
About 26% of the UK is obese, another 38% overweight. About 2% have anorexia/bulemia/similar. The priority is clear.
And yes demand will be massive as awareness rises. Surveys in the US, from six months ago, where they get bombarded with medical adverts, had 6% of Americans having tried them and 3% using them. The numbers will be higher by now. In a year or two it will be the same here.
“Seven in 10 Americans think marijuana use should be legal, the highest level yet after holding steady at 68% for three years.”
NEW THREAD
Deregulation isn't the only way to cut business costs, but it is one good way. Tax cuts are another. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to increase supply, to drive down the cost of energy, food and housing in the longer term. Because at the moment, when the economy starts going, it drives up inflation, and the Bank tries to shut it down by attacking it - so we're trapped in a wire loop game. Increasing supply is the only way to break that.
We need to do all three though. And probably try with infrastructure investment too. It's an all of the above thing, not an a la carte menu.
The worst group to be in I would guess is your bottom 9%, people broken by their own life experiences, cut adrift from others and lost in a cycle of bad behaviour and bad outcomes. I've known people like this, they make others' lives a misery but they harm themselves far more.
Looking at the NHS indicative costs for semaglutide, a daily tablet is significantly less expensive.
(Interesting, because sometimes the ease of use of a tablet over an injection may be one factor among several that could make the tablet be priced the higher of the two.) There's all that type of information in the BNF, in a *lot* of detail (!):
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/semaglutide/
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/semaglutide/
On the other hand, if a friend or family was short I would without hesitation pay for their groceries, and have done. Yesterday I scrapped someone else’s car in a supermarket reversing out. I left my name and number under the windscreen wiper. When I got back out of the supermarket I saw the car owner looking at the note, went over and chatted and told him to message or ring me and I will get it sorted for him. If I am walking my dogs and they do a poo I’ll pcik up a nearby poo from someone else’s dog as well.
I have ran community events, fun days etc. but I can also say mean and spiteful thigns about people I dislike.