I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
Why not invest in fitness?
We should absolutely invest in fitness. The problem is that investing in fitness will only have effects in the long-term. You don't see a life saved by it. You don't see waiting lists dropping.
A friend used to work in charitable fundraising. She always joked that the most successful charity would be Kittens for Kids with Cancer. No-one wants to give money to Encouraging Regular People to Do More Exercise.
Its a myth that it only has long term impacts. People get happier and more productive pretty quickly when they improve their fitness.
You are right. I spoke poorly. They do get happier (and less depressed) and more productive pretty quickly. But they don't go from death's door to living an extra year, which is what many a "miracle" cancer drug has done.
It is not just about one thing though.
People are currently unhappy, unhealthy and the nation is economically unproductive. It feels quite mad that we don't talk about fitness as a political objective.
It's yet another thing that's been parked in the too difficult column, not least because the most important element in getting the nation fit is improving its appalling diet and that would require a lot of unpopular nannying - in crude terms, state subsided fruit for the poor, paid for with punishing sin taxes on anything with high fat and sugar content, i.e. all the kinds of shit that people actually enjoy eating.
You then need to back that up with much better access to cheap leisure facilities (which means giving local government the means to build leisure centres and pools all over the place, which in turn means solving the local government funding crisis, an expense that Westminster has zero interest in taking on,) and we also need to set a deadline for outlawing the sale of tobacco products and force the nation's remaining smokers to quit. This, obviously, would cause an immense tantrum amongst the remaining addicts and be manna from heaven for Farage.
Now, on top of all of that you have to fix the NHS (and, by extension, the social care system without which you can't unbung the hospitals) so that people get timely treatment for ailments and don't end up growing increasingly sick and disabled whilst stuck on waiting lists. So you're back again to trying to find massive amounts of money, whilst somehow avoiding the biggest shitstorm ever by raiding assets and pensions to pay for it. And the country simultaneously has to shore up it's education system, its creaking infrastructure and rearm itself at the same time.
Where do we even start?
Getting people fitter is largely about intelligent town planning for active transport. Much more so than gyms etc.
What we need is a Dutch walking and cycling culture.
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
It's actually considerably more complex than that. You're leaving out a number of other crucial factors in increasing healthcare costs. Firstly, healthcare is a very labour intensive industry - staff salaries are about half the budget, and wages over the long run have risen much faster than prices across the economy, especially in heavily unionised sectors such as healthcare. In most industries, productivity gains have outweighed wage increases. Secondly, it's a government-dominated industry, with the predictable disastrous consequences for productivity growth (not that insurance-based systems are notably better). Thirdly, that healthcare is provided free to all at the point of use incentivises its inefficient consumption. Fourth, politicians and the public think that the best way to appear caring is to shove more money at the health service and not give a damn about how well it's spent.
Overall, given all the pressures and politicians' indifference to getting value for public money, it's actually amazing our expenditure on healthcare doesn't take up all our GDP.
"Free at the point of use" but it is rationed by the system, you can't just wander up and ask for chemo or an X-ray. It's got increasingly expensive recently because it was overly rationed in austerity, so people's health conditions had deteriorated by the time they got treatment. The way to reduce costs longterm is to get waiting lists down, early diagnosis and treatment, and public health initiatives.
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
Why not invest in fitness?
We should absolutely invest in fitness. The problem is that investing in fitness will only have effects in the long-term. You don't see a life saved by it. You don't see waiting lists dropping.
A friend used to work in charitable fundraising. She always joked that the most successful charity would be Kittens for Kids with Cancer. No-one wants to give money to Encouraging Regular People to Do More Exercise.
People have just become lazy, driving short distances when, by the time they've parked, it would be just as quick to walk or cycle. Which in turn discourages other people from walking or cycling because it's dangerous as the roads are full of angry drivers. Courts should be encouraged to disqualify more drivers for longer to cut NHS costs.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
Its not about one thing. People will be happier. People will work longer and more effectively generating tax. Happier, productive people will be less likely to vote for Putinista shills.
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
How much of this is true? Surely most very old people are thin and frail, not fat? Being overweight was, iirc, a risk factor for death with Covid; it was the fit, muscular types like Boris who recovered.
Speaking as an 81 year old, and for my 85 year old wife, it is a fact that as we have aged we are eating much smaller portions and can hardly manage two slimmed down courses
Consequently we do shrink a bit and quite noticeable so for my good lady
We both have reasons to be grateful to medical science, especially myself over the last 18 months, but age does not come alone and hopefully all fellow posters will enjoy a longlife and even if more frail and forgetful, still fulfill a role in the life for their family, continue to pay our taxes, and alongside @OldKingCole and my fellow octogenarians post our experiences on here, even if they are silly or annoying
Don't think so. Although the spelling police will be paying a call
I'm learning phonics (well, my children are; I'm picking some up) and I must admit I'm hard pressed to explain why it's deceives and thieves. Something something I before E except after C, I guess.
My word.. that is embarrassing, but I assure you a typo, not my spelling skill
Wtf is autocorrect for if it doesn't pick that up?
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
Why not invest in fitness?
We should absolutely invest in fitness. The problem is that investing in fitness will only have effects in the long-term. You don't see a life saved by it. You don't see waiting lists dropping.
A friend used to work in charitable fundraising. She always joked that the most successful charity would be Kittens for Kids with Cancer. No-one wants to give money to Encouraging Regular People to Do More Exercise.
Its a myth that it only has long term impacts. People get happier and more productive pretty quickly when they improve their fitness.
You are right. I spoke poorly. They do get happier (and less depressed) and more productive pretty quickly. But they don't go from death's door to living an extra year, which is what many a "miracle" cancer drug has done.
It is not just about one thing though.
People are currently unhappy, unhealty and the nation is economically unproductive. It feels quite mad that we don't talk about fitness as a political objective.
To me one of the most dismal things about covid was that the government made no attempt to encourage personal fitness and weight loss.
We sell off school playing fields. We indulge an anti cyclist road lobby. We don't teach children to cook. We let the fast food and junk food lobbies run rampant. We build housing that relies on a car to get anywhere. We cut benefits to children so parents struggle to feed them with healthy food. And then we wonder why we are a nation of couch potatoes, why people can't work, why they're costing the NHS billions each year...
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
How much of this is true? Surely most very old people are thin and frail, not fat? Being overweight was, iirc, a risk factor for death with Covid; it was the fit, muscular types like Boris who recovered.
Speaking as an 81 year old, and for my 85 year old wife, it is a fact that as we have aged we are eating much smaller portions and can hardly manage two slimmed down courses
Consequently we do shrink a bit and quite noticeable so for my good lady
We both have reasons to be grateful to medical science, especially myself over the last 18 months, but age does not come alone and hopefully all fellow posters will enjoy a longlife and even if more frail and forgetful, still fulfill a role in the life for their family, continue to pay our taxes, and alongside @OldKingCole and my fellow octogenarians post our experiences on here, even if they are silly or annoying
It just adds to the view that Mps sre untruthful. One more exposé of anything akin ti this and she's a donner.
The thing that really pisses me off about Reeves is her 000's claim fir heating whilst denying 300 quid and more to others.
Do as I say not as I do.
Contemptible.
Labour the whiter and whiter alternative line has been comprehensively trashed within 6 months. And there isn't much evidence they are been very careful about spending during time in government e.g. spending far more than the previous lot on private flights, despite making such a song and dance about Rishi ever daring to do so.
In my opinion Reform’s support will crater in an actual campaign when they have to explain their policies on things like worker’s rights and the NHS. Especially if they look like they might win and will not be able to avoid explaining them.
I can see the problem with Reform's NHS policies in that they think they can massively cut costs - but that is routine nonsense from a party that has never governed.
In 2024 election their NHS policy included: NHS free at point of delivery, greateruse of non NHS health care resource, magically make NHS perfect, tax breaks for privare healthcare. Plus save a zillion pounds by magic.
Their costings would come under attack, but the rest of the offer looks like routine social democracy pretending its cheap. Is that a major problem to voters who can't get an appointment with a GP about their footling trivialities?
Don't think so. Although the spelling police will be paying a call
I'm learning phonics (well, my children are; I'm picking some up) and I must admit I'm hard pressed to explain why it's deceives and thieves. Something something I before E except after C, I guess.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
Its not about one thing. People will be happier. People will work longer and more effectively generating tax. Happier, productive people will be less likely to vote for Putinista shills.
Not really.
Firstly, even if they work longer they are more likely to live longer as pensioners with all the consequential costs. Socially committed and caring people like my parents smoked themselves to death and died at 66 and 67 having received almost no pension for all the NI they paid over their working lives. Kerching.
Neither of them needed any care costs either other than a bit of help for my mum with her terminal cancer. Kerching kerching.
I suppose its possible that those who don't drink, eat plenty of fish and exercise regularly are happier but I have yet to see much convincing evidence of this. I have seen even less evidence that they are less likely to vote for loons like Trump or Farage.
In my opinion Reform’s support will crater in an actual campaign when they have to explain their policies on things like worker’s rights and the NHS. Especially if they look like they might win and will not be able to avoid explaining them.
They will come up with populist policies, which as far as the NHS goes will mean free-at-the-point-of-delivery remains (except possibly for the rich).
People who expect Farage to sell off the NHS to Elon Musk have not been paying attention.
Possibly the best ever takedown of the US “Deep State”, vindication for what DOGE are doing, and confirmation that USAID was basically the CIA doing what the CIA were told not to do for the last couple of decades.
Warning: this video features Joe Rogan and Mike Benz, and is 202 minutes long.
It turns out that Rory Stewart’s wife’s charity was also getting millions from USAID.
Yes, that's how foreign aid often works. You give money to a charity to do charitable work.
And it’s totally incidental that these charities appear to be vastly overpopulated with close relatives of the politicians involved in the funding decisions.
There needs to be a British DOGE.
Your anti corruption credentials will be sorely tested these coming years as a Trump and Musk supporter.
I’m not a Trump supporter, but I’m absolutely a Musk supporter. Every Western country is going to have to deal with a line-item audit of their spending at some point.
Musk doesn't work for the US government or US people, he works for Musk.
No, he works directly for the elected President.
You think?...
I note State has just ordered $400m worth of Cybertrucks...
Is the cybertruck order an instance of:-
Elon grifting?
the SoS currying favour?
the deep state manufacturing a conflict of interest in order to recuse Musk?
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
Almost as unpopular as renaming the Gulf of Mexico.
I doubt if any place in the world would vote enthusiastically for owning Gaza. Top of the unkeen list: Egypt, Jordan, Gaza, Saudi, every sensible Israeli. Maybe Iran would like it.
The Brexit Party (which is the same thing as Reform, other than a name-change), polled a 6% lead with YouGov on 5-6 June 2019 (BxP 26, Lab 20, LD 20, Con 18, Grn 9).
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
No. Everyone dies just the once. If you spread them out, it catches up with you. If they all live to be 120 the NHS still has to remove their corns, fit them with pacemakers, do rehab when they have a stroke doing a marathon on their 100th birthday.
And a lot of the fit ones retire at 55 because they are bright and fit enough to ensure that they can by being prudent in planning, and prudent in preferring having fun time at 55 rather than being a 68 year old zillionaire workhorse.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
Death doesn’t cost anything. Super fit retired consultants who may well to 100 and retired at 60 on an incredible pension more than 2x the acreage salary cost us £70k+ a year in pension payments alone.
The Brexit Party (which is the same thing as Reform, other than a name-change), polled a 6% lead with YouGov on 5-6 June 2019 (BxP 26, Lab 20, LD 20, Con 18, Grn 9).
On the basis that Reform are doing well because Lab/Con have been weighed in the scales and found wanting, the slight oddity is that the polling isn't showing that the contest is Reform v LDs.
IMHO a general election which proved to be a Ref v LD one would be genuinely interesting. It is in the hands of those being polled to make it so!
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
No. Everyone dies just the once. If you spread them out, it catches up with you. If they all live to be 120 the NHS still has to remove their corns, fit them with pacemakers, do rehab when they have a stroke doing a marathon on their 100th birthday.
And a lot of the fit ones retire at 55 because they are bright and fit enough to ensure that they can by being prudent in planning, and prudent in preferring having fun time at 55 rather than being a 68 year old zillionaire workhorse.
The data on end of life healthcare costs seems in any event somewhat contested.
What isn't, is the cost of long term treatment of chronic conditions.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
Its not about one thing. People will be happier. People will work longer and more effectively generating tax. Happier, productive people will be less likely to vote for Putinista shills.
Not really.
Firstly, even if they work longer they are more likely to live longer as pensioners with all the consequential costs. Socially committed and caring people like my parents smoked themselves to death and died at 66 and 67 having received almost no pension for all the NI they paid over their working lives. Kerching.
Neither of them needed any care costs either other than a bit of help for my mum with her terminal cancer. Kerching kerching.
I suppose its possible that those who don't drink, eat plenty of fish and exercise regularly are happier but I have yet to see much convincing evidence of this. I have seen even less evidence that they are less likely to vote for loons like Trump or Farage.
There'll be no concerted attempt to promote healthier lifestyles because it is too difficult. However, one of the benefits of a substantially healthier, more active, less overweight populace is that people, on average, would then spend fewer years in very poor health. Crudely put, if we can create a situation in which most people remain reasonably mobile and independent until death or the last few months of their lives, as opposed to having them hobbling around, gasping, falling over at regular intervals, yo-yoing in and out of hospital and ending up in care homes, the savings would be colossal.
It'd be fascinating to get a cost benefit analysis of this, but I'm confident that an elderly population where people have a longer life expectancy but are healthy for the large majority of their retirements will still be a lot less burdensome to the public purse than one that is full of frailty and disease but where people die off younger - especially given that modern medical care means that the gap in life expectancy between those two theoretical cohorts is not actually likely to be really substantial. Medicine is very good at using expensive drugs, therapies and care to keep very unwell people alive in any case.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
No. Everyone dies just the once. If you spread them out, it catches up with you. If they all live to be 120 the NHS still has to remove their corns, fit them with pacemakers, do rehab when they have a stroke doing a marathon on their 100th birthday.
And a lot of the fit ones retire at 55 because they are bright and fit enough to ensure that they can by being prudent in planning, and prudent in preferring having fun time at 55 rather than being a 68 year old zillionaire workhorse.
The data on end of life healthcare costs seems in any event somewhat contested.
What isn't, is the cost of long term treatment of chronic conditions.
Precisely. Good health is so important to individual wellbeing, but it's also a real boon to the public purse.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
If they die of a heart attack while jogging, the costs will be significantly less though than if they linger on into old age.
I'm a bit surprised they seem to be confirming everyone, as I had thought that maybe Trump wouldn't mind if the Senate dumped RFK Jr. All this talk of increasing regulations on the food industry is pretty much the opposite of what Trump and his mates are into, and what they did last time.
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
Why not invest in fitness?
We should absolutely invest in fitness. The problem is that investing in fitness will only have effects in the long-term. You don't see a life saved by it. You don't see waiting lists dropping.
A friend used to work in charitable fundraising. She always joked that the most successful charity would be Kittens for Kids with Cancer. No-one wants to give money to Encouraging Regular People to Do More Exercise.
Its a myth that it only has long term impacts. People get happier and more productive pretty quickly when they improve their fitness.
You are right. I spoke poorly. They do get happier (and less depressed) and more productive pretty quickly. But they don't go from death's door to living an extra year, which is what many a "miracle" cancer drug has done.
It is not just about one thing though.
People are currently unhappy, unhealthy and the nation is economically unproductive. It feels quite mad that we don't talk about fitness as a political objective.
It's yet another thing that's been parked in the too difficult column, not least because the most important element in getting the nation fit is improving its appalling diet and that would require a lot of unpopular nannying - in crude terms, state subsided fruit for the poor, paid for with punishing sin taxes on anything with high fat and sugar content, i.e. all the kinds of shit that people actually enjoy eating.
You then need to back that up with much better access to cheap leisure facilities (which means giving local government the means to build leisure centres and pools all over the place, which in turn means solving the local government funding crisis, an expense that Westminster has zero interest in taking on,) and we also need to set a deadline for outlawing the sale of tobacco products and force the nation's remaining smokers to quit. This, obviously, would cause an immense tantrum amongst the remaining addicts and be manna from heaven for Farage.
Now, on top of all of that you have to fix the NHS (and, by extension, the social care system without which you can't unbung the hospitals) so that people get timely treatment for ailments and don't end up growing increasingly sick and disabled whilst stuck on waiting lists. So you're back again to trying to find massive amounts of money, whilst somehow avoiding the biggest shitstorm ever by raiding assets and pensions to pay for it. And the country simultaneously has to shore up it's education system, its creaking infrastructure and rearm itself at the same time.
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
How much of this is true? Surely most very old people are thin and frail, not fat? Being overweight was, iirc, a risk factor for death with Covid; it was the fit, muscular types like Boris who recovered.
Speaking as an 81 year old, and for my 85 year old wife, it is a fact that as we have aged we are eating much smaller portions and can hardly manage two slimmed down courses
Consequently we do shrink a bit and quite noticeable so for my good lady
We both have reasons to be grateful to medical science, especially myself over the last 18 months, but age does not come alone and hopefully all fellow posters will enjoy a longlife and even if more frail and forgetful, still fulfill a role in the life for their family, continue to pay our taxes, and alongside @OldKingCole and my fellow octogenarians post our experiences on here, even if they are silly or annoying
Indeed Big G., although I'm not sure I would wish my present existence ..... unable to walk unsupported, plus other bodily inconveniences, on anyone!
One of my blessings is that my mind remains both active and acute, although those of a right-wing persuasion may well disagree!
Another is the continued support, assistance and encouragement of Mrs C, after 60+ years, and the forbearance of friends and family.
The momentum for REF/Farage is starting to snowball...
Maybe, but is 4 1/2 years away from the next general election, the time to be having momentum? Also, they are unchanged, so not sure this can count as momentum...
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
Death doesn’t cost anything. Super fit retired consultants who may well to 100 and retired at 60 on an incredible pension more than 2x the acreage salary cost us £70k+ a year in pension payments alone.
That's an argument for less generous pensions (or higher taxes) not an argument against people being healthy. Healthy people cost the health service less than unhealthy people and their healthcare costs are spread out over more time.
The Brexit Party (which is the same thing as Reform, other than a name-change), polled a 6% lead with YouGov on 5-6 June 2019 (BxP 26, Lab 20, LD 20, Con 18, Grn 9).
On the basis that Reform are doing well because Lab/Con have been weighed in the scales and found wanting, the slight oddity is that the polling isn't showing that the contest is Reform v LDs.
IMHO a general election which proved to be a Ref v LD one would be genuinely interesting. It is in the hands of those being polled to make it so!
It would be Macron vs Le Pen, UK edition. Though with somewhat different characters.
Farage and Le Pen are living evidence of the gender gap in the populist right. Serious, stern, no nonsense women vs charismatic, cartoonish, frequently clown-like men.
I decided to look up Bert Woodage, the gardener I knew who had worked as a jockey for Sir Gordon Richards, on Ancestry
I found three records about him:
His birth registration; born in the Wantage, Berkshire area in the second quarter of 1927. Named as Bart H Woodage - definitely just scanned wrong for Bert - with mother's maiden name: Woodage
His wedding registration in 1951 to Alice McHugh (11 years his senior at 35, who was born in Ogbourne St Andrew, married there and died there after 90 years there), as Bert H Woodage
And his death registration in 2000 as Albert Hamlen Woodage (I think Alice might have added the Al to make him sound more proper)
With very little to go on, I looked up Wantage Woodages. I found one possible family; they had six daughters who could have fathered Bert, but no Bert ever mentioned
So I looked up Hamlen as a surname. I found a few possible father candidates, but one standout
A Herbert J Hamlen, who was a 51 year old single hotel proprietor at the time of Bert's conception. I found from the 1911 and 1921 censuses that he ran the Lamb Hotel in East Ilsley, near Wantage, with his older sister Ada
On the 1939 National Register, it showed everyone on his road
And 30 or so rows down, there he was. Bert Woodage with the right birth date - but scruffily written so not picked up when scanned - living on a farm with Ernest and Rose Warwick
I looked up Ernest; he'd been married ten years before he married Rose, his first wife died seven or eight months after they'd wed. He then married Rose Woodage when Bert was six
I'm pretty sure that Rose or one of her sisters got knocked up by Herbert J Hamlen, so I've started a family tree for Bert based on this "fact"
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
Why not invest in fitness?
We should absolutely invest in fitness. The problem is that investing in fitness will only have effects in the long-term. You don't see a life saved by it. You don't see waiting lists dropping.
A friend used to work in charitable fundraising. She always joked that the most successful charity would be Kittens for Kids with Cancer. No-one wants to give money to Encouraging Regular People to Do More Exercise.
Its a myth that it only has long term impacts. People get happier and more productive pretty quickly when they improve their fitness.
You are right. I spoke poorly. They do get happier (and less depressed) and more productive pretty quickly. But they don't go from death's door to living an extra year, which is what many a "miracle" cancer drug has done.
It is not just about one thing though.
People are currently unhappy, unhealthy and the nation is economically unproductive. It feels quite mad that we don't talk about fitness as a political objective.
It's yet another thing that's been parked in the too difficult column, not least because the most important element in getting the nation fit is improving its appalling diet and that would require a lot of unpopular nannying - in crude terms, state subsided fruit for the poor, paid for with punishing sin taxes on anything with high fat and sugar content, i.e. all the kinds of shit that people actually enjoy eating.
You then need to back that up with much better access to cheap leisure facilities (which means giving local government the means to build leisure centres and pools all over the place, which in turn means solving the local government funding crisis, an expense that Westminster has zero interest in taking on,) and we also need to set a deadline for outlawing the sale of tobacco products and force the nation's remaining smokers to quit. This, obviously, would cause an immense tantrum amongst the remaining addicts and be manna from heaven for Farage.
Now, on top of all of that you have to fix the NHS (and, by extension, the social care system without which you can't unbung the hospitals) so that people get timely treatment for ailments and don't end up growing increasingly sick and disabled whilst stuck on waiting lists. So you're back again to trying to find massive amounts of money, whilst somehow avoiding the biggest shitstorm ever by raiding assets and pensions to pay for it. And the country simultaneously has to shore up it's education system, its creaking infrastructure and rearm itself at the same time.
Where do we even start?
Getting people fitter is largely about intelligent town planning for active transport. Much more so than gyms etc.
What we need is a Dutch walking and cycling culture.
That's also much easier said then done. Many if not most people are scared to ride bikes or let their children do it because of the volume of dangerous traffic and bolshie motorists that are basically everywhere. We don't have the infrastructure in most places to separate motor and non-motor traffic and it would be very expensive to build. A complete rebuild of reliable bus transport at sensible hours outside of the urban cores would also help to reduce car dependency, but then you're back to the reconstruction of local authority finances that nobody wants to pay for.
Santander has discussed a potential sale of the Spanish lender’s UK retail business with NatWest, according to people familiar with the matter.
Early stage talks took place last year, but interest remains from both parties in a potential deal, the people added.
Santander has insisted that its UK retail business is “not for sale” since the Financial Times reported last month that it was exploring a potential exit after two decades on the British high street.
One person familiar with the situation said Santander had not approached any party about a sale of the UK business.
However, discussions between Santander and one of Britain’s biggest lenders are likely to raise further questions about the Spanish bank’s desire to continue fighting it out in the UK’s highly competitive mortgage market.
“Santander UK is not for sale. The UK remains a core part of Santander’s globally diversified business model”, said Santander in a statement. It added that the model had “significant potential upside for years to come, including in the UK.”
It wasn't a CV that she submitted for any of her current roles though was it?
It was just about bio on a Social Media networking site.
It's not as if banking experience has ever been a requirement to be CoE. Many great Chancellors had no prior experience of finance, other than their own domestic ones.
It’s about integrity. Lying on your CV is a no no.
Lying would be claiming to have worked at the BOE when she hadn't. She has probably stretched the truth a little. And most have done similar.
When employed in banking, they do actually check the dates and where you worked.
The stretching of truth that goes on doesn’t touch the dates or the actual job titles.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
Death doesn’t cost anything. Super fit retired consultants who may well to 100 and retired at 60 on an incredible pension more than 2x the acreage salary cost us £70k+ a year in pension payments alone.
Notwithstanding the massive tax free lump,sum they got.
It wasn't a CV that she submitted for any of her current roles though was it?
It was just about bio on a Social Media networking site.
It's not as if banking experience has ever been a requirement to be CoE. Many great Chancellors had no prior experience of finance, other than their own domestic ones.
It’s about integrity. Lying on your CV is a no no.
Lying would be claiming to have worked at the BOE when she hadn't. She has probably stretched the truth a little. And most have done similar.
When employed in banking, they do actually check the dates and where you worked.
The stretching of truth that goes on doesn’t touch the dates or the actual job titles.
The FCA have rules about providing false information information about your past employment or experience.
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
But their deaths will be spread out over more time so the cost is less per year. And they will have had longer lives in greater health so presumably will have been able to contribute to society more.
Death doesn’t cost anything. Super fit retired consultants who may well to 100 and retired at 60 on an incredible pension more than 2x the acreage salary cost us £70k+ a year in pension payments alone.
That's an argument for less generous pensions (or higher taxes) not an argument against people being healthy. Healthy people cost the health service less than unhealthy people and their healthcare costs are spread out over more time.
The expensive stuff is long term illness and care.
Living to 98 and suddenly not waking up one morning (after a lifetime of good health) is probably optimal between cost to the country and quality of life for the person.
It wasn't a CV that she submitted for any of her current roles though was it?
It was just about bio on a Social Media networking site.
It's not as if banking experience has ever been a requirement to be CoE. Many great Chancellors had no prior experience of finance, other than their own domestic ones.
Get too persnickety about things and no-one will be able to stay in post.
But does it pass the 'I would say the same thing about someone not on my own side' test? (Not for you, but for politicians - ie, would the PM say it was no big deal if it was whoever the Shadow Chancellor is?)
The momentum for REF/Farage is starting to snowball...
They are on the same vote share as the previous poll.
Yes, but their overall lead is growing. Whilst us polling/political geeks know the individual shares are more important. the general public will just hear that Reform now leads by 6%.
I probably call this as normal Telegraph shit stirring. They are trying to make out a liability exists for ++Welby on the basis of Council Tax. For it to apply, it needs a lot of angels to line up on pinheads. They are in the habit of telling porkies where the Church of England is concerned.
Relevant matters (and I can't call how they apply):
It's absolutely routine for Priests / Ministers etc to be allowed to stay in their work accommodation if necessary, as it would be empty for the interregnum anyway,and there will be a normal way of doing this - there will be scores or hundreds of cases every year. @HYUFD may know how this is normally set up.
And the ABC is no different in concept from any other Stipendiary Minister - albeit with a somewhat higher stipend (receives around £85k iirc at present).
1 - I am not sure of the rules around work accommodation. This is work accommodation.
2 - (1) matters because the CT liability falls on the church if they own the property and it is work accommodation.
3 - Dwellings for a Minister of Religion are exempt from CT liability when empty, like those owned by charities.
4 - So that leaves Welby potenitally liable if he is in situ and not working as a Minister of Religion.
But
5 - If he is a Permitted Occupier or Licensed Occupier under rental law, CT liability does not attach to the occupier anyway. That would normally be the option rather than a rental agreement, since the latter is more complex and gives a Right to Occupy for 6 months plus makes eviction complex if relationship break down, and flexibility is needed. PO or LO will be Standard.
6 - Given that he has simply resigned with no payoff, his not being liable may be part of the deal.
7 - An alternative would be to appoint him for the period to something different that does make him a Minister of Religion, such as a Chaplain or whatever, or to make it House for Duty for the duration. HMRC do not treat half-time House for Duty as a taxable benefit, and the church being served would pick up the liability.
I see even Reform friendly sites like Guido panned the party's energy policy announcement yesterday (which included burying power cables), which feels like a strong indication it stinks.
Re header: She's safe. She's the only one in the clown show that has even the most basic understanding of economics.
That sounds like a reason for her not to be safe - as she would be surrounded by people who don't understand it but probably think they do, so would not recognise her value and think any of them could do it.
I see even Reform friendly sites like Guido panned the party's energy policy announcement yesterday (which included burying power cables), which feels like a strong indication it stinks.
Dunno. Is Guido still taking CCHQ's shilling?
The site has been very excited and keen on Reform's rise from what i can see, they leap to frame things in a Reform direction.
Take a story which opens with 'Kemi Badenoch came out swinging against any talk of a Tory-Reform pact, vowing on The Daily T podcast that the Tories will “never get into bed with Farage', but which has the title 'Reform vows no deal with Kemi, say they 'smell blood'. If they were in the pocket of CCHQ they'd focus on the first bit, not Reform's retort.
@nickschifrin BREAKING: @SecDef walks back his statement yesterday that a negotiated settlement is not likely to end with Ukraine in @NATO: "These negotiations are led by @realDonaldTrump. Everything is on the table. In his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelensky, what he decides to allow or not allow, is at the purview of the leader of the free world--President Trump. So I'm not going to stand at this podium and declare what President Trump will do or won't do, what will be in or what will be out, what concessions will be made or what concessions are not made."
That's quite a - diplomatic - response, which could mean lots of things.
The momentum for REF/Farage is starting to snowball...
They are on the same vote share as the previous poll.
Yes, but their overall lead is growing. Whilst us polling/political geeks know the individual shares are more important. the general public will just hear that Reform now leads by 6%.
Success breeds success.
The local elections are hitting at the right time for them. It's no wonder they were so annoyed by the areas which are having delays.
@nickschifrin BREAKING: @SecDef walks back his statement yesterday that a negotiated settlement is not likely to end with Ukraine in @NATO: "These negotiations are led by @realDonaldTrump. Everything is on the table. In his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelensky, what he decides to allow or not allow, is at the purview of the leader of the free world--President Trump. So I'm not going to stand at this podium and declare what President Trump will do or won't do, what will be in or what will be out, what concessions will be made or what concessions are not made."
That's quite a - diplomatic - response, which could mean lots of things.
On its face it just looks like SecDef was told not be foolish and rule things out, even if privately they are, because that's basic negotiating strategy.
The use of leader of the free world, always a bit of a silly expression, somehow looks more like Trump trying to be literal in this context, as though it were a title like emperor.
The momentum for REF/Farage is starting to snowball...
They are on the same vote share as the previous poll.
Yes, but their overall lead is growing. Whilst us polling/political geeks know the individual shares are more important. the general public will just hear that Reform now leads by 6%.
Success breeds success.
The local elections are hitting at the right time for them. It's no wonder they were so annoyed by the areas which are having delays.
Yeah, but at the same time the delays also play into their "victim" narrative and allows them to once again look like they are outside the political establishment.
Personally I find it laughable that anyone could think Farage isn't part of the establishment, but it still seems to work for him (often because of the stupid actions of his opponents more than anything)
I feel obliged to make a point I have made before. All these fit, healthy, slim people are still going to die and if they don't die of the diseases of obesity they will die of something else which just might prove even more expensive to treat.
Its not about one thing. People will be happier. People will work longer and more effectively generating tax. Happier, productive people will be less likely to vote for Putinista shills.
Not really.
Firstly, even if they work longer they are more likely to live longer as pensioners with all the consequential costs. Socially committed and caring people like my parents smoked themselves to death and died at 66 and 67 having received almost no pension for all the NI they paid over their working lives. Kerching.
Neither of them needed any care costs either other than a bit of help for my mum with her terminal cancer. Kerching kerching.
I suppose its possible that those who don't drink, eat plenty of fish and exercise regularly are happier but I have yet to see much convincing evidence of this. I have seen even less evidence that they are less likely to vote for loons like Trump or Farage.
There'll be no concerted attempt to promote healthier lifestyles because it is too difficult. However, one of the benefits of a substantially healthier, more active, less overweight populace is that people, on average, would then spend fewer years in very poor health. Crudely put, if we can create a situation in which most people remain reasonably mobile and independent until death or the last few months of their lives, as opposed to having them hobbling around, gasping, falling over at regular intervals, yo-yoing in and out of hospital and ending up in care homes, the savings would be colossal.
It'd be fascinating to get a cost benefit analysis of this, but I'm confident that an elderly population where people have a longer life expectancy but are healthy for the large majority of their retirements will still be a lot less burdensome to the public purse than one that is full of frailty and disease but where people die off younger - especially given that modern medical care means that the gap in life expectancy between those two theoretical cohorts is not actually likely to be really substantial. Medicine is very good at using expensive drugs, therapies and care to keep very unwell people alive in any case.
Studies have been done before comparing the lifetime health care costs of smokers, the obese and the healthy. They all show the healthy cost more over their lifetime and that is then compounded by the longer pension years they claim for
Re header: She's safe. She's the only one in the clown show that has even the most basic understanding of economics.
That sounds like a reason for her not to be safe - as she would be surrounded by people who don't understand it but probably think they do, so would not recognise her value and think any of them could do it.
Reform’s energy announcements look heavily focus grouped to me. Focus grouped with angry old men who are asked what really gets their goat and respond with various diatribes.
Policy by diatribe will presumably also put paid to parking wardens, speed bumps, any planning permission, call centres, people playing music on the bus (Macron’s already on that), and being asked if you have any allergies when ordering food.
The photograph of Starmer standing on the steps of the Lockheed Electra at Heston Aerodrome after his return from his appeasement treaty trip to Munich will be vomit inducing. Cometh the hour, cometh Boris Churchill!
In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:
In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.
The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.
That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.
I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.
Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:
Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.
By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.
About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.
The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.
If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.
Why not invest in fitness?
We should absolutely invest in fitness. The problem is that investing in fitness will only have effects in the long-term. You don't see a life saved by it. You don't see waiting lists dropping.
A friend used to work in charitable fundraising. She always joked that the most successful charity would be Kittens for Kids with Cancer. No-one wants to give money to Encouraging Regular People to Do More Exercise.
I once had a couple of brilliant charity ideas and took them to the Home Office and got pretty shirt shrift. Yo have to “know the right people” - cf Mrs Rory Stewart
Eg my idea of “blind dogs for the guides” barely registered. Even tho I am sure it would succeed - these lonely blind puppies would be given to young girl guides to look after - win win
And as for “Speedos for Pedos”, they basically escorted me out of the door - even though it would enable early detection of tumescence in undesirable types by the swimming pool
Not really - you just have to have a smidgeon of nouse. I hope you don't mind me bringing a few facts to the party :-) .
(Turquoise Mountain Foundation was set up by Stewart and Prince Charles and Hamid Karzai in 2005, so probably nothing to do with Mrs Stewart - they married in 2012.)
In London I'd probably go and talk to the Community Action Network (Lord Mawson's network developed as a spin off from the Bromley-by-Bow centre in the 1990s), or read a leaflet from the charity commission.
It sounds as though you may have not taken quite the right route !
What a load of nonsense. My then law firm signed off the legal agreement when Rachel left HBOS - there was absolutely no suggestion of wrongdoing and she left on excellent terms. Total waste of the BBC’s resources. @BBCNews@BBCBreaking@ChrisMasonBBC
Why we can't build shit in this country example #55483958498934
Council reject EV charging points at a Morrisons supermarket (that already has a petrol station) due to insufficient information provided in relation to potential of noise pollution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8
What a load of nonsense. My then law firm signed off the legal agreement when Rachel left HBOS - there was absolutely no suggestion of wrongdoing and she left on excellent terms. Total waste of the BBC’s resources. @BBCNews@BBCBreaking@ChrisMasonBBC
Why we can't build shit in this country example #55483958498934
Council reject EV charging points at a Morrisons supermarket due to insufficient information provided in relation to potential of noise pollution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8
Are EV charging points noisy? I honestly haven't noticed much of a scrape, rustle or hum* from the wall plugs in my house and assumed the same applied to EV chargers. Do they use a particularly noisy sort of electricity?
Why we can't build shit in this country example #55483958498934
Council reject EV charging points at a Morrisons supermarket due to insufficient information provided in relation to potential of noise pollution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8
Are EV charging points noisy? I honestly haven't noticed uch of a scrape, rustle or hum* from the wall plugs in my house and assumed the same applied to EV chargers. Do they use a particularly noisy sort of electricity?
*Great name for a rock album.
I presume it is either a) they didn't fill in the 27000 bits of paper correctly in which Section 85 b subsection 27 requires you to state this will not exceed a certain db level, b) it is some complaints about there will be cars driving in and out at later hours to get their car charged.
Reform’s energy announcements look heavily focus grouped to me. Focus grouped with angry old men who are asked what really gets their goat and respond with various diatribes.
Policy by diatribe will presumably also put paid to parking wardens, speed bumps, any planning permission, call centres, people playing music on the bus (Macron’s already on that), and being asked if you have any allergies when ordering food.
Why we can't build shit in this country example #55483958498934
Council reject EV charging points at a Morrisons supermarket (that already has a petrol station) due to insufficient information provided in relation to potential of noise pollution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8
Looks like Hamas will release hostages on Saturday after all
Plays into my hypothesis they couldn't actually physically find any alive ones (as Hamas don't hold them all, other Islamists and civilians have them) and now they have managed to locate some.
Comments
What we need is a Dutch walking and cycling culture.
It's got increasingly expensive recently because it was overly rationed in austerity, so people's health conditions had deteriorated by the time they got treatment.
The way to reduce costs longterm is to get waiting lists down, early diagnosis and treatment, and public health initiatives. People have just become lazy, driving short distances when, by the time they've parked, it would be just as quick to walk or cycle. Which in turn discourages other people from walking or cycling because it's dangerous as the roads are full of angry drivers.
Courts should be encouraged to disqualify more drivers for longer to cut NHS costs.
Consequently we do shrink a bit and quite noticeable so for my good lady
We both have reasons to be grateful to medical science, especially myself over the last 18 months, but age does not come alone and hopefully all fellow posters will enjoy a longlife and even if more frail and forgetful, still fulfill a role in the life for their family, continue to pay our taxes, and alongside @OldKingCole and my fellow octogenarians post our experiences on here, even if they are silly or annoying
Wtf is autocorrect for if it doesn't pick that up?
The thing that really pisses me off about Reeves is her 000's claim for heating whilst denying 300 quid and more to others.
Do as I say not as I do.
Contemptible.
Oppose: 54%
Support: 19%
Unsure: 27%
YouGov / Feb 11, 2025 / n=1595
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1889792241675219445
Almost as unpopular as renaming the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2024 election their NHS policy included: NHS free at point of delivery, greateruse of non NHS health care resource, magically make NHS perfect, tax breaks for privare healthcare. Plus save a zillion pounds by magic.
Their costings would come under attack, but the rest of the offer looks like routine social democracy pretending its cheap. Is that a major problem to voters who can't get an appointment with a GP about their footling trivialities?
Society?
Efficient?
Policies?
Firstly, even if they work longer they are more likely to live longer as pensioners with all the consequential costs. Socially committed and caring people like my parents smoked themselves to death and died at 66 and 67 having received almost no pension for all the NI they paid over their working lives. Kerching.
Neither of them needed any care costs either other than a bit of help for my mum with her terminal cancer. Kerching kerching.
I suppose its possible that those who don't drink, eat plenty of fish and exercise regularly are happier but I have yet to see much convincing evidence of this. I have seen even less evidence that they are less likely to vote for loons like Trump or Farage.
People who expect Farage to sell off the NHS to Elon Musk have not been paying attention.
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1890091766675644539
And the farm IHT is another stupid piece of politics.
Both to save pennies in the overall scheme.
The Brexit Party (which is the same thing as Reform, other than a name-change), polled a 6% lead with YouGov on 5-6 June 2019 (BxP 26, Lab 20, LD 20, Con 18, Grn 9).
And a lot of the fit ones retire at 55 because they are bright and fit enough to ensure that they can by being prudent in planning, and prudent in preferring having fun time at 55 rather than being a 68 year old zillionaire workhorse.
IMHO a general election which proved to be a Ref v LD one would be genuinely interesting. It is in the hands of those being polled to make it so!
What isn't, is the cost of long term treatment of chronic conditions.
It'd be fascinating to get a cost benefit analysis of this, but I'm confident that an elderly population where people have a longer life expectancy but are healthy for the large majority of their retirements will still be a lot less burdensome to the public purse than one that is full of frailty and disease but where people die off younger - especially given that modern medical care means that the gap in life expectancy between those two theoretical cohorts is not actually likely to be really substantial. Medicine is very good at using expensive drugs, therapies and care to keep very unwell people alive in any case.
I'm a bit surprised they seem to be confirming everyone, as I had thought that maybe Trump wouldn't mind if the Senate dumped RFK Jr. All this talk of increasing regulations on the food industry is pretty much the opposite of what Trump and his mates are into, and what they did last time.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/leading-figures-to-help-build-nhs-fit-for-the-future
One of my blessings is that my mind remains both active and acute, although those of a right-wing persuasion may well disagree!
Another is the continued support, assistance and encouragement of Mrs C, after 60+ years, and the forbearance of friends and family.
Farage and Le Pen are living evidence of the gender gap in the populist right. Serious, stern, no nonsense women vs charismatic, cartoonish, frequently clown-like men.
I found three records about him:
His birth registration; born in the Wantage, Berkshire area in the second quarter of 1927. Named as Bart H Woodage - definitely just scanned wrong for Bert - with mother's maiden name: Woodage
His wedding registration in 1951 to Alice McHugh (11 years his senior at 35, who was born in Ogbourne St Andrew, married there and died there after 90 years there), as Bert H Woodage
And his death registration in 2000 as Albert Hamlen Woodage (I think Alice might have added the Al to make him sound more proper)
With very little to go on, I looked up Wantage Woodages. I found one possible family; they had six daughters who could have fathered Bert, but no Bert ever mentioned
So I looked up Hamlen as a surname. I found a few possible father candidates, but one standout
A Herbert J Hamlen, who was a 51 year old single hotel proprietor at the time of Bert's conception. I found from the 1911 and 1921 censuses that he ran the Lamb Hotel in East Ilsley, near Wantage, with his older sister Ada
On the 1939 National Register, it showed everyone on his road
And 30 or so rows down, there he was. Bert Woodage with the right birth date - but scruffily written so not picked up when scanned - living on a farm with Ernest and Rose Warwick
I looked up Ernest; he'd been married ten years before he married Rose, his first wife died seven or eight months after they'd wed. He then married Rose Woodage when Bert was six
I'm pretty sure that Rose or one of her sisters got knocked up by Herbert J Hamlen, so I've started a family tree for Bert based on this "fact"
https://x.com/afneil/status/1890075759865467274?s=61
Early stage talks took place last year, but interest remains from both parties in a potential deal, the people added.
Santander has insisted that its UK retail business is “not for sale” since the Financial Times reported last month that it was exploring a potential exit after two decades on the British high street.
One person familiar with the situation said Santander had not approached any party about a sale of the UK business.
However, discussions between Santander and one of Britain’s biggest lenders are likely to raise further questions about the Spanish bank’s desire to continue fighting it out in the UK’s highly competitive mortgage market.
“Santander UK is not for sale. The UK remains a core part of Santander’s globally diversified business model”, said Santander in a statement. It added that the model had “significant potential upside for years to come, including in the UK.”
NatWest said: “we do not comment on speculation”.
https://www.ft.com/content/5868abdb-0f46-4c56-a342-49763a55cdb8
The stretching of truth that goes on doesn’t touch the dates or the actual job titles.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/ed-balls-takes-up-new-role-with-kings-college-london
Living to 98 and suddenly not waking up one morning (after a lifetime of good health) is probably optimal between cost to the country and quality of life for the person.
But does it pass the 'I would say the same thing about someone not on my own side' test? (Not for you, but for politicians - ie, would the PM say it was no big deal if it was whoever the Shadow Chancellor is?)
Success breeds success.
Relevant matters (and I can't call how they apply):
It's absolutely routine for Priests / Ministers etc to be allowed to stay in their work accommodation if necessary, as it would be empty for the interregnum anyway,and there will be a normal way of doing this - there will be scores or hundreds of cases every year. @HYUFD may know how this is normally set up.
And the ABC is no different in concept from any other Stipendiary Minister - albeit with a somewhat higher stipend (receives around £85k iirc at present).
1 - I am not sure of the rules around work accommodation. This is work accommodation.
2 - (1) matters because the CT liability falls on the church if they own the property and it is work accommodation.
3 - Dwellings for a Minister of Religion are exempt from CT liability when empty, like those owned by charities.
4 - So that leaves Welby potenitally liable if he is in situ and not working as a Minister of Religion.
But
5 - If he is a Permitted Occupier or Licensed Occupier under rental law, CT liability does not attach to the occupier anyway. That would normally be the option rather than a rental agreement, since the latter is more complex and gives a Right to Occupy for 6 months plus makes eviction complex if relationship break down, and flexibility is needed. PO or LO will be Standard.
6 - Given that he has simply resigned with no payoff, his not being liable may be part of the deal.
7 - An alternative would be to appoint him for the period to something different that does make him a Minister of Religion, such as a Chaplain or whatever, or to make it House for Duty for the duration. HMRC do not treat half-time House for Duty as a taxable benefit, and the church being served would pick up the liability.
https://urc.org.uk/urc-ministries/house-for-duty/
Do the gruesome twosome want it anyway?
Take a story which opens with 'Kemi Badenoch came out swinging against any talk of a Tory-Reform pact, vowing on The Daily T podcast that the Tories will “never get into bed with Farage', but which has the title 'Reform vows no deal with Kemi, say they 'smell blood'. If they were in the pocket of CCHQ they'd focus on the first bit, not Reform's retort.
The use of leader of the free world, always a bit of a silly expression, somehow looks more like Trump trying to be literal in this context, as though it were a title like emperor.
Personally I find it laughable that anyone could think Farage isn't part of the establishment, but it still seems to work for him (often because of the stupid actions of his opponents more than anything)
Policy by diatribe will presumably also put paid to parking wardens, speed bumps, any planning permission, call centres, people playing music on the bus (Macron’s already on that), and being asked if you have any allergies when ordering food.
*Looks forward to Kemi trying to skewer Starmer on Defra's paperclip expenditure.
............ Con Lab Alliance
24/04/82 33.0 32.6 34.5
21/04/82 32.2 32.4 35.4
14/04/82 31.4 32.3 36.2
12/04/82 31.1 32.6 36.2
31/03/82 30.8 32.8 36.4
15/03/82 30.4 32.6 37.0
28/02/82 30.5 33.2 36.4
15/02/82 30.0 33.8 36.2
05/02/82 30.0 34.0 36.0
31/01/82 29.3 34.1 36.6
25/01/82 29.6 34.4 36.1
18/01/82 29.5 35.0 35.5
(Turquoise Mountain Foundation was set up by Stewart and Prince Charles and Hamid Karzai in 2005, so probably nothing to do with Mrs Stewart - they married in 2012.)
In London I'd probably go and talk to the Community Action Network (Lord Mawson's network developed as a spin off from the Bromley-by-Bow centre in the 1990s), or read a leaflet from the charity commission.
It sounds as though you may have not taken quite the right route !
Jeez.
Total epic car crash interview with Julia HB:
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1890105168467022036
@BBCNews @BBCBreaking @ChrisMasonBBC
https://x.com/jamiehanley/status/1890032498543047108
Council reject EV charging points at a Morrisons supermarket (that already has a petrol station) due to insufficient information provided in relation to potential of noise pollution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8
"I thought Reform cared about national borders"
Hopefully when Trump and Putin carve up Europe, because of his two Scottish hotels we will be on the American side.
*Great name for a rock album.
https://youtu.be/PBMitdUoSvA?si=s8MKdBoF25C4MxFw
Jeremy Corbyn?
https://youtu.be/PgsLYDz49Ls?t=32
He asserts afaics along the way that buried cables cost the same as pylons. The last time I looked it was 5x .