Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Wise words from a pollster – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,436
    glw said:

    Even if you think that fishing rights aren't a big economic issue, it's still politically inept to put them in the spotlight again, unless you have some really big wins, and no e-gates are not a big win, there's no reason why e-gate access should not be the norm essentially everywhere.

    Starmer's political skills are barely above the level of Sunak.

    The mood music is more important than the detail, IMO.

    “We are trying to improve things” is a fair narrative. Now, there’s a political argument to be had on whether anything has improved at all, or whether alternatives should be pursued, but other parties need to engage with the issue and work out what they want. Just saying “we don’t like it” isn’t particularly insightful.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,472
    Scottish salmon producers welcome the deal which is the UKs biggest fish export .

  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793

    glw said:

    Even if you think that fishing rights aren't a big economic issue, it's still politically inept to put them in the spotlight again, unless you have some really big wins, and no e-gates are not a big win, there's no reason why e-gate access should not be the norm essentially everywhere.

    Starmer's political skills are barely above the level of Sunak.

    As I understand it we've just scrapped the entire SPS framework. No more vet certificates, traceability bullshit, import charge for inspections whether you get inspected or not etc etc.

    Out there in low information land people don't know how fucking hard we have made it to import and export food. Remove the barriers and the cost comes down and the choice available goes up.
    This does sound like a good thing. If Starmer has got this without trading away our rights to investigate new genetic modifications etc, then that’s commendable
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,005
    Andy_JS said:

    Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.

    The point is not to give anyone more money. It is to remove the bizarre incentives and cliff edges.

    We already give unemployed people money. Probably more than £12k in many cases.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,565
    Leon said:

    Ah, I have found one Guardian writer who has actually followed through and moved to Bluesky

    George Monbiot

    Problem is he’s gone from 530,000 followers to 125,000 - and those 125,000 will be people extremely likely to agree with him. He doesn’t need those people - he’s a campaigning journalist (and a rather good one - I admire his eloquent passion). He wants and needs to PERSUADE

    So what’s he gained from this move? Well, he’s stuck it to Musk, which I suppose something, but he’s also lost a huge and valuable audience

    One thing I'm *very* cynical about wrt Twitter/X; how many 'followers' are real, and not bots. Musky Baby was going to tackle the bots; IMV the situation has not improved. In fact, it may ave got worse.

    (Now he owns Twix, it is not in his interests to get rid of bots...)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,057
    Leon said:

    Ah, I have found one Guardian writer who has actually followed through and moved to Bluesky

    George Monbiot

    Problem is he’s gone from 530,000 followers to 125,000 - and those 125,000 will be people extremely likely to agree with him. He doesn’t need those people - he’s a campaigning journalist (and a rather good one - I admire his eloquent passion). He wants and needs to PERSUADE

    So what’s he gained from this move? Well, he’s stuck it to Musk, which I suppose something, but he’s also lost a huge and valuable audience

    Musk claimed that 20% of Twitter accounts were bots.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    BBC News Website Top Story....Gary sodding Lineker....
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,503

    Sometimes the Mail is worth every penny, though.

    "Breaking news : son of caravan magnate who tried to steal golden toilet from Blenheim Palace avoid prison."

    The only thing missing is his house price.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,846

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    Almost all healthy eating advice has been made up with little evidence. There is a lot of evidence that eating a varied diet is good for you, and that eating veg and fruit is good, and not too much meat. But precisely HOW MUCH is very hard to determine. And people who run these campaigns like to have a simple message. Its unarguable the the 5 a day message has stuck and much better than simply saying 'eat lots of fruit and veg".

    Others that are similar - walking 10,000 steps - no scientific basis for it being 10000.
    Drinking 2 litres of water a day - utter rubbish - we get fluid from most things we consume and no, coffee does not dehydrate you.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,577
    edited 11:16AM

    Andy_JS said:

    Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.

    The point is not to give anyone more money. It is to remove the bizarre incentives and cliff edges.

    We already give unemployed people money. Probably more than £12k in many cases.
    That's actually a bigger problem. A truly universal income would cause real issues for single mums in rented accomodation in north London. We're paying an awful lot more than £12k for that household - about £55k per year. That gets tapered off a bit if mum is in work, but...

    (Includes childcare)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,589
    So if I understand today correctly, Gary Lineker has negotiated a deal with the EU to buy Bluesky. Just another day on PB
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,472

    Sometimes the Mail is worth every penny, though.

    "Breaking news : son of caravan magnate who tried to steal golden toilet from Blenheim Palace avoid prison."

    The only thing missing is his house price.
    and whether it causes cancer
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    Almost all healthy eating advice has been made up with little evidence. There is a lot of evidence that eating a varied diet is good for you, and that eating veg and fruit is good, and not too much meat. But precisely HOW MUCH is very hard to determine. And people who run these campaigns like to have a simple message. Its unarguable the the 5 a day message has stuck and much better than simply saying 'eat lots of fruit and veg".

    Others that are similar - walking 10,000 steps - no scientific basis for it being 10000.
    Drinking 2 litres of water a day - utter rubbish - we get fluid from most things we consume and no, coffee does not dehydrate you.
    Same with “you shouldn’t drink more than three bottles of wine a day”. Absolute nonsense, plucked from nowhere
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    edited 11:18AM
    France will build a new high-security prison in its overseas department of French Guiana to house drug traffickers and radical Islamists, the country's justice minister announced during a visit to the territory.

    Gérald Darmanin told Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD) newspaper that the prison would target organised crime "at all levels" of the drug supply chain.

    The €400m (£337m) facility, which could open as early as 2028, will be built in an isolated location deep in the Amazon jungle in the northwestern region of Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v7n81emy3o
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    edited 11:18AM
    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,314
    Eabhal said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.

    The point is not to give anyone more money. It is to remove the bizarre incentives and cliff edges.

    We already give unemployed people money. Probably more than £12k in many cases.
    That's actually a bigger problem. A truly universal income would cause real issues for single mums in rented accomodation in north London. We're paying an awful lot more than £12k for that household - about £55k per year. That gets tapered off a bit if mum is in work, but...

    (Includes childcare)
    I am not particularly against ubi as an idea whatever you call it. I would however like to see numbers in the proposal. For example one thing thats always claimed is it would do away with benefits and that would be a saving in beauracracy....but as flatlander says people need different amounts to survive on depending on their circumstances
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793
    Cicero said:

    Sometimes the Mail is worth every penny, though.

    "Breaking news : son of caravan magnate who tried to steal golden toilet from Blenheim Palace avoid prison."

    The only thing missing is his house price.
    and whether it causes cancer
    And a picture of his attractive young wife showing a really surprising amount of cleavage
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469
    I said this morning the deal had upset all the right people, and the wailing and gnashing teeth from the usual suspects suggests the deal is even better than expected.

    Sovereignty!

    Taking Back Control!!

    It's all here. And there was much rejoicing.
  • ManOfGwentManOfGwent Posts: 170
    I think the issue the government will have with selling this deal in the longer run is whether voters will see any impact on their own lives. I remain convinced that the vast majority of people saw no impact on their lives from Brexit other than getting their passport stamped if they go to Europe.

    It is the framing and political Comms which will determine if this is a success or not. Reform will be over the moon that they can focus on 'betrayal'. From what we have seem of this government's ability to communicate, I can't see them getting a win from this. They probably would have been better off doing nothing and blaming any economic problems on Brexit.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,503

    Andy_JS said:

    Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.

    The point is not to give anyone more money. It is to remove the bizarre incentives and cliff edges.

    We already give unemployed people money. Probably more than £12k in many cases.
    I'm unconvinced by UBI. I understand well the arguments in favour. But to raise taxes significantly just to give the money back to people - most of whom don't need it - is incredibly inefficient. I think it is also doing a disservice to people who might need a bit of a kick up the arse to get up and go to work in the morning. For every person for whom UBI creates new opportunities I suspect there will be ten who will just sit in their room smoking weed and playing video games.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469
    @Keir_Starmer

    Three deals within two weeks.

    I’ve rolled up my sleeves to deliver for British people, British jobs, and British businesses.

    We’re putting money back in your pocket.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924417734017798147
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793
    edited 11:21AM

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,250

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,704
    edited 11:22AM

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    edited 11:22AM
    Scott_xP said:

    @Keir_Starmer

    Three deals within two weeks.

    I’ve rolled up my sleeves to deliver for British people, British jobs, and British businesses.

    We’re putting money back in your pocket.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924417734017798147

    Huh.....by taxing me more? Who is writing his tweets.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    edited 11:22AM
    Leon said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting
    Not really.

    I was annoyed by claims yesterday that Britain would need to buckle on the SPS-Fishing link.
    In the end, it hasn’t.

    Some of the smaller detail leaking out - like the Home Office access to criminal databases - was “off the table” just weeks ago.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,119
    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Even if you think that fishing rights aren't a big economic issue, it's still politically inept to put them in the spotlight again, unless you have some really big wins, and no e-gates are not a big win, there's no reason why e-gate access should not be the norm essentially everywhere.

    Starmer's political skills are barely above the level of Sunak.

    As I understand it we've just scrapped the entire SPS framework. No more vet certificates, traceability bullshit, import charge for inspections whether you get inspected or not etc etc.

    Out there in low information land people don't know how fucking hard we have made it to import and export food. Remove the barriers and the cost comes down and the choice available goes up.
    This does sound like a good thing. If Starmer has got this without trading away our rights to investigate new genetic modifications etc, then that’s commendable
    Remember the bullshit - can't possibly be aligned to EU standards* because then we can't get a trade deal with the US to import weevil-filled crap. And yet here we are with a Heads of Agreement with the US where they plan to raise their own food standards. And all because mad RFK is in charge and he dislikes the toxin-filled crap that the US food industry has churned out so far.

    *Remember that EU standards and our standards are largely one and the same. Because we significantly wrote much of the EU standards.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    edited 11:25AM
    isam said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
    30.
    Similar to that which UK has with other countries, including NZ.
    Excellent opportunity for UK to attract smart, hard-working Europeans again.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469
    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,274

    On Biden, his decision to run again in 2023 is looking even worse now. When did he know how bad the situation is? When you put yourself forward for the presidency, you're signing up for a five-year deal or so (one as candidate, four as president). Yes, there can occasionally be exceptions when you're the incumbent and there's a crisis so immediate and critical to deal with that such considerations override longer-term prospects (looking at you, FDR, 1944), but such cases are rare and were not in place in 2023.

    When he declined to withdraw, he blocked the field for a competitive primary race which at the very minimum ensured that Harris wasn't match-fit going into the campaign, probably prevented a better candidate emerging and either way undermined their democratic legitimacy. And for what? It seems an even more selfish and/or deluded decision than it did at the time.

    I agree that Biden should not have tried to run for a second term simply because of his age, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that he knew or suspected he had cancer before this week because that would imply that he deliberately avoided treatment and let it get to the advanced stage it is now apparently at. The much more plausible theory is the face value one: he had no symptoms of this at the time and decided to run because he was in denial about his aging and felt like he was still healthy at the time.

    This is just underlining that running for President in your 80s is a terrible idea because you don't know what your future holds but the actuarial tables are definitely not in your favour.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,846

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    edited 11:28AM
    Telegraph has got the leaked document,

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/19/starmers-brexit-reset-deal-read-the-full-text/

    There is a significant amount of "Working towards", "Exploring opportunities"....rather than we have legally agreed to.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,436

    I think the issue the government will have with selling this deal in the longer run is whether voters will see any impact on their own lives. I remain convinced that the vast majority of people saw no impact on their lives from Brexit other than getting their passport stamped if they go to Europe.

    It is the framing and political Comms which will determine if this is a success or not. Reform will be over the moon that they can focus on 'betrayal'. From what we have seem of this government's ability to communicate, I can't see them getting a win from this. They probably would have been better off doing nothing and blaming any economic problems on Brexit.

    I don’t think the government will get any immediate credit for this. There might be some cautious welcoming from more pro-EU voices, but I doubt it actively changes votes right now.

    The most obvious change will be which queue you line up in for passports. Is it a benefit? Probably, given the waiting times for non-EU at some access points but is it enough for people to say “thanks Labour?” I doubt it.

    What is important today is that it marks a cautious step back towards closer EU alignment and it gives the government scope to continue to improve relations and to make that a key item in its 2029 manifesto. That is what might tempt some voters back.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,679
    Scott_xP said:

    @Keir_Starmer

    Three deals within two weeks.

    I’ve rolled up my sleeves to deliver for British people, British jobs, and British businesses.

    We’re putting money back in your pocket.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924417734017798147

    Two thirds of a good tweet but the last line is a hostage to fortune and should have been left out.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,704

    isam said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
    30.
    Similar to that which UK has with other countries, including NZ.
    Excellent opportunity for UK to attract smart, hard-working Europeans again.
    5-7 years too high. Oh well, a different PM can change it if elected.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,673

    Andy_JS said:

    Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.

    The point is not to give anyone more money. It is to remove the bizarre incentives and cliff edges.

    We already give unemployed people money. Probably more than £12k in many cases.
    I'm unconvinced by UBI. I understand well the arguments in favour. But to raise taxes significantly just to give the money back to people - most of whom don't need it - is incredibly inefficient. I think it is also doing a disservice to people who might need a bit of a kick up the arse to get up and go to work in the morning. For every person for whom UBI creates new opportunities I suspect there will be ten who will just sit in their room smoking weed and playing video games.
    It would be great for early retirees with no housing costs - if you are getting even a small company pension, added to £1000 a month you could be fairly comfortable
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,119
    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    Almost all healthy eating advice has been made up with little evidence. There is a lot of evidence that eating a varied diet is good for you, and that eating veg and fruit is good, and not too much meat. But precisely HOW MUCH is very hard to determine. And people who run these campaigns like to have a simple message. Its unarguable the the 5 a day message has stuck and much better than simply saying 'eat lots of fruit and veg".

    Others that are similar - walking 10,000 steps - no scientific basis for it being 10000.
    Drinking 2 litres of water a day - utter rubbish - we get fluid from most things we consume and no, coffee does not dehydrate you.
    Same with “you shouldn’t drink more than three bottles of wine a day”. Absolute nonsense, plucked from nowhere
    What has been interesting about my nearly 2 week detox is that its made me focus on what I eat and drink. I had a pint on Friday as I sat baking in the sun on the banks of the Clyde because my hotel gave it me free. A nice Harviestoun IPA. The only alcohol I have had in nearly 2 weeks.

    I'm now resolved to drink less quantity and higher quality going forward. Same with food. Wifey bought loads of snacks for the family Eurovision party. Had a couple of bits and thought "these are shit". If I'm going to eat occasional biccies make them the really good shit.

    How much of my weight issues have been me hoovering in crap calories? And lets say nothing of the pizza I bought on Friday night to eat as I walked back to the hotel from the gig. Eugh.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793
    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
    Or here. On the platform with 600m users and which isn’t full of wankers like you

    https://x.com/barnes_joe/status/1924408205095956690?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    A mixed bag. My main concern is that there is an awful lot of “maybes” from the EU side against several “definite concessions” from the UK



  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469

    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.

    That does have a claimed scientific basis is diversity.

    I saw one suggestion that 5 a day should be read as 5 different colours.

    Zoe are now promoting 30 a week (and will sell you an easy way to do that)

    In all cases a healthy gut biome is the end goal
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 11,314

    Andy_JS said:

    Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.

    The point is not to give anyone more money. It is to remove the bizarre incentives and cliff edges.

    We already give unemployed people money. Probably more than £12k in many cases.
    I'm unconvinced by UBI. I understand well the arguments in favour. But to raise taxes significantly just to give the money back to people - most of whom don't need it - is incredibly inefficient. I think it is also doing a disservice to people who might need a bit of a kick up the arse to get up and go to work in the morning. For every person for whom UBI creates new opportunities I suspect there will be ten who will just sit in their room smoking weed and playing video games.
    It would be great for early retirees with no housing costs - if you are getting even a small company pension, added to £1000 a month you could be fairly comfortable
    Presumably under ubi the state pension would be abolished though
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,577
    edited 11:31AM
    Some sort of clear liquid falling from the sky.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 77,431
    .

    Leon said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting
    Not really.

    I was annoyed by claims yesterday that Britain would need to buckle on the SPS-Fishing link.
    In the end, it hasn’t.

    Some of the smaller detail leaking out - like the Home Office access to criminal databases - was “off the table” just weeks ago.
    It seems that the other stuff is largely not part of today's deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/19/deal-with-eu-will-make-food-cheaper-and-add-9bn-to-uk-economy-says-no-10

    I expect there will be further agreements struck over the next few months. It's not some final grand bargain today; just part of ongoing incremental improvement in relations between the UK and the EU.
    The pre-deal commentary, largely lifted from X, has been pretty meaningless.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,250

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.
    https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/68395/WHO_NMH_NPH_NNP_0308.pdf lays out the extensive scientific basis at the time, which has only grown since. Where does this instinctive contrarianism come from that you have to pretend there’s no science behind fruit and veg being good for you?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,033
    I see we're going to be exploiting "au pairs" again.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,673
    Pagan2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.

    The point is not to give anyone more money. It is to remove the bizarre incentives and cliff edges.

    We already give unemployed people money. Probably more than £12k in many cases.
    I'm unconvinced by UBI. I understand well the arguments in favour. But to raise taxes significantly just to give the money back to people - most of whom don't need it - is incredibly inefficient. I think it is also doing a disservice to people who might need a bit of a kick up the arse to get up and go to work in the morning. For every person for whom UBI creates new opportunities I suspect there will be ten who will just sit in their room smoking weed and playing video games.
    It would be great for early retirees with no housing costs - if you are getting even a small company pension, added to £1000 a month you could be fairly comfortable
    Presumably under ubi the state pension would be abolished though
    It would effectively mean you can get it when you want it though.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    edited 11:33AM
    carnforth said:

    I see we're going to be exploiting "au pairs" again.

    All about getting the Centrist Dad vote....
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469
    @Keir_Starmer

    You deserve better than the last government's deal. It wasn’t working for anyone.

    Here’s 10 ways today’s deal with the EU will benefit Britain ⬇️

    We rolled up our sleeves to deliver what the last government couldn’t.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924427923395600467
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,033

    carnforth said:

    I see we're going to be exploiting "au pairs" again.

    All about getting the Centrist Dad vote....
    It was Labour, of course, who exempted them from the minimum wage laws.
  • oniscoidoniscoid Posts: 29
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
    Or here. On the platform with 600m users and which isn’t full of wankers like you

    https://x.com/barnes_joe/status/1924408205095956690?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    A mixed bag. My main concern is that there is an awful lot of “maybes” from the EU side against several “definite concessions” from the UK



    600M? is that including the bots?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,704

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    Almost all healthy eating advice has been made up with little evidence. There is a lot of evidence that eating a varied diet is good for you, and that eating veg and fruit is good, and not too much meat. But precisely HOW MUCH is very hard to determine. And people who run these campaigns like to have a simple message. Its unarguable the the 5 a day message has stuck and much better than simply saying 'eat lots of fruit and veg".

    Others that are similar - walking 10,000 steps - no scientific basis for it being 10000.
    Drinking 2 litres of water a day - utter rubbish - we get fluid from most things we consume and no, coffee does not dehydrate you.
    Same with “you shouldn’t drink more than three bottles of wine a day”. Absolute nonsense, plucked from nowhere
    What has been interesting about my nearly 2 week detox is that its made me focus on what I eat and drink. I had a pint on Friday as I sat baking in the sun on the banks of the Clyde because my hotel gave it me free. A nice Harviestoun IPA. The only alcohol I have had in nearly 2 weeks.

    I'm now resolved to drink less quantity and higher quality going forward. Same with food. Wifey bought loads of snacks for the family Eurovision party. Had a couple of bits and thought "these are shit". If I'm going to eat occasional biccies make them the really good shit.

    How much of my weight issues have been me hoovering in crap calories? And lets say nothing of the pizza I bought on Friday night to eat as I walked back to the hotel from the gig. Eugh.
    Empty calories are almost the entire reason people get fat. Booze is a bad one, especially as it also makes you crave crap the following day.

    I used to drink ten cups of tea a day and have a biscuit with each one. That’s the equivalent of having an extra sandwich at lunchtime every day. Thankfully a weird side effect of the AZ jab was to make tea taste horrible and make me feel dizzy, so I’ve not drunk it for nearly four years.

    For all the fad diets, sticking to a certain amount of calories, and walking every day equals staying at a healthy weight. Almost everything else is excuses
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793
    oniscoid said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
    Or here. On the platform with 600m users and which isn’t full of wankers like you

    https://x.com/barnes_joe/status/1924408205095956690?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    A mixed bag. My main concern is that there is an awful lot of “maybes” from the EU side against several “definite concessions” from the UK



    600M? is that including the bots?
    Interesting reaction from a bot with a history of 27 comments
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469
    That seems like fairly solid messaging

    "The last Government's Brexit deal was shit. We have done better"

    The loons can squeal all they like, but that's the reality
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,119
    Entertaining update: Scottish Fishing describes the new deal as a "horror show" even worse than the "betrayals of 2020 and 1973"...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    carnforth said:

    I see we're going to be exploiting "au pairs" again.

    Excellent, if true.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,272
    Scott_xP said:

    @Keir_Starmer

    You deserve better than the last government's deal. It wasn’t working for anyone.

    Here’s 10 ways today’s deal with the EU will benefit Britain ⬇️

    We rolled up our sleeves to deliver what the last government couldn’t.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924427923395600467

    “We’re replacing Boriswave migrants with nice young Europeans.”
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,250
    oniscoid said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
    Or here. On the platform with 600m users and which isn’t full of wankers like you

    https://x.com/barnes_joe/status/1924408205095956690?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    A mixed bag. My main concern is that there is an awful lot of “maybes” from the EU side against several “definite concessions” from the UK

    600M? is that including the bots?
    Twitter claims 611M monthly active users, but it’s difficult to know how many are bots. This puts it behind Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, TikTok, WeChat, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Snapchat, Douyin, and Kuaishou.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,075
    carnforth said:

    I see we're going to be exploiting "au pairs" again.

    13th Duke of Wybourne voice.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    isam said:

    isam said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
    30.
    Similar to that which UK has with other countries, including NZ.
    Excellent opportunity for UK to attract smart, hard-working Europeans again.
    5-7 years too high. Oh well, a different PM can change it if elected.
    This is an excellent deal for my children, who will be able to take opportunities in Europe denied to them by the Brexit idiots.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,704
    Scott_xP said:

    That seems like fairly solid messaging

    "The last Government's Brexit deal was shit. We have done better"

    The loons can squeal all they like, but that's the reality

    Pity the poor souls who constantly whine about governments they didn’t vote for doing things they don’t like. Why don’t they get a life eh Scott?
  • oniscoidoniscoid Posts: 29
    Leon said:

    oniscoid said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
    Or here. On the platform with 600m users and which isn’t full of wankers like you

    https://x.com/barnes_joe/status/1924408205095956690?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    A mixed bag. My main concern is that there is an awful lot of “maybes” from the EU side against several “definite concessions” from the UK



    600M? is that including the bots?
    Interesting reaction from a bot with a history of 27 comments
    default ad hominem rather then answering the question
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793

    isam said:

    isam said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
    30.
    Similar to that which UK has with other countries, including NZ.
    Excellent opportunity for UK to attract smart, hard-working Europeans again.
    5-7 years too high. Oh well, a different PM can change it if elected.
    This is an excellent deal for my children, who will be able to take opportunities in Europe denied to them by the Brexit idiots.
    Yes. I agree with this. Never had any problem with nice Spanish kids working in London bars

    Indeed I never had much problem with FoM (tho I accept many did for perfectly valid reasons)

    And yeah this is great for my daughters
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,119
    British Meat Processors welcome the deal, and point out the b;leeding obvious:

    "A common misunderstanding is that an SPS agreement will mean Britain becomes a ‘rule taker’. In reality, we must comply with the rules of any of our trading partners if we want to export to them – just like America must comply with British rules if they want to send us their products."

    It truly is weaponised stupidity and ignorance from the wazzocks who parrot the line about us being a "rule taker". You want to trade with a counterparty? You have to fit their requirements.

    You don't get to dictate to them that they should do whatever you say, no matter how often the Tories say it. What makes it worse is that morons like Gullis aside, the Tories saying this guff *know it isn't true*. They just assume the person listening doesn't know any better and thus will believe the lie they are telling.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326

    Scott_xP said:

    @Keir_Starmer

    You deserve better than the last government's deal. It wasn’t working for anyone.

    Here’s 10 ways today’s deal with the EU will benefit Britain ⬇️

    We rolled up our sleeves to deliver what the last government couldn’t.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924427923395600467

    “We’re replacing Boriswave migrants with nice young Europeans.”
    Who won’t be able to access the social security
    system or council housing.
  • novanova Posts: 797

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.
    Pretty sure that when 5 a day was picked, they knew it probably should be more.

    I've read that with so many people stuck at 1-3 a day, asking them to jump to 10 or more, would be psychologically so big a difference, that they wouldn't even try. 5 was seen as acheivable.

    The 'scientific basis' of 5 a day, or 10,000 steps, is clear, in terms of being better than 1 a day, or being pretty much sedentary on 500 steps a day. I appreciate the argument that they're not science based golden numbers, but there is still solid science behind activity and healthy eating at those levels (even if the science says you could be healthier by eating even more fruit and veg).

    The 2 litres of water was different, as last I read, it was based on a mistaken reading of how much water our bodies needed, from whatever source.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,033

    British Meat Processors welcome the deal, and point out the b;leeding obvious:

    "A common misunderstanding is that an SPS agreement will mean Britain becomes a ‘rule taker’. In reality, we must comply with the rules of any of our trading partners if we want to export to them – just like America must comply with British rules if they want to send us their products."

    It truly is weaponised stupidity and ignorance from the wazzocks who parrot the line about us being a "rule taker". You want to trade with a counterparty? You have to fit their requirements.

    You don't get to dictate to them that they should do whatever you say, no matter how often the Tories say it. What makes it worse is that morons like Gullis aside, the Tories saying this guff *know it isn't true*. They just assume the person listening doesn't know any better and thus will believe the lie they are telling.

    An SPS agreements means our own rules have to match, for all food produced here, not just for that which is exported to the country in question. That's the difference, isn't it? We're not ruletakers wrt Japan, for example, but we will be wrt Europe now. Yet we will export to both. Pretending those two aren't different situations is silly.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793
    oniscoid said:

    Leon said:

    oniscoid said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
    Or here. On the platform with 600m users and which isn’t full of wankers like you

    https://x.com/barnes_joe/status/1924408205095956690?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    A mixed bag. My main concern is that there is an awful lot of “maybes” from the EU side against several “definite concessions” from the UK



    600M? is that including the bots?
    Interesting reaction from a bot with a history of 27 comments
    default ad hominem rather then answering the question
    Actually yes you’re right. I’ve no evidence you’re a bot and we shouldn’t be rude to new/infrequent commenters

    I apologise for that
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    edited 11:45AM
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
    30.
    Similar to that which UK has with other countries, including NZ.
    Excellent opportunity for UK to attract smart, hard-working Europeans again.
    5-7 years too high. Oh well, a different PM can change it if elected.
    This is an excellent deal for my children, who will be able to take opportunities in Europe denied to them by the Brexit idiots.
    Yes. I agree with this. Never had any problem with nice Spanish kids working in London bars

    Indeed I never had much problem with FoM (tho I accept many did for perfectly valid reasons)

    And yeah this is great for my daughters
    There were absolutely issues with FoM, relating to benefits eligibility, and the sheer scale was disruptive to many communities.

    For me this was outweighed by the significant uptick in smarts and energy overall from reasonably culturally sympathetic incomers.

    A youth mobility scheme, which will be capped, avoids both the issues I mention.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,291
    pm215 said:

    On Biden, his decision to run again in 2023 is looking even worse now. When did he know how bad the situation is? When you put yourself forward for the presidency, you're signing up for a five-year deal or so (one as candidate, four as president). Yes, there can occasionally be exceptions when you're the incumbent and there's a crisis so immediate and critical to deal with that such considerations override longer-term prospects (looking at you, FDR, 1944), but such cases are rare and were not in place in 2023.

    When he declined to withdraw, he blocked the field for a competitive primary race which at the very minimum ensured that Harris wasn't match-fit going into the campaign, probably prevented a better candidate emerging and either way undermined their democratic legitimacy. And for what? It seems an even more selfish and/or deluded decision than it did at the time.

    I agree that Biden should not have tried to run for a second term simply because of his age, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that he knew or suspected he had cancer before this week because that would imply that he deliberately avoided treatment and let it get to the advanced stage it is now apparently at. The much more plausible theory is the face value one: he had no symptoms of this at the time and decided to run because he was in denial about his aging and felt like he was still healthy at the time.

    This is just underlining that running for President in your 80s is a terrible idea because you don't know what your future holds but the actuarial tables are definitely not in your favour.
    Worth noting that Trump was older at inauguration this year than Biden was in 2021.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,119
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
    30.
    Similar to that which UK has with other countries, including NZ.
    Excellent opportunity for UK to attract smart, hard-working Europeans again.
    5-7 years too high. Oh well, a different PM can change it if elected.
    This is an excellent deal for my children, who will be able to take opportunities in Europe denied to them by the Brexit idiots.
    Yes. I agree with this. Never had any problem with nice Spanish kids working in London bars

    Indeed I never had much problem with FoM (tho I accept many did for perfectly valid reasons)

    And yeah this is great for my daughters
    Radical idea - can we now have a sensible debate about migratation? It gets set up as black-and-white absolutism. You are particularly prone to this, but the realities are never either/or.

    Migration numbers over the last 5 years are completely unsustainable and need to be reduced very significantly. Very few politicians disagree with that.

    But at the same time we do need migrants if we want a functioning NHS and care sector and food industry and a whole pile of jobs we can't fill otherwise. The obvious move is to invest heavily now to train the next generation of doctors and builders so that we can then transition away from needing migrants to fill the roles. Costs more in the short term, saves in the long term.

    We could even refocus universities and colleges, rescuing them from bankruptcy and moving away from the vast numbers of mainly chinese students the sector is wholly reliant on.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,227
    edited 11:47AM

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    The girlfriend and I are making a conscious effort to eat more fish. My current favourite is pan fried seabass fillet.

    The next stage is learning how to butcher a whole fish. We want to buy them fresh off the North Shields fish quay
    I went on a day course with a local cook to learn about that; I got to try a number dishes and to take some of my own home.

    Lesson from my sister: butcher before freezing. They had a huge salmon which they froze in one piece, and it lurked at the bottom like Jaws for 6 months whilst they psyched themselves up to take a hacksaw to it.

    I like this place, where the fishmonger buys from Newlyn Fish Market each day and box it up. Comes to you fresh so you can portion and freeze. They have a nice selection of fish boxes, including what is really a "selection of the day". If you want them to they will fillet.
    https://www.fresh-cornish-fish.co.uk/

    The other place I use is the Port of Lancaster Smokehouse, which is great for kippers, and I top up to minimum free delivery order with gamey things.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,856
    edited 11:47AM
    Just surfacing after 4 days of music festival, it seems second-referendum Starmer is determined to gift us Prime Minister Nigel Farage...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,994
    carnforth said:

    I see we're going to be exploiting "au pairs" again.

    A certain genre of films left me with unrealistic expectations about what au pairs/nannies would be willing to do for me.

    Thank you Mary Poppins/Nanny McPhee.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    carnforth said:

    British Meat Processors welcome the deal, and point out the b;leeding obvious:

    "A common misunderstanding is that an SPS agreement will mean Britain becomes a ‘rule taker’. In reality, we must comply with the rules of any of our trading partners if we want to export to them – just like America must comply with British rules if they want to send us their products."

    It truly is weaponised stupidity and ignorance from the wazzocks who parrot the line about us being a "rule taker". You want to trade with a counterparty? You have to fit their requirements.

    You don't get to dictate to them that they should do whatever you say, no matter how often the Tories say it. What makes it worse is that morons like Gullis aside, the Tories saying this guff *know it isn't true*. They just assume the person listening doesn't know any better and thus will believe the lie they are telling.

    An SPS agreements means our own rules have to match, for all food produced here, not just for that which is exported to the country in question. That's the difference, isn't it? We're not ruletakers wrt Japan, for example, but we will be wrt Europe now. Yet we will export to both. Pretending those two aren't different situations is silly.
    Correct.

    Ideally we would have “equivalence”, but the EU won’t concede.

    We are promised certain exceptions from dynamic aligbment, and some modest abilty to input into new rule-making, but we’ll also be expected to put some small amount of money in.

    The devil might be in the detail, but food exporters, andf food lovers, should be rejoicing today. I hope this reverses the loss in variety and quality evident on British shelves.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    This looks like a v good deal.

    Britain refused to link the indefinite removal of SPS (which has been a disaster for food exports, and ESPECIALLY seafood) to indefinite extension of Boris’s fishing deal.

    Instead they’ve simply extended the fishing deal for 12 years.

    Boris’s fishing deal IS suboptimal - at least compared with Norway and Iceland, who never sacrificed sovereignty over fishing stocks - but the percentage of quota Europe has been allowed to take has declined year on year, and fishing stocks have been recovering outside the CFP.

    For Farage to claim the fishing industry will now die is a simple lie.

    The other stuff, on youth mobility, passport gates, musician travel, access to criminal databases, and acess to the EU defence fund, is also excellent.

    Again, this is very positive for the UK.

    What is the upper age limit on the Youth Mobility Scheme?
    30.
    Similar to that which UK has with other countries, including NZ.
    Excellent opportunity for UK to attract smart, hard-working Europeans again.
    5-7 years too high. Oh well, a different PM can change it if elected.
    This is an excellent deal for my children, who will be able to take opportunities in Europe denied to them by the Brexit idiots.
    Yes. I agree with this. Never had any problem with nice Spanish kids working in London bars

    Indeed I never had much problem with FoM (tho I accept many did for perfectly valid reasons)

    And yeah this is great for my daughters
    There were absolutely issues with FoM, relating to benefits eligibility, and the sheer scale was disruptive to many communities.

    For me this was outweighed by the significant uptick in smarts and energy overall from reasonably culturally sympathetic incomers.

    A youth mobility scheme, which will be capped, avoids both the issues I mention.
    The problem with FoM was actually on the British side. Because our welfare state is constructed to hand out benefits to the most needy regardless of contribution

    If we’d moved - or do ever move - to a much more sensible contributory system, then FoM would be much more acceptable
  • oniscoidoniscoid Posts: 29
    Leon said:

    oniscoid said:

    Leon said:

    oniscoid said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Er, do you have all the details of the final deal then? Because no one else does

    I suggest you are wishcasting

    Full details

    https://bsky.app/profile/news-feed.bsky.social/post/3lpje42l22v2u

    On the platform you don't like
    Or here. On the platform with 600m users and which isn’t full of wankers like you

    https://x.com/barnes_joe/status/1924408205095956690?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    A mixed bag. My main concern is that there is an awful lot of “maybes” from the EU side against several “definite concessions” from the UK



    600M? is that including the bots?
    Interesting reaction from a bot with a history of 27 comments
    default ad hominem rather then answering the question
    Actually yes you’re right. I’ve no evidence you’re a bot and we shouldn’t be rude to new/infrequent commenters

    I apologise for that
    accepted - thank you
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,846

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.
    https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/68395/WHO_NMH_NPH_NNP_0308.pdf lays out the extensive scientific basis at the time, which has only grown since. Where does this instinctive contrarianism come from that you have to pretend there’s no science behind fruit and veg being good for you?
    FFS sake I'm not saying that at all. I believe eating a widely varied diet with lots of fruit and veg is the best diet. My point, which I am clearly fairly to explain, is that there is no basis for saying FIVE different fruit/veg portions. Thats it. FIVE. It was a number chosen because the true number (as YOU have suggested - TEN - would be too ambitious).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793

    Scott_xP said:

    @Keir_Starmer

    You deserve better than the last government's deal. It wasn’t working for anyone.

    Here’s 10 ways today’s deal with the EU will benefit Britain ⬇️

    We rolled up our sleeves to deliver what the last government couldn’t.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924427923395600467

    “We’re replacing Boriswave migrants with nice young Europeans.”
    Who won’t be able to access the social security
    system or council housing.
    Also, let’s be honest, most of us prefer the nice young European workers to the Boriswave

    They are more likely to assimilate,less culturally different or even hostile, and data shows they will be net fiscal contributors
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,472
    edited 11:52AM
    What lovely warm words from Ursula .
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,846
    nova said:

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.
    Pretty sure that when 5 a day was picked, they knew it probably should be more.

    I've read that with so many people stuck at 1-3 a day, asking them to jump to 10 or more, would be psychologically so big a difference, that they wouldn't even try. 5 was seen as acheivable.

    The 'scientific basis' of 5 a day, or 10,000 steps, is clear, in terms of being better than 1 a day, or being pretty much sedentary on 500 steps a day. I appreciate the argument that they're not science based golden numbers, but there is still solid science behind activity and healthy eating at those levels (even if the science says you could be healthier by eating even more fruit and veg).

    The 2 litres of water was different, as last I read, it was based on a mistaken reading of how much water our bodies needed, from whatever source.
    I'm not debating that walking more is good and eating more fruit and veg is good. I am suggesting that the numbers that have become set in stone (FIVE and TEN THOUSAND) have no basis as the golden numbers (your phrase, which I like).
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,032

    Was this the final straw that brought Gary Lineker's BBC career to an end?

    Gary Lineker's vicious dig at his BBC boss while apologising for antisemitism was the 'final straw' for the corporation with the star expected to resign in shame today.

    The 64-year-old said that Alex Kay-Jelski had 'no television experience' and suggested his plans to revamp Match of the Day without him would fail.

    A BBC source has claimed that the criticism of Mr Kay-Jelski may have been the 'final straw' for the corporation who had 'indulged him [Lineker] bending its rules to breaking point'.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14726437/Was-final-straw-brought-Gary-Linekers-BBC-career-end-Match-Day-hosts-dig-boss-Alex-Kay-Jelski-revealed-interview-published-antisemitic-rat-post-scandal.html

    Oh dear, where did Mr Nice Guy go?
    Mr Nice Guy is watching re-runs of post-Clarkson Top Gear, perhaps.

    Whatever you think of his crisps and politics, Lineker was a damn good MotD host.
    No payoff either.. chortle chortle...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,227
    edited 11:58AM
    nova said:

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.
    Pretty sure that when 5 a day was picked, they knew it probably should be more.

    I've read that with so many people stuck at 1-3 a day, asking them to jump to 10 or more, would be psychologically so big a difference, that they wouldn't even try. 5 was seen as acheivable.

    The 'scientific basis' of 5 a day, or 10,000 steps, is clear, in terms of being better than 1 a day, or being pretty much sedentary on 500 steps a day. I appreciate the argument that they're not science based golden numbers, but there is still solid science behind activity and healthy eating at those levels (even if the science says you could be healthier by eating even more fruit and veg).

    The 2 litres of water was different, as last I read, it was based on a mistaken reading of how much water our bodies needed, from whatever source.
    5 a day surely comes under Good Guidance, and is sensible. Having an argument about 4 or 6 being attested in double blind randomised trials is a bit of a red herring imp - it's about changing the direction of travel.

    Like the 10,000, there's no problem with target-obsessives focusing on "at least exactly 5" - as long as it stays a servant not a master.

    I did about 18,000 steps on Saturday instead of 10000, and I blame the National Trust.

    I used one of their estate maps for a walking route, and they had very sensibly (!) completely left off a lane with their estate houses on it so that no rogue drivers would try and go down it despite the "residents access only" sign. So when I got there I thought "that's a road not a bridleway so that can't be it", and I reached the next village, Bramley Vale, nearly 2 miles away before a traditional Derbyhire bloke in his Council House back yard told me to "go back that way, youth". Good for me, but I was stiff on Sunday.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    edited 11:55AM

    Was this the final straw that brought Gary Lineker's BBC career to an end?

    Gary Lineker's vicious dig at his BBC boss while apologising for antisemitism was the 'final straw' for the corporation with the star expected to resign in shame today.

    The 64-year-old said that Alex Kay-Jelski had 'no television experience' and suggested his plans to revamp Match of the Day without him would fail.

    A BBC source has claimed that the criticism of Mr Kay-Jelski may have been the 'final straw' for the corporation who had 'indulged him [Lineker] bending its rules to breaking point'.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14726437/Was-final-straw-brought-Gary-Linekers-BBC-career-end-Match-Day-hosts-dig-boss-Alex-Kay-Jelski-revealed-interview-published-antisemitic-rat-post-scandal.html

    Oh dear, where did Mr Nice Guy go?
    Mr Nice Guy is watching re-runs of post-Clarkson Top Gear, perhaps.

    Whatever you think of his crisps and politics, Lineker was a damn good MotD host.
    No payoff either.. chortle chortle...
    Unless they have pulled his podcast deal, he still gets a massive payoff. Non-exclusive rights to host his podcasts on BBC Sounds starting days after their first release on other platforms, is not a business deal, its a payoff.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,250

    nico67 said:

    The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .

    We should change the fact that we don't though.

    The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
    What does Wikipedia say on LuckyGuy’s claim here?

    “5 A Day is any of various national campaigns in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of 80 g of fruit and vegetables each day, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization that individuals consume "a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers)."[1] A meta-analysis of the many studies of this issue was published in 2017 and found that consumption of double the minimum recommendation – 800g or ten a day – provided an increased protection against all forms of mortality.[2][3] In some places, people are being encouraged to aim for not just five portions a day, but seven.
    So as suggested 5 a day does not have scientific basis.
    https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/68395/WHO_NMH_NPH_NNP_0308.pdf lays out the extensive scientific basis at the time, which has only grown since. Where does this instinctive contrarianism come from that you have to pretend there’s no science behind fruit and veg being good for you?
    FFS sake I'm not saying that at all. I believe eating a widely varied diet with lots of fruit and veg is the best diet. My point, which I am clearly fairly to explain, is that there is no basis for saying FIVE different fruit/veg portions. Thats it. FIVE. It was a number chosen because the true number (as YOU have suggested - TEN - would be too ambitious).
    Great. I am glad we are no longer talking at cross purposes. In other words, there is a scientific basis behind having a national campaign to encourage people to eat 5 a day, and Luckyguy was talking bollocks.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,239
    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    On Biden, other conditions other than dementia are possible. My partner's best guess is Parkinson's.

    Is she a Doctors receptionist ?
    She's a Doctor specialising in geriatrics.

    Brilliant ability to diagnose a complete stranger from snippets on TV
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,102

    carnforth said:

    I see we're going to be exploiting "au pairs" again.

    A certain genre of films left me with unrealistic expectations about what au pairs/nannies would be willing to do for me.

    Thank you Mary Poppins/Nanny McPhee.
    "Daddy, what's an au pair?"
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,999
    Radio 4: M&S and Co-op still haven't sorted out their cyber attack problems. They still have empty shelves, as well as M&S online shopping continuing to be inoperative.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,793
    I can report that my 18 year old daughter in Australia - about to get a UK passport via her Dad - is delighted with the youth mobility scheme
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469

    Just surfacing after 4 days of music festival, it seems second-referendum Starmer is determined to gift us Prime Minister Nigel Farage...

    @BestForBritain

    "In another political universe, Leavers would be claiming this flurry of deals as a “Brexit benefit”. But as they speak only of British failure, Labour believes it can trap Reform and the Tories on the wrong side of both voters and business." ~AA

    QED
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Keir_Starmer

    You deserve better than the last government's deal. It wasn’t working for anyone.

    Here’s 10 ways today’s deal with the EU will benefit Britain ⬇️

    We rolled up our sleeves to deliver what the last government couldn’t.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1924427923395600467

    “We’re replacing Boriswave migrants with nice young Europeans.”
    Who won’t be able to access the social security
    system or council housing.
    Also, let’s be honest, most of us prefer the nice young European workers to the Boriswave

    They are more likely to assimilate,less culturally different or even hostile, and data shows they will be net fiscal contributors
    Pretty much, with the exception of certain A8 countries.
    But again, that was a conscious trade-off I was personally OK with. Others weren’t.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    Andy_JS said:

    Radio 4: M&S and Co-op still haven't sorted out their cyber attack problems. They still have empty shelves, as well as M&S online shopping continuing to be inoperative.

    I was in a Co-Op the other day, the shelves were bare.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,268
    dixiedean said:
    This is similar to one of Lord Denning's celebrated judgments, about cricket balls. Nothing on earth was going to get Denning to stop people playing cricket. Miller v Jackson. Few write judgments in this style today.

    https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/6.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson#:~:text=Lord Denning MR dissented from,any past or future damage".
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,377
    Starmer's going to talk constantly about rolling up his sleeves, isn't he?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142

    Starmer's going to talk constantly about rolling up his sleeves, isn't he?

    Did you know his father was a tool maker?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,469
    @soph_husk

    Keir Starmer says “Britain is back on the world stage”

    He hails recent deals with India and US and says now a “landmark deal” has been secured with the EU too
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,282
    Starmer is making a lot of promises about reducing bills

    Hostage to fortune?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 84,142
    Scott_xP said:

    @soph_husk

    Keir Starmer says “Britain is back on the world stage”

    He hails recent deals with India and US and says now a “landmark deal” has been secured with the EU too

    I remember another PM who boasting about doing lots of trade deals.....
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,326
    Scott_xP said:

    @soph_husk

    Keir Starmer says “Britain is back on the world stage”

    He hails recent deals with India and US and says now a “landmark deal” has been secured with the EU too

    I don’t like Keir or Labour v much.
    But it’s churlish to deny the reality of this achievement.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,033

    Starmer is making a lot of promises about reducing bills

    Hostage to fortune?

    Not much lower for him to sink - I think the lying's baked in now.
Sign In or Register to comment.