Skip to content

Keir and present danger – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,174
edited April 27 in General
Keir and present danger – politicalbetting.com

Andy Burnham’s allies have urged Angela Rayner to strike a leadership pact that would see her named as his successor in Downing StreetRead how Labour sources claim the pair discussed the idea at a secret summit ?https://t.co/N32l5yKbNc pic.twitter.com/CSpICMYMd9

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417
    One thing I find very troubling is that Starmer appears to have the same barber as Pete Hegseth....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,035

    One thing I find very troubling is that Starmer appears to have the same barber as Pete Hegseth....

    It’s the same middle class middle aged hair cut you see everywhere combined with a Rolex Submariner and D&G trainers
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,363

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472

    One thing I find very troubling is that Starmer appears to have the same barber as Pete Hegseth....

    It’s the same middle class middle aged hair cut you see everywhere combined with a Rolex Submariner and D&G trainers
    I prefer it to Bozo's.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,984
    FPT…

    Foxy said:

    Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue.

    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.
    That’s bollocks. That’s not what is driving this change. See https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england#how-and-why-did-trends-in-life-expectancy-change-after-2011? for discussion of what is.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,035

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    According to the I paper Rayner is close to resolving her tax issue .

    I think the issue is Starmers poor judgement has been in the spotlight and unless she’s cleared as in no HMRC penalty and they deem it to be a genuine mistake then it’s going to be risky putting in a new leader with that baggage.

    As much as I like Rayner one would think Labour need a squeaky clean new leader who won’t immediately be portrayed as a tax cheat by most of the media .
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472
    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,628
    Kier today goon tomorrow
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472
    Anyone who could be labelled as Continuity Starmer won't have a chance.

    Alas, I think that puts the lass from The Heed* out of the running.



    *Phillipson.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,875

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
    More importantly, we have been for decades. And more subtly, we treated short-term windfalls as long-term entitlements.

    And all those bills have finally turned inescapably red.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,919

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,030
    edited April 27

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,446
    *coughs nervously* There may be an extra 'and' in the title.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
    Electrolysis is a terrible way to make hydrogen - very inefficient, due to fundamental physics issues.

    The classic comment on hydrogen is that many of the problems with it go away - if you add carbon.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,035

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
    And storage of clean renewable power does not need to be very efficient as it would just be wasted or simply not generated otherwise
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,592
    AnneJGP said:

    *coughs nervously* There may be an extra 'and' in the title.

    Well done for spotting my, ahem, deliberate mistake.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,618

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Are you confusing that with smelling and lighting your own farts?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417
    edited April 27

    FPT…

    Foxy said:

    Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue.

    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.
    That’s bollocks. That’s not what is driving this change. See https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england#how-and-why-did-trends-in-life-expectancy-change-after-2011? for discussion of what is.
    Yes, Covid was on the Tories' watch. From your quoted source:

    "In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic caused the largest fall in life expectancy in England since World War II (see Figure 2). Although life expectancy recovered partially thereafter, in 2022 it remained below the 2019 pre-pandemic level."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,930

    AnneJGP said:

    *coughs nervously* There may be an extra 'and' in the title.

    Well done for spotting my, ahem, deliberate mistake.
    Ages ago, when I did proofing for myself and others, one of my checks was to search for 'a a' 'the the' and 'and and'. Surprising how many could show up.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
    We can store hydrogen in salt caverns, as we do with natural gas. And once a hydrogen transmission network is established ( see Project Union) we'll have line pack.

    Hydrogen is certainly a better seasonal storage vector than batteries.

    And if we are only going to use it in peaking plants, rather than mid-merit, the quantities required won't be so great.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,190
    Good morning

    Starmer and present and danger works for me
  • FPT:
    Dopermean said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Power to methane is one of those things you think could never work... But is shockingly close to being economic.

    What's the efficiency of that?
    Conversion to methane, burning and CCS doesn't seem an efficient cycle.
    Conversion to hydrogen doesn't require CCS.
    An idea I love is:
    - Use spare electricity for Electrolysis to make H2 and O2.
    - Sabatier reaction CO2 + H2 -> CH4 + H2O (exothermic).
    - Take pure CO2 and add that O2 to it at 20% (so it's easy to handle).
    - Burn CH4 in that CO2+O2 -> pure CO2 + H2O.
    - CO2 goes back to the Sabatier reaction.
    - Closed cycle.

    No idea if this a) works and b) is the "close to being economic" solution though.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
    Electrolysis is a terrible way to make hydrogen - very inefficient, due to fundamental physics issues.

    The classic comment on hydrogen is that many of the problems with it go away - if you add carbon.
    I agree that it is low efficiency. But if you are using surplus renewable power, that doesn't matter.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,919
    edited April 27
    Bloody hell, some US gimp on R4 giving the full sane wash for Trump atm. Essentially Trump sees KCIII as a fellow monarch and will thus give him due respect. Also Chuck will nudge Starmer into going balls deep with USA over Iran.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
    Electrolysis is a terrible way to make hydrogen - very inefficient, due to fundamental physics issues.

    The classic comment on hydrogen is that many of the problems with it go away - if you add carbon.
    I agree that it is low efficiency. But if you are using surplus renewable power, that doesn't matter.
    It does if there's a more efficient way of doing the same thing, though.
    But you've got to start somewhere.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,579
    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,146
    Nigelb said:

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
    Electrolysis is a terrible way to make hydrogen - very inefficient, due to fundamental physics issues.

    The classic comment on hydrogen is that many of the problems with it go away - if you add carbon.
    I agree that it is low efficiency. But if you are using surplus renewable power, that doesn't matter.
    It does if there's a more efficient way of doing the same thing, though.
    But you've got to start somewhere.
    You can store hydrogen in ammonia.
    You're after an efficient closed cycle for energy storage, the fewer extra processes the more likely it will be efficient.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,146

    Bloody hell, some US gimp on R4 giving the full sane wash for Trump atm. Essentially Trump sees KCIII as a fellow monarch and will thus give him due respect. Also Chuck will nudge Starmer into going balls deep with USA over Iran.

    Is it a Justin Webb morning?
    I thought Chuck was grabbing at the (lack of) security issues to cancel his visit?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    FPT I think a lot of the interest in tidal lagoons simply stems from the fact that various governments have rejected them, and the blob must be wrong.

    But it is possible for the blob to right on occasion.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,467
    MelonB said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
    bollox
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,483
    MelonB said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
    It's the immigration theory of everything, increasingly popular among the hard of thinking and rightwingers looking for a handy scapegoat
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,467

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
    All in the geography Mark, not all of us die in our 50's we also have pockets like the home counties where the rich live long and prosperous lives. I just wish I lived in one of them.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,483
    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,434
    Have we noted that this week Starmer has comprehensively lost both the New Statesman (tragedy and farce) and the Economist (Starmer cannot govern)?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,875

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
    More importantly, we have been for decades. And more subtly, we treated short-term windfalls as long-term entitlements.

    And all those bills have finally turned inescapably red.
    For me the crazy spot was after the birth of our first child. My wife had a decent job, and after maternity leave she went back. We realised that by the time she'd paid for tax and childcare, she was working for free. So she quit.

    We have a society where families need 2 jobs to pay the bills. Housing costs are unaffordable without 2 incomes and even then can be impossible for many. As a starter for 10, that's a bad place to be.
    The maddening thing being that there's no intrinsic reason for houses to be as expensive as they are. We've just collectively voted for policies that make them so.

    And that has meant that there's less left over for useful investment, and here we are.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417
    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    So like MAGA...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472
    On Sky News now: Wacky Zacky talking about wacky backy.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,919
    edited April 27

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
    Bloody Jocks livin' ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    There is a phenomenon where people on benefits think they are uniquely deserving of them, and everyone else is a scrounger/fraudster. They will often have an even harsher attitude than someone like MaxPB. And then they will delude themselves in thinking any change to the system wouldn’t harm them too.

    I don’t doubt that Reform will do very well with this cohort because almost everyone is aspirational, even if this gets wildly and irrationally optimistic with social mobility so limited. Look at how many poor people oppose inheritance tax because they think they are just one lucky break away from millions.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417
    malcolmg said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
    All in the geography Mark, not all of us die in our 50's we also have pockets like the home counties where the rich live long and prosperous lives. I just wish I lived in one of them.
    Can't see you liking life in the Home Counties, malcy. It would just FEEL like you were living to be 200...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417

    MelonB said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
    It's the immigration theory of everything, increasingly popular among the hard of thinking and rightwingers looking for a handy scapegoat
    As is the "immigration has nothing to do with anything" theory of everything. Failure to acknowledge its consequences willl deliver you Prime Minister Nigel Farage.

    We'll then look to you as a handy scapegoat.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417
    Eabhal said:

    FPT I think a lot of the interest in tidal lagoons simply stems from the fact that various governments have rejected them, and the blob must be wrong.

    But it is possible for the blob to right on occasion.

    Just not this time.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,919
    edited April 27
    malcolmg said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
    All in the geography Mark, not all of us die in our 50's we also have pockets like the home counties where the rich live long and prosperous lives. I just wish I lived in one of them.
    Indeed, I can walk 200 yards and I cross the border into the neighbourhood with (I think) the lowest life expectancy in Scotland. Fittingly the Louden Tavern marks the boundary.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,816
    I applaud TSE's decision to use my idea for a threader headline!

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5517142#Comment_5517142

    In other news, Clear And Present Danger was actually on Freeview last night! TLC Channel 12
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553

    FPT:

    Taking captured CO2, reacting it with electrolytic hydrogen to make methane, burning the methane in a CCGT and then having to capture the same CO2 again is, in my view, a fecking bonkers idea.

    This, however, doesn't stop people wanting to do it.

    Better to use the hydrogen as fuel for power generation.

    Isn't it the hydrogen storage that's the issue? If the proposal is to use electrolysis as a was of storing spare PV energy created during the summer for example methane would be easier to store then hydrogen surely?

    image
    Electrolysis is a terrible way to make hydrogen - very inefficient, due to fundamental physics issues.

    The classic comment on hydrogen is that many of the problems with it go away - if you add carbon.
    I agree that it is low efficiency. But if you are using surplus renewable power, that doesn't matter.
    There’s some work with catalytic hydrogen generation that would be a better way.

    Methane is basically better, more efficient hydrogen. In many ways.

    You get better storage properties, less leak issues, chemistry… the list goes on and on.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    Except, those who were literally working themselves to death will have dropped out the figures. Miners, those dying of asbestos-related cancers, workplace fatal accidents - all have now largely dropped out the figures, certainly from where they would have been twenty or thirty years ago.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,695

    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
    I'm not sure what he means by "migrants" - the word seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. Are we talking about anyone who has arrived in the past 5-10years, anyone who came in via Freedom of Movement when we were in the EU or just those who have arrived illegally on "the boats"?

    Or does it mean anyone not born in the UK but who has acquired the right of permanent residence?

    I note the Epsom "rape", which got the usual rent-a-mob down to the Surrey town and caused disturbances, turned out to be a non-event. That's the pernicious impact of social media and misinformation.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9370jqxy18o
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
    Bloody Jocks livin' ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    Der yer want that deep fried then?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553
    a

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
    More importantly, we have been for decades. And more subtly, we treated short-term windfalls as long-term entitlements.

    And all those bills have finally turned inescapably red.
    For me the crazy spot was after the birth of our first child. My wife had a decent job, and after maternity leave she went back. We realised that by the time she'd paid for tax and childcare, she was working for free. So she quit.

    We have a society where families need 2 jobs to pay the bills. Housing costs are unaffordable without 2 incomes and even then can be impossible for many. As a starter for 10, that's a bad place to be.
    The maddening thing being that there's no intrinsic reason for houses to be as expensive as they are. We've just collectively voted for policies that make them so.

    And that has meant that there's less left over for useful investment, and here we are.
    I’ll have to find the economist who got shouted at for saying, way way back that if you moved to 2 income mortgages based on 4x both salaries and had a relatively invariant amount of housing….
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,483

    MelonB said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
    It's the immigration theory of everything, increasingly popular among the hard of thinking and rightwingers looking for a handy scapegoat
    As is the "immigration has nothing to do with anything" theory of everything. Failure to acknowledge its consequences willl deliver you Prime Minister Nigel Farage.

    We'll then look to you as a handy scapegoat.
    I'm sure the strategy of parroting his talking points will continue its long record of success.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,417

    malcolmg said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
    All in the geography Mark, not all of us die in our 50's we also have pockets like the home counties where the rich live long and prosperous lives. I just wish I lived in one of them.
    Indeed, I can walk 200 yards and I cross the border into the neighbourhood with (I think) the lowest life expectancy in Scotland. Fittingly the Louden Tavern marks the boundary.
    You - walk? What's wrong with a mobility scooter?
  • Khan at virtually neutral as a chap in power since 2016 is very different to the visceral hatred I read on Twitter daily.

    My view on him is: “meh”.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451
    System said:

    Keir and present danger – politicalbetting.com

    Andy Burnham’s allies have urged Angela Rayner to strike a leadership pact that would see her named as his successor in Downing StreetRead how Labour sources claim the pair discussed the idea at a secret summit ?https://t.co/N32l5yKbNc pic.twitter.com/CSpICMYMd9

    Read the full story here

    Why would she agree to that?

    He’s not eligible to be a candidate. She certainly has flaws, HMRC just being the most prominent, but has a decent chance of winning.

    For me this is (a) mind games to undermine her confidence; and (b) unstated misogyny
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342
    It is this "the system is unfair" feeling which will drive people towards Reform whatever facts are presented about Reform and their candidates and elected representatives. It almost doesn't matter what they do, it can't be as bad as the lived reality etc.

    It doesn't have to be like that. Politicians of all parties used to be good at delivering a feel good veneer, even if it was at best stuck onto tatty chipboard underneath. Today's lot have forgotten that trick, which to go back on topic is the reason why the Keir plotters have a problem.

    With one exception - Burnham. Bottle up the Manchester magic and sprinkle it over the whole country and they can turn things around. I know its difficult for him to get to Number 10 and more difficult for the people he'd bypass to get the job, but there really is no other option.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,919
    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
    I'm not sure what he means by "migrants" - the word seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. Are we talking about anyone who has arrived in the past 5-10years, anyone who came in via Freedom of Movement when we were in the EU or just those who have arrived illegally on "the boats"?

    Or does it mean anyone not born in the UK but who has acquired the right of permanent residence?

    I note the Epsom "rape", which got the usual rent-a-mob down to the Surrey town and caused disturbances, turned out to be a non-event. That's the pernicious impact of social media and misinformation.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9370jqxy18o
    If Matt Goodwin & his pals have their way it also means children of immigrants.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    Die to pressure from backbenchers, UNISON and lobbyists like the IPPR about look likely to back down on changes to ILR which means more taxpayers money as they get full access to the benefits system.

    Carry on working hard. Others need your money 👍
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,984
    malcolmg said:

    MelonB said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
    bollox
    Let's try to unpack exactly why @MarqueeMark is so wrong. First, MM appears to view differences in life expectancy to be permanent ("migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population") for reasons he does not expand on. That is, if you are Afghan, he proposes that you are always less healthy than someone who is British. However, the main reason life expectancies are different in the two countries is because Afghanistan is a much more dangerous place to live, because it has terrible healthcare. It's being in Afghanistan that is the problem, not being Afghan.

    MM also makes the very common mistake of misunderstanding what life expectancy numbers mean. Afghanistan's life expectancy is 59 versus 80 in the UK (2021 figures). People often presume that this means most Afghans live to be about 59. However, this is not the case. The lower life expectancy is driven by high infant mortality, which brings down the average, but if you survive infancy, then conditional life expectancy is much higher. The difference between life expectancy at birth between Afghanistan and the UK is 21 years, but conditional life expectancy at age 15 in Afghanistan is an additional 67 years, and the UK figure is also 67 years!

    Moreover, generally immigrants live longer than native populations: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32781-8/fulltext To simplify, we think this is a healthy migrant effect: people who migrate tend to be healthier than people who stay where they are. To quote:

    The aggregation of available data on mortality in migrant populations is crucial for comprehensively and rigorously summarising the knowledge base, providing insight with regard to the association between migration and mortality to inform health services, and countering discriminatory or hostile policies.36,37 Contrary to the negative representation of migrants in the media as a burden to health systems,38 our research provides substantial evidence in support of the mortality advantage of migrants compared with the general population in high-income countries. These results therefore challenge misconceptions and policies that do injustice to migrants, representing them as a risk and burden to health systems and society, and instead highlight positive contributions of migration in these countries.

    Previous research3,39 has identified several factors that might contribute to improved health outcomes in migrants compared with host populations, and non-migrating peers in countries of origin. Data supporting a healthy migrant hypothesis suggest that healthier migrants might be more likely to choose to migrate, benefit from decisions to migrate, or successfully migrate, and that health is thus a predictor of migration.40,41
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    Only to exhaustion? You lazy git! 😉
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451

    FPT…

    Foxy said:

    Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue.

    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.
    That’s bollocks. That’s not what is driving this change. See https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england#how-and-why-did-trends-in-life-expectancy-change-after-2011? for discussion of what is.
    Yes, Covid was on the Tories' watch. From your quoted source:

    "In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic caused the largest fall in life expectancy in England since World War II (see Figure 2). Although life expectancy recovered partially thereafter, in 2022 it remained below the 2019 pre-pandemic level."
    Is that just because there is a cohort of people (long covid) with dramatically shortened life expectancy pulling down the average or is it more general?
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    Zack Polanski had a mare on GMB under scrutiny.

    Like Farage he doesn’t like scrutiny just softball interviews
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692
    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

    Net migration could be negative in the next year or so.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

    Net migration could be negative in the next year or so.
    ‘Could’ being the operative word

    Anyway I’m talking about tackling the benefits bill growth.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    Except, those who were literally working themselves to death will have dropped out the figures. Miners, those dying of asbestos-related cancers, workplace fatal accidents - all have now largely dropped out the figures, certainly from where they would have been twenty or thirty years ago.
    Part of the reason our healthcare spending is so high, and our healthy life expectancy so low, is that that the NHS is now absolutely brilliant at keeping such people alive for multiple decades.

    Once upon a time working men in particular simply dropped dead or suffered a short sharp illness. There are significant costs associated with dying - but that only happens once for each of us and it doesn’t matter whether it’s at 60 or 80. The difference now is the years leading up to that.

    Depending on whether you use DFLE, HLE those years have increased by 33%-60% over the last 30 years.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,984
    edited April 27

    malcolmg said:

    MelonB said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
    bollox
    Let's try to unpack exactly why @MarqueeMark is so wrong. First, MM appears to view differences in life expectancy to be permanent ("migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population") for reasons he does not expand on. That is, if you are Afghan, he proposes that you are always less healthy than someone who is British. However, the main reason life expectancies are different in the two countries is because Afghanistan is a much more dangerous place to live, because it has terrible healthcare. It's being in Afghanistan that is the problem, not being Afghan.

    MM also makes the very common mistake of misunderstanding what life expectancy numbers mean. Afghanistan's life expectancy is 59 versus 80 in the UK (2021 figures). People often presume that this means most Afghans live to be about 59. However, this is not the case. The lower life expectancy is driven by high infant mortality, which brings down the average, but if you survive infancy, then conditional life expectancy is much higher. The difference between life expectancy at birth between Afghanistan and the UK is 21 years, but conditional life expectancy at age 15 in Afghanistan is an additional 67 years, and the UK figure is also 67 years!

    Moreover, generally immigrants live longer than native populations: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32781-8/fulltext To simplify, we think this is a healthy migrant effect: people who migrate tend to be healthier than people who stay where they are. To quote:

    The aggregation of available data on mortality in migrant populations is crucial for comprehensively and rigorously summarising the knowledge base, providing insight with regard to the association between migration and mortality to inform health services, and countering discriminatory or hostile policies.36,37 Contrary to the negative representation of migrants in the media as a burden to health systems,38 our research provides substantial evidence in support of the mortality advantage of migrants compared with the general population in high-income countries. These results therefore challenge misconceptions and policies that do injustice to migrants, representing them as a risk and burden to health systems and society, and instead highlight positive contributions of migration in these countries.

    Previous research3,39 has identified several factors that might contribute to improved health outcomes in migrants compared with host populations, and non-migrating peers in countries of origin. Data supporting a healthy migrant hypothesis suggest that healthier migrants might be more likely to choose to migrate, benefit from decisions to migrate, or successfully migrate, and that health is thus a predictor of migration.40,41
    No, I've misread the table! Life expectancy at 15 isn't that close between Afghanistan and the UK, but it is a lot closer than life expectancy at birth. It's about 10 years apart.

    Explore the data at https://population.un.org/wpp/downloads?folder=Standard Projections&group=Most used
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
    I'm not sure what he means by "migrants" - the word seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. Are we talking about anyone who has arrived in the past 5-10years, anyone who came in via Freedom of Movement when we were in the EU or just those who have arrived illegally on "the boats"?

    Or does it mean anyone not born in the UK but who has acquired the right of permanent residence?

    I note the Epsom "rape", which got the usual rent-a-mob down to the Surrey town and caused disturbances, turned out to be a non-event. That's the pernicious impact of social media and misinformation.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9370jqxy18o
    That “rape” was curious to begin with - it shouldn’t have been reported In the press until forensics had confirmed the reality.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,695

    Khan at virtually neutral as a chap in power since 2016 is very different to the visceral hatred I read on Twitter daily.

    My view on him is: “meh”.

    As someone living in London, I'm also in the "meh" camp.

    Some of the nonsense on social media about "Londonistan" is just that. Yes, I live in an area where the White British are a minority but so what? Everyone is trying to get by, make their way or just plain survive and the unifying force of aspirational capitalism is powerful.

    Khan has won three times against weak Conservative opponents - Goldsmith, Bailey and Hall sound like a firm of solicitors but in truth none of them really laid a glove on him though I'm told Hall won the 2024 election before the votes were actually counted (what a laugh).

    The Mayor of London is a politically symbolic and high profile post but the Boroughs have most of the powerand it may get more difficult for Khan if Labour loses control of a number next week but overall it's a profile post and Khan plays it in a more understated way than Boris did before him but both were and are well suited to the role.

    Khan COULD have been a Cabinet Minister now and might even be a possible PM but he's found a comfortable niche and will probably win again next time.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,984

    FPT…

    Foxy said:

    Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue.

    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.
    That’s bollocks. That’s not what is driving this change. See https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england#how-and-why-did-trends-in-life-expectancy-change-after-2011? for discussion of what is.
    Yes, Covid was on the Tories' watch. From your quoted source:

    "In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic caused the largest fall in life expectancy in England since World War II (see Figure 2). Although life expectancy recovered partially thereafter, in 2022 it remained below the 2019 pre-pandemic level."
    Is that just because there is a cohort of people (long covid) with dramatically shortened life expectancy pulling down the average or is it more general?
    It's not 100% clear why life expectancies in many high income countries are now falling. A lot of it is COVID-19 and some bad flu seasons, but not all of it.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,146

    malcolmg said:

    MelonB said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    For that to explain the gap you’d need the comparator countries to have lower rates of immigration (and ideally to run correlations between the two variables). Otherwise it’s deductive reasoning.
    bollox
    Let's try to unpack exactly why @MarqueeMark is so wrong. First, MM appears to view differences in life expectancy to be permanent ("migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population") for reasons he does not expand on. That is, if you are Afghan, he proposes that you are always less healthy than someone who is British. However, the main reason life expectancies are different in the two countries is because Afghanistan is a much more dangerous place to live, because it has terrible healthcare. It's being in Afghanistan that is the problem, not being Afghan.

    MM also makes the very common mistake of misunderstanding what life expectancy numbers mean. Afghanistan's life expectancy is 59 versus 80 in the UK (2021 figures). People often presume that this means most Afghans live to be about 59. However, this is not the case. The lower life expectancy is driven by high infant mortality, which brings down the average, but if you survive infancy, then conditional life expectancy is much higher. The difference between life expectancy at birth between Afghanistan and the UK is 21 years, but conditional life expectancy at age 15 in Afghanistan is an additional 67 years, and the UK figure is also 67 years!

    Moreover, generally immigrants live longer than native populations: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32781-8/fulltext To simplify, we think this is a healthy migrant effect: people who migrate tend to be healthier than people who stay where they are. To quote:

    The aggregation of available data on mortality in migrant populations is crucial for comprehensively and rigorously summarising the knowledge base, providing insight with regard to the association between migration and mortality to inform health services, and countering discriminatory or hostile policies.36,37 Contrary to the negative representation of migrants in the media as a burden to health systems,38 our research provides substantial evidence in support of the mortality advantage of migrants compared with the general population in high-income countries. These results therefore challenge misconceptions and policies that do injustice to migrants, representing them as a risk and burden to health systems and society, and instead highlight positive contributions of migration in these countries.

    Previous research3,39 has identified several factors that might contribute to improved health outcomes in migrants compared with host populations, and non-migrating peers in countries of origin. Data supporting a healthy migrant hypothesis suggest that healthier migrants might be more likely to choose to migrate, benefit from decisions to migrate, or successfully migrate, and that health is thus a predictor of migration.40,41
    No, I've misread the table! Life expectancy at 15 isn't that close between Afghanistan and the UK, but it is a lot closer than life expectancy at birth. It's about 10 years apart.
    That's probably due to the civil war though and healthcare, as you put it, a being in Afghanistan rather than being Afghan issue.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268

    malcolmg said:

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Total b*ll*cks. France for example experiencing similar levels of immigration and not dropping down the health league.

    Nothing to do with 14 years of ruinous Conservative government, oh no.
    Bloody immigrunts comin’ over ‘ere and lowerin’ ar life expectancy.
    Pass me another Big Mac, luv.
    A Scotsman taking the piss on life expectency is the very definition of skating on thin ice...
    All in the geography Mark, not all of us die in our 50's we also have pockets like the home counties where the rich live long and prosperous lives. I just wish I lived in one of them.
    Indeed, I can walk 200 yards and I cross the border into the neighbourhood with (I think) the lowest life expectancy in Scotland. Fittingly the Louden Tavern marks the boundary.
    Govan?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

    It’s funny because the working-age benefits bill isn’t actually growing as a percentage of GDP. It’s basically been the same for the last 15 years.

    People are forever misusing UC migration stats and disability spending increases to drive this narrative. Indeed non-disability spending has fallen sharply.

    That could change though - the Greens have proposed a double-lock on benefits…
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

    Net migration could be negative in the next year or so.
    ‘Could’ being the operative word

    Anyway I’m talking about tackling the benefits bill growth.

    Be careful what you wish for…

    Negative net migration could be the result of Brit’s fleeing Ange’s reign of terror…
  • stodge said:

    Khan at virtually neutral as a chap in power since 2016 is very different to the visceral hatred I read on Twitter daily.

    My view on him is: “meh”.

    As someone living in London, I'm also in the "meh" camp.

    Some of the nonsense on social media about "Londonistan" is just that. Yes, I live in an area where the White British are a minority but so what? Everyone is trying to get by, make their way or just plain survive and the unifying force of aspirational capitalism is powerful.

    Khan has won three times against weak Conservative opponents - Goldsmith, Bailey and Hall sound like a firm of solicitors but in truth none of them really laid a glove on him though I'm told Hall won the 2024 election before the votes were actually counted (what a laugh).

    The Mayor of London is a politically symbolic and high profile post but the Boroughs have most of the powerand it may get more difficult for Khan if Labour loses control of a number next week but overall it's a profile post and Khan plays it in a more understated way than Boris did before him but both were and are well suited to the role.

    Khan COULD have been a Cabinet Minister now and might even be a possible PM but he's found a comfortable niche and will probably win again next time.
    I’d consider voting for a Tory mayor.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    Doesn't this lower life expectancy result in not being able to claim Triple Lock and WFA. Seems a bit unfair to invite them over to work/pay tax and then deny them the opportunity to a long life and indexed pension that those in the South get.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    eek said:

    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
    I'm not sure what he means by "migrants" - the word seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. Are we talking about anyone who has arrived in the past 5-10years, anyone who came in via Freedom of Movement when we were in the EU or just those who have arrived illegally on "the boats"?

    Or does it mean anyone not born in the UK but who has acquired the right of permanent residence?

    I note the Epsom "rape", which got the usual rent-a-mob down to the Surrey town and caused disturbances, turned out to be a non-event. That's the pernicious impact of social media and misinformation.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9370jqxy18o
    That “rape” was curious to begin with - it shouldn’t have been reported In the press until forensics had confirmed the reality.
    They’d get accused of a cover up and then riots. There’s no good option for the police.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

    Net migration could be negative in the next year or so.
    ‘Could’ being the operative word

    Anyway I’m talking about tackling the benefits bill growth.

    Be careful what you wish for…

    Negative net migration could be the result of Brit’s fleeing Ange’s reign of terror…
    I just wish for a govt with fiscal responsibility.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,483
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
    I'm not sure what he means by "migrants" - the word seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. Are we talking about anyone who has arrived in the past 5-10years, anyone who came in via Freedom of Movement when we were in the EU or just those who have arrived illegally on "the boats"?

    Or does it mean anyone not born in the UK but who has acquired the right of permanent residence?

    I note the Epsom "rape", which got the usual rent-a-mob down to the Surrey town and caused disturbances, turned out to be a non-event. That's the pernicious impact of social media and misinformation.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9370jqxy18o
    That “rape” was curious to begin with - it shouldn’t have been reported In the press until forensics had confirmed the reality.
    They’d get accused of a cover up and then riots. There’s no good option for the police.
    Yes but what was the colour of the imaginary rapist? Why won't they tell us?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,870
    Battlebus said:

    Doesn't this lower life expectancy result in not being able to claim Triple Lock and WFA. Seems a bit unfair to invite them over to work/pay tax and then deny them the opportunity to a long life and indexed pension that those in the South get.

    On the contrary. The report I linked to shows that Healthy Life Expectancy is down by 2 years, but life expectancy is unchanged. So people are living as long, just not enjoying good health.

    This is a UK phenomenon (possibly USA too) not seen in other developed countries, so unlikely to be covid itself, though possibly relating to UK covid response.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,204

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
    More importantly, we have been for decades. And more subtly, we treated short-term windfalls as long-term entitlements.

    And all those bills have finally turned inescapably red.
    For me the crazy spot was after the birth of our first child. My wife had a decent job, and after maternity leave she went back. We realised that by the time she'd paid for tax and childcare, she was working for free. So she quit.

    We have a society where families need 2 jobs to pay the bills. Housing costs are unaffordable without 2 incomes and even then can be impossible for many. As a starter for 10, that's a bad place to be.
    Sometimes its worth having someone 'working for free' if they aspire to continuing the career. My wife went back to work doing 3 days rather than 5, and yes we pay childcare (though its heavily subsidised now) but it means she doesn't have a 5 year gap in the career.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,695
    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

    Why shouldn't Reform policies be subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else's?

    On benefits, having signed up to the Triple Lock (apparently), Farage has come out as might be expected against "the scroungers". Now, he thinks there's an £18 billion pot of gold at the end of that rainbow - we'll see.

    This notion there are millions of people who could work but don't because of "mild anxiety" really needs to be challenged. Let's define "mild anxiety" - what does it mean? How many people are really signed off because of that? Is there a regular review process? How will the Government barge their way into that - a Reform person in every consultation who can overturn a GP's findings - seriously?

    The distinction here is between those who want to work but cannot and those who don't want to work. Most would agree we should help the former as much as possible to get back into work - I'm looking at Carers and challenging higher levels of unemployment among those with physical and mental disabilities.

    The latter group, those who don't want to work and simply choose to live off benefits - well, we have choices and consequences. IF you turn off the tap, leave them with nothing - one of three things will happen - they'll find work, possibly in the black economy, they'll resort to crime or they'll die of starvation.

    The other side of this is the availability of work and the willingness and flexibility of employers to take on people who may not be well suited to the world of work (primarily those with disabilities) or those who can only work certain hours because of other commitments (again carers). We need to encourage and if necessaey coerce employers to be more willing to take on staff for whom extra support is needed.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,204
    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
    I'm not sure what he means by "migrants" - the word seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. Are we talking about anyone who has arrived in the past 5-10years, anyone who came in via Freedom of Movement when we were in the EU or just those who have arrived illegally on "the boats"?

    Or does it mean anyone not born in the UK but who has acquired the right of permanent residence?

    I note the Epsom "rape", which got the usual rent-a-mob down to the Surrey town and caused disturbances, turned out to be a non-event. That's the pernicious impact of social media and misinformation.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9370jqxy18o
    So what action is going to be taken against the person who started the whole thing? The woman who claimed something that never happened?

    We DO have an issue with police comms in this country. Its incredibly difficult, but all too often information is withheld that some will take as evidence of 'protecting' certain communities etc. The scandal we cannot discuss relies heavily on the idea of certain crimes and communities not being pursued for 'reasons'. In the case in Epsom why ask for witnesses, putting information out about a rape, for 2 hours, by four 'men'? Do the CCTV legwork first. Check what can be checked.

    I recall the case of 'Nick' who made allegations that were so laughably bad that his ex-wife would have stopped the whole case in minutes if the police had bothered to talk to her. Sometimes doing the obvious things helps. Instead the police gave the impression that a rape HAD occurred by four men that they then gave no details about. And into that vacuum was poured every nasty racist poster on social media.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    edited April 27
    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Reforms latest punchbag is benefits .

    And ironically many of their voters are on them but we’ll likely see the same FAFO where the gullible vote for Reform thinking the cuts will fall on others and then when they’re the ones fxcked we’ll see the same moaning and shock.


    Labour also recognised the need to try to stop the rate of growth of the bill. They were right.

    They’re still trying to tackle it through ILR changes

    On PB many here want to attack pensions growth with the triple lock being reformed or removed

    They’re right too

    But, muh, Reform 😂

    Why shouldn't Reform policies be subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else's?

    On benefits, having signed up to the Triple Lock (apparently), Farage has come out as might be expected against "the scroungers". Now, he thinks there's an £18 billion pot of gold at the end of that rainbow - we'll see.

    This notion there are millions of people who could work but don't because of "mild anxiety" really needs to be challenged. Let's define "mild anxiety" - what does it mean? How many people are really signed off because of that? Is there a regular review process? How will the Government barge their way into that - a Reform person in every consultation who can overturn a GP's findings - seriously?

    The distinction here is between those who want to work but cannot and those who don't want to work. Most would agree we should help the former as much as possible to get back into work - I'm looking at Carers and challenging higher levels of unemployment among those with physical and mental disabilities.

    The latter group, those who don't want to work and simply choose to live off benefits - well, we have choices and consequences. IF you turn off the tap, leave them with nothing - one of three things will happen - they'll find work, possibly in the black economy, they'll resort to crime or they'll die of starvation.

    The other side of this is the availability of work and the willingness and flexibility of employers to take on people who may not be well suited to the world of work (primarily those with disabilities) or those who can only work certain hours because of other commitments (again carers). We need to encourage and if necessaey coerce employers to be more willing to take on staff for whom extra support is needed.
    If you think Nico67’s comment I replied to was scrutiny I’m pleased for you.

    I’ve criticised Reform for signing up to the triple lock here.

  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    The other side of this is the availability of work and the willingness and flexibility of employers to take on people who may not be well suited to the world of work (primarily those with disabilities) or those who can only work certain hours because of other commitments (again carers). We need to encourage and if necessary coerce employers to be more willing to take on staff for whom extra support is needed.
    This is the main issue. There are plenty of schemes out there. For example, there is the Apprenticeship scheme funded by the Apprenticeship levy (aka tax) which is so bound in process that it can be difficult for employers to reclaim the levy. So it become a cost of doing business in the UK. Coercing employers through similar levies would need to be better designed or they will simply import the skills they need, or outsource parts of their needs, or turn to AI (I have my doubts about AI)

    In any case health, education and infrastructure is a government competence so why not get politicians to do their jobs rather than pass the responsibility to businesses?

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,984

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
    More importantly, we have been for decades. And more subtly, we treated short-term windfalls as long-term entitlements.

    And all those bills have finally turned inescapably red.
    For me the crazy spot was after the birth of our first child. My wife had a decent job, and after maternity leave she went back. We realised that by the time she'd paid for tax and childcare, she was working for free. So she quit.

    We have a society where families need 2 jobs to pay the bills. Housing costs are unaffordable without 2 incomes and even then can be impossible for many. As a starter for 10, that's a bad place to be.
    Sometimes its worth having someone 'working for free' if they aspire to continuing the career. My wife went back to work doing 3 days rather than 5, and yes we pay childcare (though its heavily subsidised now) but it means she doesn't have a 5 year gap in the career.
    I've had colleagues who also worked out that they were working for free after childcare costs, but said they were more than happy to do that to get a break from having to do the childcare themselves!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,204
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    To pay for welfare for migrants. That's what this country is now RP, the government screws the workers to keep the migrants happy so they don't riot and rape.

    This stuff is getting so boring.
    I'm not sure what he means by "migrants" - the word seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. Are we talking about anyone who has arrived in the past 5-10years, anyone who came in via Freedom of Movement when we were in the EU or just those who have arrived illegally on "the boats"?

    Or does it mean anyone not born in the UK but who has acquired the right of permanent residence?

    I note the Epsom "rape", which got the usual rent-a-mob down to the Surrey town and caused disturbances, turned out to be a non-event. That's the pernicious impact of social media and misinformation.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9370jqxy18o
    That “rape” was curious to begin with - it shouldn’t have been reported In the press until forensics had confirmed the reality.
    They’d get accused of a cover up and then riots. There’s no good option for the police.
    Its tricky but what kicked it off was the police saying 'reports of a rape by four men' and asking for witnesses. As many pointed out at the time (a) there is NO churchyard there and (b) Epsom has loads of CCTV. So I think they misjudged this badly and let a lot of bad actors loose. But I agree its not easy.

    I also suggest that the woman at the heart of this needs consequences.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,204

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
    More importantly, we have been for decades. And more subtly, we treated short-term windfalls as long-term entitlements.

    And all those bills have finally turned inescapably red.
    For me the crazy spot was after the birth of our first child. My wife had a decent job, and after maternity leave she went back. We realised that by the time she'd paid for tax and childcare, she was working for free. So she quit.

    We have a society where families need 2 jobs to pay the bills. Housing costs are unaffordable without 2 incomes and even then can be impossible for many. As a starter for 10, that's a bad place to be.
    Sometimes its worth having someone 'working for free' if they aspire to continuing the career. My wife went back to work doing 3 days rather than 5, and yes we pay childcare (though its heavily subsidised now) but it means she doesn't have a 5 year gap in the career.
    I've had colleagues who also worked out that they were working for free after childcare costs, but said they were more than happy to do that to get a break from having to do the childcare themselves!
    I can agree with this. I love my son to bits, but frankly some mondays I am glad to get back to work! Three year olds are relentless...
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,483
    Cyclefree said:

    If we're going to talk about Afghan health care and life expectancy, it is important to note that Afghan women and girls are denied ALL healthcare because men are not allowed to treat them and women are denied all education. Permanently - as the Taliban has recently announced. So their life expectancy is low and they will have to endure pain and suffering which in any vaguely civilised society would be treatable. What is being done to them is barbaric. They are treated worse than animals.

    None of this will have an impact on our health outcomes or system because it is not Afghan women and girls who are arriving here as migrants, whether via the boats or otherwise. It is Afghan men.

    To call what is happening in Afghanistan medieval is an insult to the Middle Ages.

    Agreed on this, but women Afghan refugees are coming to the UK, I know two of them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,440

    Curse of the new thread...

    "Foxy: Pretty appalling UK figures on healthy life expectancy, declining by 2 years in the last decade. It has improved slowly in comparable countries:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:

    https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health

    We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue."


    It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.

    https://data.who.int/countries/004

    Even worse, life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.

    The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.

    Some of us are working ourselves to exhaustion. And for what?
    As a nation, we don’t “make provision” for anything. Everything is put on the credit card
    More importantly, we have been for decades. And more subtly, we treated short-term windfalls as long-term entitlements.

    And all those bills have finally turned inescapably red.
    For me the crazy spot was after the birth of our first child. My wife had a decent job, and after maternity leave she went back. We realised that by the time she'd paid for tax and childcare, she was working for free. So she quit.

    We have a society where families need 2 jobs to pay the bills. Housing costs are unaffordable without 2 incomes and even then can be impossible for many. As a starter for 10, that's a bad place to be.
    Sometimes its worth having someone 'working for free' if they aspire to continuing the career. My wife went back to work doing 3 days rather than 5, and yes we pay childcare (though its heavily subsidised now) but it means she doesn't have a 5 year gap in the career.
    Granddaughter-in-law is in a similar position. We shouldn't forget, either, the effect of the student loans 'tax'. Yes, one doesn't 'have' to 'have' to pay back the loan but it's still hanging over people, and there's (or used to be anyway) a culture of paying off loans.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,440
    Cyclefree said:

    If we're going to talk about Afghan health care and life expectancy, it is important to note that Afghan women and girls are denied ALL healthcare because men are not allowed to treat them and women are denied all education. Permanently - as the Taliban has recently announced. So their life expectancy is low and they will have to endure pain and suffering which in any vaguely civilised society would be treatable. What is being done to them is barbaric. They are treated worse than animals.

    None of this will have an impact on our health outcomes or system because it is not Afghan women and girls who are arriving here as migrants, whether via the boats or otherwise. It is Afghan men.

    To call what is happening in Afghanistan medieval is an insult to the Middle Ages.


    It's also incredibly shortsighted and foolish.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 20,984
    edited April 27

    Cyclefree said:

    If we're going to talk about Afghan health care and life expectancy, it is important to note that Afghan women and girls are denied ALL healthcare because men are not allowed to treat them and women are denied all education. Permanently - as the Taliban has recently announced. So their life expectancy is low and they will have to endure pain and suffering which in any vaguely civilised society would be treatable. What is being done to them is barbaric. They are treated worse than animals.

    None of this will have an impact on our health outcomes or system because it is not Afghan women and girls who are arriving here as migrants, whether via the boats or otherwise. It is Afghan men.

    To call what is happening in Afghanistan medieval is an insult to the Middle Ages.

    Agreed on this, but women Afghan refugees are coming to the UK, I know two of them.
    45% of all Afghan emigrants in the world are female: https://www.migrationdataportal.org/de/node/3250

    Afghan refugees who have come to the UK through specific schemes are gender balanced, but those who have come into the UK and then claimed asylum are mainly men (about 8:1): see figure 8 of https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2024-Briefing-Afghan-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-in-the-UK.pdf So there are a lot of Afghan immigrants in the UK who are female.
This discussion has been closed.