Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
From actually reading the conversations that various journalists have had with people, it seems more to do with Trump expressing interest in areas that concern people - see the reading out of staple goods prices, at one rally.
Harris seemed to abandon the economic policy to Trump. Why id she not campaign on the basis of the Biden industrial support/pump priming stuff? Why no huge ads on "Chip making coming back to America?"
The Chips Act was inevitably the first thing that came up when informed Trump supporters were asked for something positive that Biden had achieved in office. The Harris campaign should have been shouting it from the rooftops, but instead she let Trump read out lists of inflationary items unchallenged.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
The BBC didn't call the EU Referendum for Leave until 5am. I think Betfair called it around 2:30.
So late that it's not really calling it: it's simply repeating a known fact.
They weren't really calling it. That was when it became mathematically impossible for Remain to win. Just as they call the result of a general election when a party gets 326 seats. Nothing wrong with that. The whole 'calling the result' seems to be an American thing.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
From actually reading the conversations that various journalists have had with people, it seems more to do with Trump expressing interest in areas that concern people - see the reading out of staple goods prices, at one rally.
Harris seemed to abandon the economic policy to Trump. Why id she not campaign on the basis of the Biden industrial support/pump priming stuff? Why no huge ads on "Chip making coming back to America?"
The Chips Act was inevitably the first thing that came up when informed Trump supporters were asked for something positive that Biden had achieved in office. The Harris campaign should have been shouting it from the rooftops, but instead she let Trump read out lists of inflationary items unchallenged.
My suspicion is that in the circles in which she moves, Biden's protectionist trade policies were seen as old fashioned and wrong. Not wrong enough to oppose, but socially gauche. So not something you'd want to publicly praise.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes - the article makes clear the Democrat was male).
Thank you. That is indeed what prompted the question.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
From actually reading the conversations that various journalists have had with people, it seems more to do with Trump expressing interest in areas that concern people - see the reading out of staple goods prices, at one rally.
Harris seemed to abandon the economic policy to Trump. Why id she not campaign on the basis of the Biden industrial support/pump priming stuff? Why no huge ads on "Chip making coming back to America?"
The Chips Act was inevitably the first thing that came up when informed Trump supporters were asked for something positive that Biden had achieved in office. The Harris campaign should have been shouting it from the rooftops, but instead she let Trump read out lists of inflationary items unchallenged.
My suspicion is that in the circles in which she moves, Biden's protectionist trade policies were seen as old fashioned and wrong. Not wrong enough to oppose, but socially gauche. So not something you'd want to publicly praise.
Indeed, and so millions of voters in rural swing States drew their own conclusions, that gauche coastal liberals don’t care about them or their communities.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
The BBC didn't call the EU Referendum for Leave until 5am. I think Betfair called it around 2:30.
So late that it's not really calling it: it's simply repeating a known fact.
They weren't really calling it. That was when it became mathematically impossible for Remain to win. Just as they call the result of a general election when a party gets 326 seats. Nothing wrong with that. The whole 'calling the result' seems to be an American thing.
They import a whole host of American stuff without really understanding the place.
I'd be fine with declaring the result, but "calling" it is shit English.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
Well thats the point isn't it? If you can't prove someone is faking it, then some people will abuse the system and fake it.
We had a (much hated) colleague here who had a mental breakdown for a year at the same time as he built an extension. He has just recently taken a retirement package after another breakdown - two years off with stress then paid off, thanks very much.
I cannot know if his case was genuine or not. Or is genuine to some extent but abused a bit. Or totally fake. There is no way to know.
But I have suspicions.
Statutory sick pay is like £115/week? Anything on top of that is your employer being generous I think. If he was much hated then easy to believe the stress!
Much more generous in academia. For us, after completing five years of service it's up to eight months on full pay and a further four months on half pay.
Damn, what could around the house with eight months on full pay? Also just finishing an extension and a lot of decorating to do! Would completely bugger up my research programme though - I'm fully research funded so I'm not sure what would happen to my grants and staff, probably not good for my long term career prospects!
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
From actually reading the conversations that various journalists have had with people, it seems more to do with Trump expressing interest in areas that concern people - see the reading out of staple goods prices, at one rally.
Harris seemed to abandon the economic policy to Trump. Why id she not campaign on the basis of the Biden industrial support/pump priming stuff? Why no huge ads on "Chip making coming back to America?"
The Chips Act was inevitably the first thing that came up when informed Trump supporters were asked for something positive that Biden had achieved in office. The Harris campaign should have been shouting it from the rooftops, but instead she let Trump read out lists of inflationary items unchallenged.
My suspicion is that in the circles in which she moves, Biden's protectionist trade policies were seen as old fashioned and wrong. Not wrong enough to oppose, but socially gauche. So not something you'd want to publicly praise.
This sums up their attitude. They'd rather lose elections than appear gauche to their friends and associates.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
The BBC didn't call the EU Referendum for Leave until 5am. I think Betfair called it around 2:30.
So late that it's not really calling it: it's simply repeating a known fact.
They weren't really calling it. That was when it became mathematically impossible for Remain to win. Just as they call the result of a general election when a party gets 326 seats. Nothing wrong with that. The whole 'calling the result' seems to be an American thing.
They import a whole host of American stuff without really understanding the place.
I'd be fine with declaring the result, but "calling" it is shit English.
Different things, though.
A declaration is the actual result; "calling" it happens while the votes are still being counted, and when it becomes mathematically improbable for one of the two to win. The degree of improbability varies, depending on who is calling it.
It's in a narrow valley between prediction and actual result.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
From actually reading the conversations that various journalists have had with people, it seems more to do with Trump expressing interest in areas that concern people - see the reading out of staple goods prices, at one rally.
Harris seemed to abandon the economic policy to Trump. Why id she not campaign on the basis of the Biden industrial support/pump priming stuff? Why no huge ads on "Chip making coming back to America?"
The Chips Act was inevitably the first thing that came up when informed Trump supporters were asked for something positive that Biden had achieved in office. The Harris campaign should have been shouting it from the rooftops, but instead she let Trump read out lists of inflationary items unchallenged.
My suspicion is that in the circles in which she moves, Biden's protectionist trade policies were seen as old fashioned and wrong. Not wrong enough to oppose, but socially gauche. So not something you'd want to publicly praise.
This sums up their attitude. They'd rather lose elections than appear gauche to their friends and associates.
It's just a theory.
Then again, it might be "I must turn my back on all previous policy. Because I must Be Change."
Or "I will be continuity Biden. All that policy stuff is sorted out."
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
The BBC didn't call the EU Referendum for Leave until 5am. I think Betfair called it around 2:30.
So late that it's not really calling it: it's simply repeating a known fact.
They weren't really calling it. That was when it became mathematically impossible for Remain to win. Just as they call the result of a general election when a party gets 326 seats. Nothing wrong with that. The whole 'calling the result' seems to be an American thing.
They import a whole host of American stuff without really understanding the place.
I'd be fine with declaring the result, but "calling" it is shit English.
Different things, though.
A declaration is the actual result; "calling" it happens while the votes are still being counted, and when it becomes mathematically improbable for one of the two to win. The degree of improbability varies, depending on who is calling it.
It's in a narrow valley between prediction and actual result.
Nah. Calling it is American bollocks.
It implies making a call and taking some risk. When the result is official, which is what they are waiting for, there is nothing to "call" because it has been declared.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
Good morning everyone.
Do you have a link for that documentary?
Just back from an appointment that turned out to be by phone at home not at the hospital . I have 3 separate check ups in the next month which are a mixture, and got it round my neck because one has been changed. Got back in time.
I also have an absolute cracker of a photo quota for later, and hear that my hospital may finally be doing something to address antisocial parking eg across wheelchair accesses via ANPR enforcement - which is great.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
'The Liberal Democrats will attempt to hijack the government’s bill to ban Lords from inheriting their seats in parliament this week in an attempt to force a vote on an entirely elected upper chamber.
The government’s hereditary peers bill, which is heading for its committee stage on Tuesday and is likely to clear the House of Commons the same day, will put an end to the tradition and ban the the current 92 lords who inherited their titles from sitting in the second chamber.
MPs are expected to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation but the Lib Dems want to amend the bill in favour of bringing in a totally elected second chamber.
Mattel apologises after Wicked movie dolls mistakenly link to pornography website on packaging
The toy company Mattel says it is taking “immediate action” after mistakenly printing a pornographic website address on the packaging for dolls released to tie in with the upcoming Wicked film.
Over the weekend, individuals began sharing photos online of the dolls’ packaging, which showed a link to wicked.com, instead of wickedmovie.com. The address was printed on boxes for Glinda and Elphaba dolls, the main characters in Wicked, played in the film adaptation by Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo respectively.
Mattel released a statement on Sunday addressing the error.
“Mattel was made aware of a misprint on the packaging of the Mattel Wicked collection dolls, primarily sold in the US, which intended to direct consumers to the official WickedMovie.com landing page,” the statement read.
“We deeply regret this unfortunate error and are taking immediate action to remedy this. Parents are advised that the misprinted, incorrect website is not appropriate for children. Consumers who already have the product are advised to discard the product packaging or obscure the link and may contact Mattel customer service for further information.”
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
Well thats the point isn't it? If you can't prove someone is faking it, then some people will abuse the system and fake it.
We had a (much hated) colleague here who had a mental breakdown for a year at the same time as he built an extension. He has just recently taken a retirement package after another breakdown - two years off with stress then paid off, thanks very much.
I cannot know if his case was genuine or not. Or is genuine to some extent but abused a bit. Or totally fake. There is no way to know.
But I have suspicions.
Statutory sick pay is like £115/week? Anything on top of that is your employer being generous I think. If he was much hated then easy to believe the stress!
Uni tends to give 6 months on full pay, then 6 on half for longer term staff.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
Good morning everyone.
Do you have a link for that documentary?
Just back from an appointment that turned out to be by phone at home not at the hospital . I have 3 separate check ups in the next month which are a mixture, and got it round my neck because one has been changed. Got back in time.
I also have an absolute cracker of a photo quota for later, and hear that my hospital may finally be doing something to address antisocial parking eg across wheelchair accesses via ANPR enforcement - which is great.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
Good morning everyone.
Do you have a link for that documentary?
Just back from an appointment that turned out to be by phone at home not at the hospital . I have 3 separate check ups in the next month which are a mixture, and got it round my neck because one has been changed. Got back in time.
I also have an absolute cracker of a photo quota for later, and hear that my hospital may finally be doing something to address antisocial parking eg across wheelchair accesses via ANPR enforcement - which is great.
A Radio 4 documentary from the weekend about Reform UK’s attempts to build a grassroots movement modelled on the Lib Dems, as declared his intention by nonny nonny Nigel.
(My take from here in Ashfield constituency is that I think it will take them a decade or more, even if they make any progress at all. This is a prime target because the leader of the Ashfield Independents who have 90% of the seats including all the county seats is up before the Crown Court two months before the 2025 local elections, and I have seen nothing from Reform despite them having our MP here.)
Blurb: This summer, Reform UK won the third highest vote share at the general election, with five MPs elected to Parliament. Since that result, the party’s leader Nigel Farage has made plans to “professionalise and democratise” a central focus. At their autumn conference, Reform UK members signed off on a new constitution. The party has been setting up a branch structure, changing some of the members of its central team, and says it is also changing the way it vets candidates.
Mattel apologises after Wicked movie dolls mistakenly link to pornography website on packaging
The toy company Mattel says it is taking “immediate action” after mistakenly printing a pornographic website address on the packaging for dolls released to tie in with the upcoming Wicked film.
Over the weekend, individuals began sharing photos online of the dolls’ packaging, which showed a link to wicked.com, instead of wickedmovie.com. The address was printed on boxes for Glinda and Elphaba dolls, the main characters in Wicked, played in the film adaptation by Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo respectively.
Mattel released a statement on Sunday addressing the error.
“Mattel was made aware of a misprint on the packaging of the Mattel Wicked collection dolls, primarily sold in the US, which intended to direct consumers to the official WickedMovie.com landing page,” the statement read.
“We deeply regret this unfortunate error and are taking immediate action to remedy this. Parents are advised that the misprinted, incorrect website is not appropriate for children. Consumers who already have the product are advised to discard the product packaging or obscure the link and may contact Mattel customer service for further information.”
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Or indeed, the Whig theory of history (or even the "End of History").
Here in the UK I can't help, reluctantly, coming round to accepting the @leon forecast that we won't be immune from the tide of populism. All too easy now to see Reform surging in areas like the North Midlands, South Yorks, Lancs, etc. Labour are even more vulnerable here than they were to Boris-era Tories, as Reform don't carry the Tory baggage. Lee Anderson is most definitely "one of us". And Reform are already polling in second place for the Welsh assembly elections and look likely to establish themselves in Holyrood in 2026. This may change but the potential is certainly there.
The historic task of the Conservatives has been to co-opt and, effectively, suppress the populist right. A lot riding on Kemi.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
Does it? I'm doing ok if I have a normal sized waist despite being generally hefty? That's a relief. Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Or indeed, the Whig theory of history (or even the "End of History").
Here in the UK I can't help, reluctantly, coming round to accepting the @leon forecast that we won't be immune from the tide of populism. All too easy now to see Reform surging in areas like the North Midlands, South Yorks, Lancs, etc. Labour are even more vulnerable here than they were to Boris-era Tories, as Reform don't carry the Tory baggage. Lee Anderson is most definitely "one of us". And Reform are already polling in second place for the Welsh assembly elections and look likely to establish themselves in Holyrood in 2026. This may change but the potential is certainly there.
The historic task of the Conservatives has been to co-opt and, effectively, suppress the populist right. A lot riding on Kemi.
Ironic then that it was their embracing the populist Brexit and the populist Johnson that led to their political downfall.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
Does it? I'm doing ok if I have a normal sized waist despite being generally hefty? That's a relief. Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
Generally speaking, yes. The main risk factor appears to be from having fat around the internal organs, for which the waist measurement is a much better proxy than BMI. So, something that scanned your internals and measured directly would be a better diagnostic, for example.
Obviously there are issues with the extra weight causing more wear on joints, and possibly other things too, but the research would suggest that a population of 1,000 Cookies would have better health outcomes than 1,000 other people with the same BMI but a larger waist.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
Does it? I'm doing ok if I have a normal sized waist despite being generally hefty? That's a relief. Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
Generally speaking, yes. The main risk factor appears to be from having fat around the internal organs, for which the waist measurement is a much better proxy than BMI. So, something that scanned your internals and measured directly would be a better diagnostic, for example.
Obviously there are issues with the extra weight causing more wear on joints, and possibly other things too, but the research would suggest that a population of 1,000 Cookies would have better health outcomes than 1,000 other people with the same BMI but a larger waist.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Or indeed, the Whig theory of history (or even the "End of History").
Here in the UK I can't help, reluctantly, coming round to accepting the @leon forecast that we won't be immune from the tide of populism. All too easy now to see Reform surging in areas like the North Midlands, South Yorks, Lancs, etc. Labour are even more vulnerable here than they were to Boris-era Tories, as Reform don't carry the Tory baggage. Lee Anderson is most definitely "one of us". And Reform are already polling in second place for the Welsh assembly elections and look likely to establish themselves in Holyrood in 2026. This may change but the potential is certainly there.
The historic task of the Conservatives has been to co-opt and, effectively, suppress the populist right. A lot riding on Kemi.
Ironic then that it was their embracing the populist Brexit and the populist Johnson that led to their political downfall.
In some ways, it's a trickier circle to square for the Tories in opposition than it would have been in government. Take immigration (or, more specifically illegal immigration and asylum seeking, particularly from small boats - a small part of the whole but a visible part). In government, part of that was actually solvable by throwing money at processing, getting the backlog down and visibly closing a number of immigrant hotels etc. That part was always more visible* than the actual small boats for most of the population. Being seen to get on top of that could have blunted Reform without trying to be Reform.
*There's one on a dual carriageway we use fairly frequently, I think. You see people trudging down the side of the road (to undocumented work somewhere?) from a run down hotel, where you never used to see anyone walking - it's unsuitable as a walkway, unpleasant, not very safe. This kind of stuff makes it obvious that the system isn't' working, whatever the differences on what to do about it.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
Good morning everyone.
Do you have a link for that documentary?
Just back from an appointment that turned out to be by phone at home not at the hospital . I have 3 separate check ups in the next month which are a mixture, and got it round my neck because one has been changed. Got back in time.
I also have an absolute cracker of a photo quota for later, and hear that my hospital may finally be doing something to address antisocial parking eg across wheelchair accesses via ANPR enforcement - which is great.
A Radio 4 documentary from the weekend about Reform UK’s attempts to build a grassroots movement modelled on the Lib Dems, as declared his intention by nonny nonny Nigel.
(My take from here in Ashfield constituency is that I think it will take them a decade or more, even if they make any progress at all. This is a prime target because the leader of the Ashfield Independents who have 90% of the seats including all the county seats is up before the Crown Court two months before the 2025 local elections, and I have seen nothing from Reform despite them having our MP here.)
Blurb: This summer, Reform UK won the third highest vote share at the general election, with five MPs elected to Parliament. Since that result, the party’s leader Nigel Farage has made plans to “professionalise and democratise” a central focus. At their autumn conference, Reform UK members signed off on a new constitution. The party has been setting up a branch structure, changing some of the members of its central team, and says it is also changing the way it vets candidates.
It is a sensible thing for them to try and do. It is a challenge though and very dependent upon the type of people they have. One thing worth noting is the Reform election address at the last election was good and it was clear that it was identical nationwide with the candidates name dropped in. Here (a non target for them) they delivered a leaflet also and that leaflet was excellent. I would go as far as to say it was the best leaflet I saw during the election for layout. It was as if they had been on the LD training course.
As it happens I met the deliverer because my front door was open. He had walked past a huge orange diamond in my hedge and delivered on top of the 5000 odd bundled LD leaflets in my hall. We had a smile at each other and a nice chat.
I would be interested to know if they did addressed election addresses in target seats rather than 1 per household. We did 5 so although some houses would only get one, most would get 2 or 3 different leaflets or even 4 and very occasionally a few would get 5.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
Does it? I'm doing ok if I have a normal sized waist despite being generally hefty? That's a relief. Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
Generally speaking, yes. The main risk factor appears to be from having fat around the internal organs, for which the waist measurement is a much better proxy than BMI. So, something that scanned your internals and measured directly would be a better diagnostic, for example.
Obviously there are issues with the extra weight causing more wear on joints, and possibly other things too, but the research would suggest that a population of 1,000 Cookies would have better health outcomes than 1,000 other people with the same BMI but a larger waist.
Yes, waist < 1/2 height is pushed as a better measure now, isn't it?
That's anything under a 91.5cm/36 inch waist for me. I feel further from that than I do from the top of the BMI band. Like Johnson, I'm all muscle and no fat
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
I wonder how keen people are going to be to lower the voting age if the Gen Z alt-right idiots hooked on social media become a thing here? Could we see liberals flip and start talking about placing limits on voting rights?
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Or indeed, the Whig theory of history (or even the "End of History").
Here in the UK I can't help, reluctantly, coming round to accepting the @leon forecast that we won't be immune from the tide of populism. All too easy now to see Reform surging in areas like the North Midlands, South Yorks, Lancs, etc. Labour are even more vulnerable here than they were to Boris-era Tories, as Reform don't carry the Tory baggage. Lee Anderson is most definitely "one of us". And Reform are already polling in second place for the Welsh assembly elections and look likely to establish themselves in Holyrood in 2026. This may change but the potential is certainly there.
The historic task of the Conservatives has been to co-opt and, effectively, suppress the populist right. A lot riding on Kemi.
Populism in opposition is an influence. Populism in government is of course direct power. The USA is a current and future lab for the subject. For example, Trump never built the wall. Will Trump deport 10 million illegals? Wait and see, but I think not.
However Europe is, IMHO, different and the USA must in part be put on one side. Here is the real question:
In opposition populism can provide simple answers to complex or impossible questions. That's easy. I can do that too.
In government they can't. They have to act on and deal with the actual complexities of a nation + the constraints of reality. So Italy and Meloni is a better guide as to the future of populism. Not too much to see there really. The compromises of life carry on as they do with us.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
Does it? I'm doing ok if I have a normal sized waist despite being generally hefty? That's a relief. Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
Generally speaking, yes. The main risk factor appears to be from having fat around the internal organs, for which the waist measurement is a much better proxy than BMI. So, something that scanned your internals and measured directly would be a better diagnostic, for example.
Obviously there are issues with the extra weight causing more wear on joints, and possibly other things too, but the research would suggest that a population of 1,000 Cookies would have better health outcomes than 1,000 other people with the same BMI but a larger waist.
Yes, waist < 1/2 height is pushed as a better measure now, isn't it?
That's anything under a 91.5cm/36 inch waist for me. I feel further from that than I do from the top of the BMI band. Like Johnson, I'm all muscle and no fat
One of the tricky bits even with this though is leg/arm length compared to body length. Discussed here before and if I recall correctly Cookie is the same.
I am about 5' 10", probably an inch taller decades ago, but my leg measurement is 29". Shirts and pullovers are a nightmare because they are all too short. When sitting in a racing car with a maximum height measurement for the rollbar of 6' I was way over the top of it, yet under 6'
I think this could be described as the Boris build and it is impossible to look smart with short legs, although you can look a bit like a bouncer.
As mentioned a few days ago I am losing weight having hit an all time high. Lost 12 kg, another 6 to go to get me to my weight in my 20s/30s. Blood pressure has plummeted, although it was ok in the first place.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
What is your view on the reason for the result.
It is quite possible that the result is for the same reason exactly as Labour's victory. Only two parties can form a government/be POTUS. Like so many countries, the voters put in the other one because they didn't like the incumbent.
In the UK enthusiasm for Labour is shown by the 34% vote. In the USA exactly the same is shown by the 52/48 (or whatever) split in the vote. Both were not mathematical landslides.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
I read somewhere that it was the economic fallout from covid, mainly inflation, that doomed whoever was the incumbent at the following election in any particular nation. Do people agree?
Has there been much information on Jewish American voting patterns?
Someone posted some analysis of religious voting patterns. From memory I think of all the religions Jews were the most Democrat in the election. I vaguely recall a majority of Catholics were Republican which was a surprise to me.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
I often go back to Sean Trende, but he called it eight years ago with "The God That Failed."
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
Does it? I'm doing ok if I have a normal sized waist despite being generally hefty? That's a relief. Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
Generally speaking, yes. The main risk factor appears to be from having fat around the internal organs, for which the waist measurement is a much better proxy than BMI. So, something that scanned your internals and measured directly would be a better diagnostic, for example.
Obviously there are issues with the extra weight causing more wear on joints, and possibly other things too, but the research would suggest that a population of 1,000 Cookies would have better health outcomes than 1,000 other people with the same BMI but a larger waist.
Yes, waist < 1/2 height is pushed as a better measure now, isn't it?
That's anything under a 91.5cm/36 inch waist for me. I feel further from that than I do from the top of the BMI band. Like Johnson, I'm all muscle and no fat
One of the tricky bits even with this though is leg/arm length compared to body length. Discussed here before and if I recall correctly Cookie is the same.
I am about 5' 10", probably an inch taller decades ago, but my leg measurement is 29". Shirts and pullovers are a nightmare because they are all too short. When sitting in a racing car with a maximum height measurement for the rollbar of 6' I was way over the top of it, yet under 6'
I think this could be described as the Boris build and it is impossible to look smart with short legs, although you can look a bit like a bouncer.
As mentioned a few days ago I am losing weight having hit an all time high. Lost 12 kg, another 6 to go to get me to my weight in my 20s/30s. Blood pressure has plummeted, although it was ok in the first place.
Yeah, that's true. I'm above average height for UK, but I buy standard length trousers - longer torso and arms - and longer tops when available. So that potentially skews measurements of BMI and height v waist. My brother is a good three inches taller than me, but I'm (very slightly) taller sitting down - he's all leg and tends to wear trousers low.
Skews all these simple measures, of course, but they do have to be simple to be widely useable.
Another case in point is the National Early Warning Score used in NHS hospitals. Should Mo Farrah have been an inpatient for anything then it would constantly trigger escalation for high risk of death or cardiac arrest due to his low resting heart rate!
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
I often go back to Sean Trende, but he called it eight years ago with "The God That Failed."
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
plus if there is any move towards Trumpism in the UK, surely Farage is better placed than the Tories in their current state? There was an interesting R4 radio documentary over the weekend on how Reform is at least trying to turn itself into a broad-based political party/movement and away from the owned-business model that Farage went for on the back of his experience with UKIP. And there just the earliest of signs that they may be able to make a bigger impact in local government than heretofore.
Perhaps a big space is going to open up for the LibDems as a sensible centre party?
Good morning everyone.
Do you have a link for that documentary?
Just back from an appointment that turned out to be by phone at home not at the hospital . I have 3 separate check ups in the next month which are a mixture, and got it round my neck because one has been changed. Got back in time.
I also have an absolute cracker of a photo quota for later, and hear that my hospital may finally be doing something to address antisocial parking eg across wheelchair accesses via ANPR enforcement - which is great.
A Radio 4 documentary from the weekend about Reform UK’s attempts to build a grassroots movement modelled on the Lib Dems, as declared his intention by nonny nonny Nigel.
(My take from here in Ashfield constituency is that I think it will take them a decade or more, even if they make any progress at all. This is a prime target because the leader of the Ashfield Independents who have 90% of the seats including all the county seats is up before the Crown Court two months before the 2025 local elections, and I have seen nothing from Reform despite them having our MP here.)
Blurb: This summer, Reform UK won the third highest vote share at the general election, with five MPs elected to Parliament. Since that result, the party’s leader Nigel Farage has made plans to “professionalise and democratise” a central focus. At their autumn conference, Reform UK members signed off on a new constitution. The party has been setting up a branch structure, changing some of the members of its central team, and says it is also changing the way it vets candidates.
It is a sensible thing for them to try and do. It is a challenge though and very dependent upon the type of people they have. One thing worth noting is the Reform election address at the last election was good and it was clear that it was identical nationwide with the candidates name dropped in. Here (a non target for them) they delivered a leaflet also and that leaflet was excellent. I would go as far as to say it was the best leaflet I saw during the election for layout. It was as if they had been on the LD training course.
As it happens I met the deliverer because my front door was open. He had walked past a huge orange diamond in my hedge and delivered on top of the 5000 odd bundled LD leaflets in my hall. We had a smile at each other and a nice chat.
I would be interested to know if they did addressed election addresses in target seats rather than 1 per household. We did 5 so although some houses would only get one, most would get 2 or 3 different leaflets or even 4 and very occasionally a few would get 5.
Where they will probably struggle (to a greater extent than other parties, who also struggle) is attracting sufficient fit younger people to do all that leg work.
Has there been much information on Jewish American voting patterns?
Someone posted some analysis of religious voting patterns. From memory I think of all the religions Jews were the most Democrat in the election. I vaguely recall a majority of Catholics were Republican which was a surprise to me.
I could well have remembered wrong though.
That sounds right. It is worth noting however that there are strong cross-correletions between religion and other demographics, such as age, education, wealth, ethnicity, and location - so isolating the precise impact of religion independent of other factors requires more sophisticated statistics.
COP29 is about to start. With demands for money. Of course it does. With Oxfam happily provided a poll showing overwhelming support for taxes on the super rich to raise funds which they will then help to manage.
With the Trumpdozer being elected though all bets are surely off.
"Some countries at COP29, including France, are pushing for innovative financing to help pay for the $1 trillion funding, including taxes on flying and fossil fuel extraction.
A poll published by Oxfam on Monday found that four in five Brits support increasing taxes on luxury transport such as private jets and superyachts to raise funds to tackle climate change.
“The Prime Minister urgently needs to do more to provide support to communities already facing the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. The money is there,” Chiara Liguori from Oxfam GB said."
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
I often go back to Sean Trende, but he called it eight years ago with "The God That Failed."
The Democrats can console themselves with snobbery though, they may have only got 47% of the US popular vote with Harris but they won the richest and highest earning voters for the first time to add to their victories amongst graduates for the last decade.
COP29 is about to start. With demands for money. Of course it does. With Oxfam happily provided a poll showing overwhelming support for taxes on the super rich to raise funds which they will then help to manage.
With the Trumpdozer being elected though all bets are surely off.
"Some countries at COP29, including France, are pushing for innovative financing to help pay for the $1 trillion funding, including taxes on flying and fossil fuel extraction.
A poll published by Oxfam on Monday found that four in five Brits support increasing taxes on luxury transport such as private jets and superyachts to raise funds to tackle climate change.
“The Prime Minister urgently needs to do more to provide support to communities already facing the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. The money is there,” Chiara Liguori from Oxfam GB said."
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
I read somewhere that it was the economic fallout from covid, mainly inflation, that doomed whoever was the incumbent at the following election in any particular nation. Do people agree?
I think its a huge part of it. I know people hate Johnson and there are plenty of reasons to. But he can honestly say that he didn't get a chance to implement his vision as everything was overtaken by Covid and then the inflationary shock of the invasion of Ukraine. We've seen on PB how people have tried to say how bad Brexit has been for the UK (I think with some justification, but only to a limited extent). The effects of Covid and the war have been far more impactful. And so yes, being an incumbent when the Covid bill hit and then the inflation ary effects kicked in too was always going to send incumbents out of incumbency.
Add in for the Tories being in government (coalition or sole control) since 2010 and they had run out of ideas and the country was sick of them too.
Starmer is a lucky man, and you should never discount luck as part of the package (as Napoleon intimated).
Labours vote share really shouldn't give it the idea of a huge mandate for change but the seats in parliament do, and thats the system we have. They should note, and I think do, tbh, that the huge majority is built on sand, and what can sweep to victory in one election can be swept away again. They are getting a lot of pain in early, and rightly. Whether the effects will be worth it, and whether the good times will arrive in time, only time will tell.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
I often go back to Sean Trende, but he called it eight years ago with "The God That Failed."
The Democrats can console themselves with snobbery though, they may have only got 47% of the US popular vote with Harris but they won the richest and highest earning voters for the first time to add to their victories amongst graduates for the last decade.
Has there been much information on Jewish American voting patterns?
Someone posted some analysis of religious voting patterns. From memory I think of all the religions Jews were the most Democrat in the election. I vaguely recall a majority of Catholics were Republican which was a surprise to me.
I could well have remembered wrong though.
Trump won 82% of white evangelical Protestants, 62% of all Protestants and 58% of Roman Catholics.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
I often go back to Sean Trende, but he called it eight years ago with "The God That Failed."
The Democrats can console themselves with snobbery though, they may have only got 47% of the US popular vote with Harris but they won the richest and highest earning voters for the first time to add to their victories amongst graduates for the last decade.
COP29 is about to start. With demands for money. Of course it does. With Oxfam happily provided a poll showing overwhelming support for taxes on the super rich to raise funds which they will then help to manage.
With the Trumpdozer being elected though all bets are surely off.
"Some countries at COP29, including France, are pushing for innovative financing to help pay for the $1 trillion funding, including taxes on flying and fossil fuel extraction.
A poll published by Oxfam on Monday found that four in five Brits support increasing taxes on luxury transport such as private jets and superyachts to raise funds to tackle climate change.
“The Prime Minister urgently needs to do more to provide support to communities already facing the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. The money is there,” Chiara Liguori from Oxfam GB said."
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
I often go back to Sean Trende, but he called it eight years ago with "The God That Failed."
The Democrats can console themselves with snobbery though, they may have only got 47% of the US popular vote with Harris but they won the richest and highest earning voters for the first time to add to their victories amongst graduates for the last decade.
I have a lot of respect for Liz Cheney, but it's plain that Republicans for Harris are a very small, very upscale, section of the voters.
Indeed, basically wealthy voters who backed Romney 10 years ago but Harris last week are not the key swing group given they backed the loser both times
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
I read somewhere that it was the economic fallout from covid, mainly inflation, that doomed whoever was the incumbent at the following election in any particular nation. Do people agree?
It doomed Trump in 2020 but I don't remember anyone saying so at the time. It was more a case of 'thank heavens that's all over'.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
The Democrats still won under 40s and ethnic minorities but yes Trump made his biggest gains since 2020 with middle aged and young male voters and Black and Latino males while Harris only really made gains with older college educated white women relative to Biden in 2020
I often go back to Sean Trende, but he called it eight years ago with "The God That Failed."
The Democrats can console themselves with snobbery though, they may have only got 47% of the US popular vote with Harris but they won the richest and highest earning voters for the first time to add to their victories amongst graduates for the last decade.
COP29 is about to start. With demands for money. Of course it does. With Oxfam happily provided a poll showing overwhelming support for taxes on the super rich to raise funds which they will then help to manage.
With the Trumpdozer being elected though all bets are surely off.
"Some countries at COP29, including France, are pushing for innovative financing to help pay for the $1 trillion funding, including taxes on flying and fossil fuel extraction.
A poll published by Oxfam on Monday found that four in five Brits support increasing taxes on luxury transport such as private jets and superyachts to raise funds to tackle climate change.
“The Prime Minister urgently needs to do more to provide support to communities already facing the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. The money is there,” Chiara Liguori from Oxfam GB said."
I did some stats advice on a study ~ 5 years back that looked at willingness to pay to avert negative effects of climate change in the UK. Showed a mean of £20/month and median of £15/month, I think. Used a referendum type poll - would you pay X/month, where X was assigned randomly to find those values, which is better than e.g. a sliding scale where people gravitate towards the middle (we tested this too and found that we got a mean response near the middle on two different scales with two different middles).
Still a hypothetical, so I wouldn't put too much weight on it, but runs to £7.2 billion per year if you apply only to working population. Or £6.8 billion if you use £20/month/household. That's based on mean, which is the right way to do those sums, but looking at the median, over half the population would be pissed off with such a measure so it could be politically courageous. Making it progressive, so that the mean was £20, but >1/2 paid under £15/month could work. Anyway, some idea of scale, five years out of date. I'm sure many other estimates are available!
Has there been much information on Jewish American voting patterns?
Someone posted some analysis of religious voting patterns. From memory I think of all the religions Jews were the most Democrat in the election. I vaguely recall a majority of Catholics were Republican which was a surprise to me.
I could well have remembered wrong though.
Trump won 82% of white evangelical Protestants, 62% of all Protestants and 58% of Roman Catholics.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
I read somewhere that it was the economic fallout from covid, mainly inflation, that doomed whoever was the incumbent at the following election in any particular nation. Do people agree?
This is my view. I think the Republicans would have won more convincingly with another candidate. I am still shocked though that American voters could look through all of Trump’s past behaviour and vote for him. In other words, I understand why voters wanted the Democrats to lose. Voting for Trump though seems like a dangerous roll of the dice, given what we know of the man. Maybe it will be OK. Maybe it won't.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.
Vance has almost zero exposure to international politics, and his national political career in the USA consists entirely of about 18 months as a US Senator for Ohio during the Magaloon period. So I think all bets are off for his policies - it may be more like a return to the 1920s.
He has voted against support for Ukraine with the other nutjobs, and has demonstrated that he has about as much understanding of trade and tariffs as Trump.
I think Mr Trump selected him as having zero credibility and therefore being little threat, and being controllable. It may that Trump under influence of his nurses may be a better option imo, depending on whom the nurses turn to be.
But I'm quite attracted by the narrative that Trump will step down after 1-3 years, so that Vance can save him from the consequences of his crimes - because self-pardoning has certain potential legal problems in US Law, and Trump's no 1 obsession is avoiding prison.
If there was a market for next President (as opposed to winner of 2028 Election) I'd say Vance would be a good prospect. But I have not found one.
What the US election shatters for good is the idea that Demographics are Destiny, or that there is a Coalition of the Ascendant.
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
Yes that was bollox. People reach for these sweeping takes after 'big' elections. We're seeing it now.
I read somewhere that it was the economic fallout from covid, mainly inflation, that doomed whoever was the incumbent at the following election in any particular nation. Do people agree?
This is my view. I think the Republicans would have won more convincingly with another candidate. I am still shocked though that American voters could look through all of Trump’s past behaviour and vote for him. In other words, I understand why voters wanted the Democrats to lose. Voting for Trump though seems like a dangerous roll of the dice, given what we know of the man. Maybe it will be OK. Maybe it won't.
Whether Trump's tariffs bring back manufacturing jobs to the US or just ramp up inflation further and hit exports will likely decide the 2026 midterms and whether Vance is elected in 2028 or not to succeed his boss as POTUS
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.
Vance has almost zero exposure to international politics, and his national political career in the USA consists entirely of about 18 months as a US Senator for Ohio. So I think all bets are off for his policies - it may be more like a return to the 1920s.
I think Mr Trump selected him as having zero credibility and therefore being little threat, and being controllable. It may that Trump under influence of his nurses may be a better option imo, depending on whom the nurses turn to be.
But I'm quite attracted by the narrative that Trump will step down after 1-3 years, so that Vance can save him from the consequences of his crimes - because self-pardoning has certain potential legal problems in US Law, and Trump's no 1 obsession is avoiding prison.
If there was a market for next President (as opposed to winner of 2028 Election) I'd say Vance would be a good prospect. But I have not found one.
Very clever of you to know Donald Trump's no 1 obsession - do you talk to him a lot, or do these revelations tend to come to you in dreams?
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Either way, I have some way to go.
I am a right porker and have been hovering around 16 stone for the last 15 years, which is very much in the high-20s-possibly-over-30 for BMI but I wear a 34 inch waist trouser and still need a belt to keep it up.
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
An odd shape which reduces your chance of suffering a host of illnesses related to being overweight or obese.
Does it? I'm doing ok if I have a normal sized waist despite being generally hefty? That's a relief. Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
Generally speaking, yes. The main risk factor appears to be from having fat around the internal organs, for which the waist measurement is a much better proxy than BMI. So, something that scanned your internals and measured directly would be a better diagnostic, for example.
Obviously there are issues with the extra weight causing more wear on joints, and possibly other things too, but the research would suggest that a population of 1,000 Cookies would have better health outcomes than 1,000 other people with the same BMI but a larger waist.
Yes, waist < 1/2 height is pushed as a better measure now, isn't it?
That's anything under a 91.5cm/36 inch waist for me. I feel further from that than I do from the top of the BMI band. Like Johnson, I'm all muscle and no fat
One of the tricky bits even with this though is leg/arm length compared to body length. Discussed here before and if I recall correctly Cookie is the same.
I am about 5' 10", probably an inch taller decades ago, but my leg measurement is 29". Shirts and pullovers are a nightmare because they are all too short. When sitting in a racing car with a maximum height measurement for the rollbar of 6' I was way over the top of it, yet under 6'
I think this could be described as the Boris build and it is impossible to look smart with short legs, although you can look a bit like a bouncer.
As mentioned a few days ago I am losing weight having hit an all time high. Lost 12 kg, another 6 to go to get me to my weight in my 20s/30s. Blood pressure has plummeted, although it was ok in the first place.
Yeah, that's true. I'm above average height for UK, but I buy standard length trousers - longer torso and arms - and longer tops when available. So that potentially skews measurements of BMI and height v waist. My brother is a good three inches taller than me, but I'm (very slightly) taller sitting down - he's all leg and tends to wear trousers low.
Skews all these simple measures, of course, but they do have to be simple to be widely useable.
Another case in point is the National Early Warning Score used in NHS hospitals. Should Mo Farrah have been an inpatient for anything then it would constantly trigger escalation for high risk of death or cardiac arrest due to his low resting heart rate!
There are issues when using simplistic measures (BMI was designed to look at populations, not individual health) but in truth they are useful indicators, as long as other factors are also taken into account. I've always been prone to being heavier than ideal (family genetics, a love of bread etc) but have mainly been pretty fit. I've never been a fast runner, but I've completed two marathons and around 25 half marathons. My particular favourite is overweight health professionals telling me to lose weight, with no hint of irony or self regard.
I think there is also a difficulty around the term obese, particularly around the margins. Most rugby players would be obese by BMI for instance. And there is some evidence that being slightly overweight is not terribly bad for you. I think maintaining cardiovascular health is probably the key. I've seen reports that peoples walking speed correlates pretty well for how healthy they are.
At a Democratic convention in San Francisco many years ago (1980?), delegates were offered the choice of two tours, Silicon Valley and wine country. Almost all of them chose the latter.
I think its a huge part of it. I know people hate Johnson and there are plenty of reasons to. But he can honestly say that he didn't get a chance to implement his vision as everything was overtaken by Covid and then the inflationary shock of the invasion of Ukraine. We've seen on PB how people have tried to say how bad Brexit has been for the UK (I think with some justification, but only to a limited extent). The effects of Covid and the war have been far more impactful. And so yes, being an incumbent when the Covid bill hit and then the inflation ary effects kicked in too was always going to send incumbents out of incumbency.
Not only do the incumbents get the blame for events outside of their control they also get no credit for the interventions. So many times I've heard "the government did nothing to help with my bills" about energy costs, in reality the government spent/borrowed about £51 BILLION for 2022-2023* to subsidise energy and stop the sector and wider economy from keeling over. Every household has had about £2,000 to keep the bills at merely very high levels rather than edging into catastrophic levels. People might argue that the government should have done even more, but everyone who uses energy has had a significant amount of support.
Has there been much information on Jewish American voting patterns?
Someone posted some analysis of religious voting patterns. From memory I think of all the religions Jews were the most Democrat in the election. I vaguely recall a majority of Catholics were Republican which was a surprise to me.
I could well have remembered wrong though.
That sounds right. It is worth noting however that there are strong cross-correletions between religion and other demographics, such as age, education, wealth, ethnicity, and location - so isolating the precise impact of religion independent of other factors requires more sophisticated statistics.
"Poorer voters flocked to Trump and other data points from the election FT analysis of this week's election results paint a dire picture for the Democrats"
Question is whether it's a dire picture for Democrats or a dire picture for anyone who isn't Donald Trump. I'm inclined to the latter, myself. People like him come along from time to time in history, and nobody has really found an effective counter to them.
Meanwhile, since it's Sunday, some religious splits on the US election;
I think its a huge part of it. I know people hate Johnson and there are plenty of reasons to. But he can honestly say that he didn't get a chance to implement his vision as everything was overtaken by Covid and then the inflationary shock of the invasion of Ukraine. We've seen on PB how people have tried to say how bad Brexit has been for the UK (I think with some justification, but only to a limited extent). The effects of Covid and the war have been far more impactful. And so yes, being an incumbent when the Covid bill hit and then the inflation ary effects kicked in too was always going to send incumbents out of incumbency.
Not only do the incumbents get the blame for events outside of their control they also get no credit for the interventions. So many times I've heard "the government did nothing to help with my bills" about energy costs, in reality the government spent/borrowed about £51 BILLION for 2022-2023* to subsidise energy and stop the sector and wider economy from keeling over. Every household has had about £2,000 to keep the bills at merely very high levels rather than edging into catastrophic levels. People might argue that the government should have done even more, but everyone who uses energy has had a significant amount of support.
* With another £11 billion or so for 2023-2024.
Which is why Jim Hacker managed the Emulsified High Fat Offal Tube crisis the way he did. Stop a problem happening in adavance, nobody cares. Solve a problem that everyone is up in arms about, you're a hero.
As a politician being seen to do the right thing is as important as doing the right thing. Not being seen to do the right thing causes problems.
I am not sure I agree, quietly doing the right thing without reward can be hugely valuable in life generally, it’s curious if that does not apply in politics because perception matters so much.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.
Vance has almost zero exposure to international politics, and his national political career in the USA consists entirely of about 18 months as a US Senator for Ohio. So I think all bets are off for his policies - it may be more like a return to the 1920s.
I think Mr Trump selected him as having zero credibility and therefore being little threat, and being controllable. It may that Trump under influence of his nurses may be a better option imo, depending on whom the nurses turn to be.
But I'm quite attracted by the narrative that Trump will step down after 1-3 years, so that Vance can save him from the consequences of his crimes - because self-pardoning has certain potential legal problems in US Law, and Trump's no 1 obsession is avoiding prison.
If there was a market for next President (as opposed to winner of 2028 Election) I'd say Vance would be a good prospect. But I have not found one.
Very clever of you to know Donald Trump's no 1 obsession - do you talk to him a lot, or do these revelations tend to come to you in dreams?
Lol. I follow the news and the informed commentary.
What other conclusion do you draw from Trump's pattern of behaviour over the last several years?
In the past, nearly all Catholic politicians were pro-life. As the Democratic Party shifted from that position, believing Catholics began voting Republican.
The career of Bob Casey (senior) is a good way to understand those shifts.
(As for Jews, there is still some truth in the old New York quip: Jews earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans.)
As a politician being seen to do the right thing is as important as doing the right thing. Not being seen to do the right thing causes problems.
I am not sure I agree, quietly doing the right thing without reward can be hugely valuable in life generally, it’s curious if that does not apply in politics because perception matters so much.
On topic - I'm trying to identify this "top down use of legislation to make the citizenry conform" that Labour are responsible for. The Public Order Act 2023 was introduced by Sunak's administration, and incitement to violence - for which many far-right "activists" were locked up for - has been unlawful for centuries.
However, if the new disruptive protesting rules means that farmers are locked up like JSO protestors, then that does give the current government an opportunity to repeal it. If that doesn't happen, then they are worthy of your criticism.
As I understand it the Farmers' Demonstration organisers told the freelancers to stay out of London because of limits imposed by their coordination with the police.
I think if the unofficial demonstrators behave like JSO, then they will get treated like JSO. It happened in the summer riots, where far-right provoked demonstrators were treated like the rioters from 2011 (?) - so I'd expect consistency.
But I don't expect even the unofficial farmer demonstrations to try that on.
She's struggling a bit. Bet she'd sooner be facing Starmer at PMQs than Beer in front of Sir NiceOldThing!
Kemi seems to have been on the side of the angels in urging prompt payment of compensation, even if not effective.
I'll be honest I'm listening to her now and am quite impressed with how she is speaking. Now it may be helped that she is not seemingly on a sticky wicket, but this is not the ghastly witch PB has led me to believe she is.
She's struggling a bit. Bet she'd sooner be facing Starmer at PMQs than Beer in front of Sir NiceOldThing!
Kemi seems to have been on the side of the angels in urging prompt payment of compensation, even if not effective.
Yes, she's doing a good job of dissing Hunt and his team!
I think this all has to be understood in the context of the near certainty that the mess would be handed on for Labour to deal with soon.
Interestingly, Kemi is also contrasting JFDI against full process, as PB was discussing over the weekend in connection with infrastructure projects and bats.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegal immigrants?
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Surely this would always have been the case? How would Ukraine 'win'? They would never be strong enough to defeat Russia, certainly with the limitations on weapons use and supply that they have. Russia conceivably could win in the conventional sense but at what cost?
And if you think it through, almost all wars end up in political settlements.
I think its a huge part of it. I know people hate Johnson and there are plenty of reasons to. But he can honestly say that he didn't get a chance to implement his vision as everything was overtaken by Covid and then the inflationary shock of the invasion of Ukraine. We've seen on PB how people have tried to say how bad Brexit has been for the UK (I think with some justification, but only to a limited extent). The effects of Covid and the war have been far more impactful. And so yes, being an incumbent when the Covid bill hit and then the inflation ary effects kicked in too was always going to send incumbents out of incumbency.
Not only do the incumbents get the blame for events outside of their control they also get no credit for the interventions. So many times I've heard "the government did nothing to help with my bills" about energy costs, in reality the government spent/borrowed about £51 BILLION for 2022-2023* to subsidise energy and stop the sector and wider economy from keeling over. Every household has had about £2,000 to keep the bills at merely very high levels rather than edging into catastrophic levels. People might argue that the government should have done even more, but everyone who uses energy has had a significant amount of support.
* With another £11 billion or so for 2023-2024.
For the good it did them politically (spoiler: none) they might as well have spent it on the NHS.
She's struggling a bit. Bet she'd sooner be facing Starmer at PMQs than Beer in front of Sir NiceOldThing!
Kemi seems to have been on the side of the angels in urging prompt payment of compensation, even if not effective.
Yes, she's doing a good job of dissing Hunt and his team!
I think this all has to be understood in the context of the near certainty that the mess would be handed on for Labour to deal with soon.
Interestingly, Kemi is also contrasting JFDI against full process, as PB was discussing over the weekend in connection with infrastructure projects and bats.
With respect to that, it is instructive to read Rory Stewart's book. The section on the way that process is used, combined with obstructionism and outright lies, to prevent things happening that The System does want... In that case it was Rory attempting to end funding of a very dubious "aid" group that had never been vetted.
In the case of the Post Office compensation, I've heard that officials have taken the position of slowing it down at every possible turn. One brief to a minister included, so I've been told, the issue of the well being and stress caused by early payments. That is, "well being and stress" for senior post office related officials who feel that expedited payments would emphasise their guilt.
Probably inevitable once the Bishop of Newcastle called for him to go. She and the Bishops of London and York will now be frontrunners to succeed him, all on the more Catholic wing of the C of E.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegal immigrants?
1067 ?
It tool 400 years to get rid of the Italians, and they were just replaced by Saxons, Jutes and Angles. Haven't got rid of them yet, although parts of Wales and Cornwall keep up the fight...
Comments
I'd be fine with declaring the result, but "calling" it is shit English.
Damn, what could around the house with eight months on full pay? Also just finishing an extension and a lot of decorating to do! Would completely bugger up my research programme though - I'm fully research funded so I'm not sure what would happen to my grants and staff, probably not good for my long term career prospects!
Another item in the occasional series of 'Cookie is an odd shape'.
A declaration is the actual result; "calling" it happens while the votes are still being counted, and when it becomes mathematically improbable for one of the two to win.
The degree of improbability varies, depending on who is calling it.
It's in a narrow valley between prediction and actual result.
I know that I started putting extra money into my betfair account about then..
Then again, it might be "I must turn my back on all previous policy. Because I must Be Change."
Or "I will be continuity Biden. All that policy stuff is sorted out."
It implies making a call and taking some risk. When the result is official, which is what they are waiting for, there is nothing to "call" because it has been declared.
Do you have a link for that documentary?
Just back from an appointment that turned out to be by phone at home not at the hospital
I also have an absolute cracker of a photo quota for later, and hear that my hospital may finally be doing something to address antisocial parking eg across wheelchair accesses via ANPR enforcement - which is great.
The government’s hereditary peers bill, which is heading for its committee stage on Tuesday and is likely to clear the House of Commons the same day, will put an end to the tradition and ban the the current 92 lords who inherited their titles from sitting in the second chamber.
MPs are expected to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation but the Lib Dems want to amend the bill in favour of bringing in a totally elected second chamber.
It would remove the power of patronage that the prime minister has to recommend new peers, call on the secretary of state to consult on an elected second chamber and commit to bringing forward a draft bill.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/11/lib-dems-plan-to-force-vote-on-replacing-lords-with-elected-upper-chamber
Mattel apologises after Wicked movie dolls mistakenly link to pornography website on packaging
The toy company Mattel says it is taking “immediate action” after mistakenly printing a pornographic website address on the packaging for dolls released to tie in with the upcoming Wicked film.
Over the weekend, individuals began sharing photos online of the dolls’ packaging, which showed a link to wicked.com, instead of wickedmovie.com. The address was printed on boxes for Glinda and Elphaba dolls, the main characters in Wicked, played in the film adaptation by Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo respectively.
Mattel released a statement on Sunday addressing the error.
“Mattel was made aware of a misprint on the packaging of the Mattel Wicked collection dolls, primarily sold in the US, which intended to direct consumers to the official WickedMovie.com landing page,” the statement read.
“We deeply regret this unfortunate error and are taking immediate action to remedy this. Parents are advised that the misprinted, incorrect website is not appropriate for children. Consumers who already have the product are advised to discard the product packaging or obscure the link and may contact Mattel customer service for further information.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/nov/11/mattel-apologises-after-mistakenly-linking-to-porn-website-on-wicked-dolls
The Democrats actually gained ground slightly, with older voters (once assumed to be old bigots who were thankfully dying off), and lost ground among younger voters (once assumed to be virtuous liberals).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024vyr
A Radio 4 documentary from the weekend about Reform UK’s attempts to build a grassroots movement modelled on the Lib Dems, as declared his intention by nonny nonny Nigel.
(My take from here in Ashfield constituency is that I think it will take them a decade or more, even if they make any progress at all. This is a prime target because the leader of the Ashfield Independents who have 90% of the seats including all the county seats is up before the Crown Court two months before the 2025 local elections, and I have seen nothing from Reform despite them having our MP here.)
Blurb: This summer, Reform UK won the third highest vote share at the general election, with five MPs elected to Parliament. Since that result, the party’s leader Nigel Farage has made plans to “professionalise and democratise” a central focus. At their autumn conference, Reform UK members signed off on a new constitution. The party has been setting up a branch structure, changing some of the members of its central team, and says it is also changing the way it vets candidates.
Here in the UK I can't help, reluctantly, coming round to accepting the @leon forecast that we won't be immune from the tide of populism. All too easy now to see Reform surging in areas like the North Midlands, South Yorks, Lancs, etc. Labour are even more vulnerable here than they were to Boris-era Tories, as Reform don't carry the Tory baggage. Lee Anderson is most definitely "one of us". And Reform are already polling in second place for the Welsh assembly elections and look likely to establish themselves in Holyrood in 2026. This may change but the potential is certainly there.
The historic task of the Conservatives has been to co-opt and, effectively, suppress the populist right. A lot riding on Kemi.
Though tbh, I feel at death's door. I strained a muscle in my abdomen about 8 weeks ago and it's still the first thing I feel when I wake up. I pulled a calf muscle at the weekend running the line for my daughter's football team. Both knees work sub-optimally. And I appear to have twisted my ankle in my sleep. I'm normally pretty active - I walk, run, cycle, play padel - but the windows available for all this without minor injuries seem to be getting rarer and rarer. Age is a cruel mistress.
No doubt when I am ACTUALLY at death's door this will, in retrospect, seem a happy halcyon.
Obviously there are issues with the extra weight causing more wear on joints, and possibly other things too, but the research would suggest that a population of 1,000 Cookies would have better health outcomes than 1,000 other people with the same BMI but a larger waist.
*There's one on a dual carriageway we use fairly frequently, I think. You see people trudging down the side of the road (to undocumented work somewhere?) from a run down hotel, where you never used to see anyone walking - it's unsuitable as a walkway, unpleasant, not very safe. This kind of stuff makes it obvious that the system isn't' working, whatever the differences on what to do about it.
As it happens I met the deliverer because my front door was open. He had walked past a huge orange diamond in my hedge and delivered on top of the 5000 odd bundled LD leaflets in my hall. We had a smile at each other and a nice chat.
I would be interested to know if they did addressed election addresses in target seats rather than 1 per household. We did 5 so although some houses would only get one, most would get 2 or 3 different leaflets or even 4 and very occasionally a few would get 5.
That's anything under a 91.5cm/36 inch waist for me. I feel further from that than I do from the top of the BMI band. Like Johnson, I'm all muscle and no fat
However Europe is, IMHO, different and the USA must in part be put on one side. Here is the real question:
In opposition populism can provide simple answers to complex or impossible questions. That's easy. I can do that too.
In government they can't. They have to act on and deal with the actual complexities of a nation + the constraints of reality. So Italy and Meloni is a better guide as to the future of populism. Not too much to see there really. The compromises of life carry on as they do with us.
I am about 5' 10", probably an inch taller decades ago, but my leg measurement is 29". Shirts and pullovers are a nightmare because they are all too short. When sitting in a racing car with a maximum height measurement for the rollbar of 6' I was way over the top of it, yet under 6'
I think this could be described as the Boris build and it is impossible to look smart with short legs, although you can look a bit like a bouncer.
As mentioned a few days ago I am losing weight having hit an all time high. Lost 12 kg, another 6 to go to get me to my weight in my 20s/30s. Blood pressure has plummeted, although it was ok in the first place.
In the UK enthusiasm for Labour is shown by the 34% vote. In the USA exactly the same is shown by the 52/48 (or whatever) split in the vote. Both were not mathematical landslides.
I could well have remembered wrong though.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/16/the_god_that_failed_132363.html
Skews all these simple measures, of course, but they do have to be simple to be widely useable.
Another case in point is the National Early Warning Score used in NHS hospitals. Should Mo Farrah have been an inpatient for anything then it would constantly trigger escalation for high risk of death or cardiac arrest due to his low resting heart rate!
With the Trumpdozer being elected though all bets are surely off.
"Some countries at COP29, including France, are pushing for innovative financing to help pay for the $1 trillion funding, including taxes on flying and fossil fuel extraction.
A poll published by Oxfam on Monday found that four in five Brits support increasing taxes on luxury transport such as private jets and superyachts to raise funds to tackle climate change.
“The Prime Minister urgently needs to do more to provide support to communities already facing the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. The money is there,” Chiara Liguori from Oxfam GB said."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-faces-calls-to-pay-into-1trn-pot-to-help-poor-countries-tackle-climate-change-at-cop/ar-AA1tPxs8?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=92287d8e07a04a2d98358a9e396ea715&ei=47
Harris won 51% of voters earning over $100 000 a year and 83 billionaires openly backed Harris to just 52 for Trump
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/
Add in for the Tories being in government (coalition or sole control) since 2010 and they had run out of ideas and the country was sick of them too.
Starmer is a lucky man, and you should never discount luck as part of the package (as Napoleon intimated).
Labours vote share really shouldn't give it the idea of a huge mandate for change but the seats in parliament do, and thats the system we have. They should note, and I think do, tbh, that the huge majority is built on sand, and what can sweep to victory in one election can be swept away again. They are getting a lot of pain in early, and rightly. Whether the effects will be worth it, and whether the good times will arrive in time, only time will tell.
Harris won 75% of Jews, 71% of non religious and 59% of non Christian religious voters
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxBEmt43NOA
(other livestreams are available)
Still a hypothetical, so I wouldn't put too much weight on it, but runs to £7.2 billion per year if you apply only to working population. Or £6.8 billion if you use £20/month/household. That's based on mean, which is the right way to do those sums, but looking at the median, over half the population would be pissed off with such a measure so it could be politically courageous. Making it progressive, so that the mean was £20, but >1/2 paid under £15/month could work. Anyway, some idea of scale, five years out of date. I'm sure many other estimates are available!
She's struggling a bit. Bet she'd sooner be facing Starmer at PMQs than Beer in front of Sir NiceOldThing!
He has voted against support for Ukraine with the other nutjobs, and has demonstrated that he has about as much understanding of trade and tariffs as Trump.
I think Mr Trump selected him as having zero credibility and therefore being little threat, and being controllable. It may that Trump under influence of his nurses may be a better option imo, depending on whom the nurses turn to be.
But I'm quite attracted by the narrative that Trump will step down after 1-3 years, so that Vance can save him from the consequences of his crimes - because self-pardoning has certain potential legal problems in US Law, and Trump's no 1 obsession is avoiding prison.
If there was a market for next President (as opposed to winner of 2028 Election) I'd say Vance would be a good prospect. But I have not found one.
I think there is also a difficulty around the term obese, particularly around the margins. Most rugby players would be obese by BMI for instance. And there is some evidence that being slightly overweight is not terribly bad for you. I think maintaining cardiovascular health is probably the key. I've seen reports that peoples walking speed correlates pretty well for how healthy they are.
* With another £11 billion or so for 2023-2024.
As a politician being seen to do the right thing is as important as doing the right thing. Not being seen to do the right thing causes problems.
I am not sure I agree, quietly doing the right thing without reward can be hugely valuable in life generally, it’s curious if that does not apply in politics because perception matters so much.
What other conclusion do you draw from Trump's pattern of behaviour over the last several years?
The career of Bob Casey (senior) is a good way to understand those shifts.
(As for Jews, there is still some truth in the old New York quip: Jews earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans.)
I think this all has to be understood in the context of the near certainty that the mess would be handed on for Labour to deal with soon.
I think if the unofficial demonstrators behave like JSO, then they will get treated like JSO. It happened in the summer riots, where far-right provoked demonstrators were treated like the rioters from 2011 (?) - so I'd expect consistency.
But I don't expect even the unofficial farmer demonstrations to try that on.
It’s this guy. Quite a career. Impressively varied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dekeyser
Maybe she will surprise on the upside?
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
And if you think it through, almost all wars end up in political settlements.
Nonetheless a genuinely interesting guy. He does own the 15th best hotel in the world. His photographer friend is also intriguing. This guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Poliza
I seem to be suddenly immersed in a world of ancient German B celebs but with genuine talent. Sehr Interessante
In the case of the Post Office compensation, I've heard that officials have taken the position of slowing it down at every possible turn. One brief to a minister included, so I've been told, the issue of the well being and stress caused by early payments. That is, "well being and stress" for senior post office related officials who feel that expedited payments would emphasise their guilt.
2 of them would be the first female Archbishops