29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.
Add in Assange's minders...
The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities
The police really can be pretty bloody stupid sometimes but I think that's pretty universal and in the stupidity/ corrupt stakes we come way down the field.
You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.
I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.
No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.
It is a myth.
The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.
Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.
Private companies in the NHS just want to pick off the high volume low risk procedures like hip replacements. They are not interested in chronic diseases, dementia, maternity or emergency services. On the rare occasions that they do we see problems like the care home scandals or problems like SERCOs disastrous attempt to run out of hours in Cornwall.
The problem is that most expensive health care costs relate to chronic diseases of the elderly, and poor. This is a state that any of us can arrive at, or our families can arrive at. There are other ways of arranging healthcare other than the NHS but they are very rarely cheap or simple. Nearly every country in the developed world struggles with the same issues. The salami can be sliced differently but it is the same salami. Like the tax credits situation the losers are more vocal than the winners.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.
Add in Assange's minders...
The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities
The police really can be pretty bloody stupid sometimes but I think that's pretty universal and in the stupidity/ corrupt stakes we come way down the field.
My uncle was KIA in the police (Before I was born) so I have alot of respect for the rank and file officer, the bods at the top though. Well.
To put 29 officers onto 1 missing person strikes of policing by fear of tabloid press.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
One day they might pay your pension.
I expect to have to pay my own pension. And it's right that I should and will.
That should be every responsible person's aim, but you never know, do you. And will you decline the state pension?
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me !
If noone had any kids, we'd die out eliminate all debt and it'd do wonders for the planet
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
One day they might pay your pension.
Doubt pensions will be as generous when I retire as they are now tbh. The triple lock surely can't last another 34 years !
Alright then. One day they might pay their taxes so you get the public services you need.
Tories are accumulating baggage no they no longer have their coalition buddies to take all the blame.
Whatever - but they will win again in 2020 with labour nowhere in Scotland or England
I cant see how Labour can pull back those Scottish constituencies. Many have made a once in a generation change, and they seem to be quite happy with that. If their new MPs are able to present themselves as hard working and standing up for Scotland and people like them, why would they go back?
The big question in Scotland is will the Tories take second spot in Holyrood May 2016 elections
Such an event would trigger some sensational infighting within Labour. Is it even a possibility? If they did as badly as they did in the General Election they would still be ten percentage points ahead of tories.
It could happen but it would be a surprise. Would Corbyn survive it
If we lose our majority in Wales and Zac wins in London as well, then things would look shaky.
I have fully accepted the logic as to why Labour will probably come third in scotland next year.
It's simply FPTP has made the SNP the de-facto party of the left, leftwing voters are not so dissapointed by the SNP that they will vote for Labour, so the SNP won't lose votes there. On the other hand since Labour doesn't have any but 1 seat in scotland, they will lose all those tactical anti-SNP votes, that they borrowed from the right, to the Conservatives.
In wales Labour is still the principal party of the left and that has been reinforced with Corbyn, so it's PC that will lose votes to Labour, so Labour will do better in terms of votes. However UKIP will enter the welsh assembly, thus depriving probably Labour from a majority.
It will all come down to London, and how identity politics is played due to Khan's religion and nationality.
Yes I fear Labour will go heavy on his religion and parents nationality... filthy identity politics
Whereas PB Tories obsessing about his religion isn't?
Ha I was joking
But don't you think, in Tower Hamlets and Newham, Labour might emphasise the fact he is a muslim?
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me !
If noone had any kids, we'd die out eliminate all debt and it'd do wonders for the planet
Titter
Why should I pay for other people's kids
You are Andrew Lloyd Webber and i claim my prize!!
29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.
Add in Assange's minders...
The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities
The police really can be pretty bloody stupid sometimes but I think that's pretty universal and in the stupidity/ corrupt stakes we come way down the field.
My uncle was KIA in the police (Before I was born) so I have alot of respect for the rank and file officer, the bods at the top though. Well.
To put 29 officers onto 1 missing person strikes of policing by fear of tabloid press.
What really annoys me about the McCann case is that it looks like us Brits think that foreign police forces are incapable of doing their job properly. I have a lot of sympathy for the people of Praia Da Luz.
Completely off topic and not entirely appropriate in light of the earlier post but can I just give a quick word of congratulation to the planners and traffic department of Edinburgh City Council who this evening achieved one of their long term aims of bringing complete gridlock to Edinburgh city centre for nearly 1.5 hours. This remarkable achievement has been long in the planning involving a complex and sophisticated plan of road closures, restrictions on left and right turns, temporary traffic lights and pure unrestrained malice.
The publicly paid officials responsible for this utter chaos hide behind a cloak of anonymity due to a deep sense of self preservation and of course rank cowardice but this should not stop us from giving due recognition to their remarkable achievements. No doubt they look forward to the day when everyone recognises that trying to run a business in Edinburgh or coming to the town for work is simply impossible so the unemployed remaining burghers can walk the streets in peace. Tonight was a notable step towards that objective.
The genius idea of placing major roadworks at the top of Easter Road and the top of Leith Walk simultaneously (going on for 3 weeks now) is a troke of genius beyond the whit of Mephistopheles himself. Anyone coming or going to the West of the city or to/from Leith is completely banjoed.
A good new story. After a bronze medal for Britain in the women's team competition in the world gymnastics championship, the men have now won a silver medal.
You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.
I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.
No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.
It is a myth.
The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.
Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.
Private companies in the NHS just want to pick off the high volume low risk procedures like hip replacements. They are not interested in chronic diseases, dementia, maternity or emergency services. On the rare occasions that they do we see problems like the care home scandals or problems like SERCOs disastrous attempt to run out of hours in Cornwall.
The problem is that most expensive health care costs relate to chronic diseases of the elderly, and poor. This is a state that any of us can arrive at, or our families can arrive at. There are other ways of arranging healthcare other than the NHS but they are very rarely cheap or simple. Nearly every country in the developed world struggles with the same issues. The salami can be sliced differently but it is the same salami. Like the tax credits situation the losers are more vocal than the winners.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
You expect clinicians to be philosophers too! This topic is a real can of worms I'd like a say in whether I can be allowed to die when I want to, or for my nearest and dearest to decide for me if I'm incapable of decision, but I wouldn't want some bugger off the street to decide for me simply because he signs his letters "Dr".
You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.
I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.
No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.
It is a myth.
The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.
Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.
Well said except that the evidence points to the NHS being a fairly good service at a low cost and international experts agree.
Do they? - and please don't point us in the direction of that ridiculous buzzfeed style content piece (masquerading as a piece of research) written by the US health foundation that wants to implement an NHS in America.
Completely off topic and not entirely appropriate in light of the earlier post but can I just give a quick word of congratulation to the planners and traffic department of Edinburgh City Council who this evening achieved one of their long term aims of bringing complete gridlock to Edinburgh city centre for nearly 1.5 hours. This remarkable achievement has been long in the planning involving a complex and sophisticated plan of road closures, restrictions on left and right turns, temporary traffic lights and pure unrestrained malice.
The publicly paid officials responsible for this utter chaos hide behind a cloak of anonymity due to a deep sense of self preservation and of course rank cowardice but this should not stop us from giving due recognition to their remarkable achievements. No doubt they look forward to the day when everyone recognises that trying to run a business in Edinburgh or coming to the town for work is simply impossible so the unemployed remaining burghers can walk the streets in peace. Tonight was a notable step towards that objective.
The genius idea of placing major roadworks at the top of Easter Road and the top of Leith Walk simultaneously (going on for 3 weeks now) is a troke of genius beyond the whit of Mephistopheles himself. Anyone coming or going to the West of the city or to/from Leith is completely banjoed.
I was stuck on the Cowgate/ Grassmarket for an hour tonight. Not what you need after a trying day. So many roads closed that the few that remain are completely overwhelmed.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Except many of us have accepted that we will probably not get a state pension and are responsible enough to have made other arrangements rather than relying on someone else to pay for us. Again we come back to the point that state pensions, like all other benefits, should not be a right. The welfare system was designed to provide a safety net not to act as an alternative to personal responsibility.
What we need is a sea change in peoples attitudes regarding both the role of the State in their lives and the notion of the dependency culture. The fact is this has now extended beyond the individual to businesses as well which is one reason why tax credits are such pernicious nonsense. The role of the state should not be to subsidise companies by allowing them to pay low wages in the expectation that the tax payer will make up the difference.
Whether it is pensions, the NHS or welfare, we need a fundamental rethink about what the state should be providing and what people should be doing for themselves.
Completely off topic and not entirely appropriate in light of the earlier post but can I just give a quick word of congratulation to the planners and traffic department of Edinburgh City Council who this evening achieved one of their long term aims of bringing complete gridlock to Edinburgh city centre for nearly 1.5 hours. This remarkable achievement has been long in the planning involving a complex and sophisticated plan of road closures, restrictions on left and right turns, temporary traffic lights and pure unrestrained malice.
The publicly paid officials responsible for this utter chaos hide behind a cloak of anonymity due to a deep sense of self preservation and of course rank cowardice but this should not stop us from giving due recognition to their remarkable achievements. No doubt they look forward to the day when everyone recognises that trying to run a business in Edinburgh or coming to the town for work is simply impossible so the unemployed remaining burghers can walk the streets in peace. Tonight was a notable step towards that objective.
The genius idea of placing major roadworks at the top of Easter Road and the top of Leith Walk simultaneously (going on for 3 weeks now) is a troke of genius beyond the whit of Mephistopheles himself. Anyone coming or going to the West of the city or to/from Leith is completely banjoed.
I was stuck on the Cowgate/ Grassmarket for an hour tonight. Not what you need after a trying day. So many roads closed that the few that remain are completely overwhelmed.
I walked home from that area as my bus, normally every 15 mins, was 35 mins away. I managed to beat home the 3 prior buses over a 30 minute walk.
29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.
Add in Assange's minders...
The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities
The police really can be pretty bloody stupid sometimes but I think that's pretty universal and in the stupidity/ corrupt stakes we come way down the field.
My uncle was KIA in the police (Before I was born) so I have alot of respect for the rank and file officer, the bods at the top though. Well.
To put 29 officers onto 1 missing person strikes of policing by fear of tabloid press.
I mostly agree with you sentiments, but I disagree with your last sentence. This can only be put down to stupidity on a scale so stupid that the initiators should have the cost stopped out of their salaries and be banned from taking any further expenses paid jaunts to anywhere warmer than the UK or having more snow (the Royal protection officers included).
OT. Just seen Dan Hannan on a program with Howard Jacobson and Alan Yentob about the Merchant of Venice and Shylock in particular. He's very impressive and I liked his interpretation. I always thought he was just a crazed right winger
OT. Just seen Dan Hannan on a program with Howard Jacobson and Alan Yentob about the Merchant of Venice and Shylock in particular. He's very impressive and I liked his interpretation.
What channel was it please Roger? I am a Shakespeare fanatic so would be very interested to see any articulate discussion of his work.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
One day they might pay your pension.
I expect to have to pay my own pension. And it's right that I should and will.
That should be every responsible person's aim, but you never know, do you. And will you decline the state pension?
I do not expect that there will be a state pension of any significant value to an individual by the time I retire, and we are saving accordingly. Our retirements will be funded by our own efforts and not paid for by poncing off of the taxes being paid by our grandchildren.
There can be no G-d given universal right to a state pension or any other form of taxpayer-funded benefit. Benefits should be for those in hardship through no fault of their own.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me !
If noone had any kids, we'd die out eliminate all debt and it'd do wonders for the planet
Who'd know whether to turn out the lights before popping their clogs?
OT. Just seen Dan Hannan on a program with Howard Jacobson and Alan Yentob about the Merchant of Venice and Shylock in particular. He's very impressive and I liked his interpretation.
What channel was it please Roger? I am a Shakespeare fanatic so would be very interested to see any articulate discussion of his work.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Except many of us have accepted that we will probably not get a state pension and are responsible enough to have made other arrangements rather than relying on someone else to pay for us. Again we come back to the point that state pensions, like all other benefits, should not be a right. The welfare system was designed to provide a safety net not to act as an alternative to personal responsibility.
What we need is a sea change in peoples attitudes regarding both the role of the State in their lives and the notion of the dependency culture. The fact is this has now extended beyond the individual to businesses as well which is one reason why tax credits are such pernicious nonsense. The role of the state should not be to subsidise companies by allowing them to pay low wages in the expectation that the tax payer will make up the difference.
Whether it is pensions, the NHS or welfare, we need a fundamental rethink about what the state should be providing and what people should be doing for themselves.
The baby boomers are sucking the country dry - Free Higher Education plus Grants, Supplementary Benefit, Bought All the Houses and now their Pensions are Triple Locked whilst my retirement age disappears off into the distance.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
May we ask how old you are? Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen for a 'sensible conversation' if you were a sick person in their 80s (forgive me if you are) who had paid into the NHS all their working life, and expected it to look after you, not write you off.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following: -Saturated fat is bad -Unsaturated fat is good -Pasteurised milk is healthy -Grains should make up the bulk of our diet -Eggs are to be limited -Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
'I think it will be harder for any party at the next election to make the kind of generalised statements that the Tories did last April/May'
Your having a laugh ?
At the 2010 election the Lib Dems key policy was to abolish tuition fees and once in government tripled them !
And look where that got them (us)!
Still hoping for an upturn in fortunes. Otrherwise it's back to my past; (Labour)
Does this mean you only support fortunate parties? If so, I'd advise againstt Labour....
No, I'm looking for a party which is interested in everyone, not just the fortunate. And before anyone suggests UKIP, back to Fortress Britain is not attractive at all. At all!
Completely off topic and not entirely appropriate in light of the earlier post but can I just give a quick word of congratulation to the planners and traffic department of Edinburgh City Council who this evening achieved one of their long term aims of bringing complete gridlock to Edinburgh city centre for nearly 1.5 hours. This remarkable achievement has been long in the planning involving a complex and sophisticated plan of road closures, restrictions on left and right turns, temporary traffic lights and pure unrestrained malice.
The publicly paid officials responsible for this utter chaos hide behind a cloak of anonymity due to a deep sense of self preservation and of course rank cowardice but this should not stop us from giving due recognition to their remarkable achievements. No doubt they look forward to the day when everyone recognises that trying to run a business in Edinburgh or coming to the town for work is simply impossible so the unemployed remaining burghers can walk the streets in peace. Tonight was a notable step towards that objective.
The genius idea of placing major roadworks at the top of Easter Road and the top of Leith Walk simultaneously (going on for 3 weeks now) is a troke of genius beyond the whit of Mephistopheles himself. Anyone coming or going to the West of the city or to/from Leith is completely banjoed.
I was stuck on the Cowgate/ Grassmarket for an hour tonight. Not what you need after a trying day. So many roads closed that the few that remain are completely overwhelmed.
I'm a Londoner so I'm not altogether sure about this but might it not be the SNP warning Edinburgh as to its future behaviour?
BJO - did you enjoy last night? That was a very accomplished performance from Wednesday.
Very impressive, brilliant atmosphere, credit to Arsenal fans who mostly stayed to the end and applauded Wednesday win.
Some idiot (it definitely wasn't me) said that Arsenal weren't suffering as much from injuries this season. It was a shame that Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott got injured, but I suspect Wednesday would have still won.
Not that you probably cared, but I was annoyed with Arsenal for not wearing their home kit. We didn't wear that monstrosity of a kit at Spurs in the third round and wearing it at Hillsborough was disrespectful to Wednesday.
BJO - did you enjoy last night? That was a very accomplished performance from Wednesday.
Very impressive, brilliant atmosphere, credit to Arsenal fans who mostly stayed to the end and applauded Wednesday win.
Some idiot (it definitely wasn't me) said that Arsenal weren't suffering as much from injuries this season. It was a shame that Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott got injured, but I suspect Wednesday would have still won.
Not that you probably cared, but I was annoyed with Arsenal for not wearing their home kit. We didn't wear that monstrosity of a kit at Spurs in the third round and wearing it at Hillsborough was disrespectful to Wednesday.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Except many of us have accepted that we will probably not get a state pension and are responsible enough to have made other arrangements rather than relying on someone else to pay for us. Again we come back to the point that state pensions, like all other benefits, should not be a right. The welfare system was designed to provide a safety net not to act as an alternative to personal responsibility.
What we need is a sea change in peoples attitudes regarding both the role of the State in their lives and the notion of the dependency culture. The fact is this has now extended beyond the individual to businesses as well which is one reason why tax credits are such pernicious nonsense. The role of the state should not be to subsidise companies by allowing them to pay low wages in the expectation that the tax payer will make up the difference.
Whether it is pensions, the NHS or welfare, we need a fundamental rethink about what the state should be providing and what people should be doing for themselves.
The baby boomers are sucking the country dry - Free Higher Education plus Grants, Supplementary Benefit, Bought All the Houses and now their Pensions are Triple Locked whilst my retirement age disappears off into the distance.
Not that I'm bitter.
Your taxes are sitting in Surbi's million pound London House
You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.
I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.
No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.
It is a myth.
The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.
Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be able to have meaningful reform to make it fit for purpose.
Private companies in the NHS just want to pick off the high volume low risk procedures like hip replacements. They are not interested in chronic diseases, dementia, maternity or emergency services. On the rare occasions that they do we see problems like the care home scandals or problems like SERCOs disastrous attempt to run
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
These things are fairly actively discussed by my profession. The health economics as well as the ethics of preserving life. I am an advisor in some major commissioning issues where we have to trade off and argue the case for one over another. There are limits to what is acceptable though. We cannot abandon someone in a gutter just because they are going to die in a few weeks and the cost of that nursing is too high.
One shameful thing is that most hospices are run as charities, better funding would certainly help the burden of long term care. Nearly 50% of patients transferred to hospices are dead within 2 days, when actually the quality of care and ambiance is far better than most acute medical wards.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Except many of us have accepted that we will probably not get a state pension and are responsible enough to have made other arrangements rather than relying on someone else to pay for us. Again we come back to the point that state pensions, like all other benefits, should not be a right. The welfare system was designed to provide a safety net not to act as an alternative to personal responsibility.
What we need is a sea change in peoples attitudes regarding both the role of the State in their lives and the notion of the dependency culture. The fact is this has now extended beyond the individual to businesses as well which is one reason why tax credits are such pernicious nonsense. The role of the state should not be to subsidise companies by allowing them to pay low wages in the expectation that the tax payer will make up the difference.
Whether it is pensions, the NHS or welfare, we need a fundamental rethink about what the state should be providing and what people should be doing for themselves.
I agree with your thesis but how do you get to where you (and I) would like us to be? Credit to GO for his first steps though I'm not sure he'll ever get round to pensions.
OT. Just seen Dan Hannan on a program with Howard Jacobson and Alan Yentob about the Merchant of Venice and Shylock in particular. He's very impressive and I liked his interpretation.
What channel was it please Roger? I am a Shakespeare fanatic so would be very interested to see any articulate discussion of his work.
Completely off topic and not entirely appropriate in light of the earlier post but can I just give a quick word of congratulation to the planners and traffic department of Edinburgh City Council who this evening achieved one of their long term aims of bringing complete gridlock to Edinburgh city centre for nearly 1.5 hours. This remarkable achievement has been long in the planning involving a complex and sophisticated plan of road closures, restrictions on left and right turns, temporary traffic lights and pure unrestrained malice.
The publicly paid officials responsible for this utter chaos hide behind a cloak of anonymity due to a deep sense of self preservation and of course rank cowardice but this should not stop us from giving due recognition to their remarkable achievements. No doubt they look forward to the day when everyone recognises that trying to run a business in Edinburgh or coming to the town for work is simply impossible so the unemployed remaining burghers can walk the streets in peace. Tonight was a notable step towards that objective.
The genius idea of placing major roadworks at the top of Easter Road and the top of Leith Walk simultaneously (going on for 3 weeks now) is a troke of genius beyond the whit of Mephistopheles himself. Anyone coming or going to the West of the city or to/from Leith is completely banjoed.
I was stuck on the Cowgate/ Grassmarket for an hour tonight. Not what you need after a trying day. So many roads closed that the few that remain are completely overwhelmed.
I'm a Londoner so I'm not altogether sure about this but might it not be the SNP warning Edinburgh as to its future behaviour?
I don't think these incompetent buffoons are particularly party political (although the principle of blaming anything bad on the SNP is clearly sound).
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
Didn't doctors used to give the most hopeless cases big morphine overdoses to finish them off - as an act of mercy to them, and to free up resources for more readily treatable patients - until Shipman buggered that up for them?
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
One day they might pay your pension.
I expect to have to pay my own pension. And it's right that I should and will.
That should be every responsible person's aim, but you never know, do you. And will you decline the state pension?
I do not expect that there will be a state pension of any significant value to an individual by the time I retire, and we are saving accordingly. Our retirements will be funded by our own efforts and not paid for by poncing off of the taxes being paid by our grandchildren.
There can be no G-d given universal right to a state pension or any other form of taxpayer-funded benefit. Benefits should be for those in hardship through no fault of their own.
I agree with your view of a utopian world, but it is just that. People won't vote for it and it's a long standing deal that today's taxpayers pay for yesterday's taxpayers' pensions because tomorrow's taxpayers will pay for today's taxpayers' pensions. I hope I got the apostrophes right.
Current health idiocies include the following: -Pasteurised milk is healthy
There is no credible evidence that I am aware of that pasteurised milk is bad for you.
The idea that it can be good for you is only due to an absence of thought process. Milk is a whole food - the world's best whole food, created/evolved to give perfect nutrition, with a delicate balance of proteins, fats, sugars, friendly bacteria, vitamins and minerals, designed to work in harmony with one another. Each component will need every other component for optimum absorption, and even not to be of potential harm. We think in superheating and homogenising this product we're merely trading off a few vitamins and minerals for a safe product, so we can just have another glass and get the same benefits. If you actually think about that, of course it won't, because it will have a different affect on every part of the milk, killing some elements, reducing others, giving the survivors over-dominance - the end result is like comparing an orchestra to a discordant racket.
Incidentally you can palliate many of these effects by culturing your milk into yoghurt, which is what I do with all my milk now, since you can't get raw milk in Scotland and it costs £15 for 6 pints to get it via mail order from England! Scotland's policy on this is balls, and will harm the health of the country even as it seeks to turn it around.
Whens the republican debate start btw - might make a special effort to stay up and watch the loons. On a non betting level I quite like Jeb Bush actually - but his family name probably more of a hindrance atm than say "Clinton !"
You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.
I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.
No the problem is that politicians have for too long pretended that the healthcare system we have in this country is fit for purpose - and is the only one that could be fit for purpose - and that everything will be fine if we just spend more money.
It is a myth.
The UK healthcare system is not fit for purpose, is noticeably worse than many of our European counterparts and will not be able to perform effectively no matter how much money you spend on it.
Until we rid ourselves of the idea that the NHS should be regarded as some sort of national religion and that any word said against it is tantamount to heresy, we will never be?
These things are fairly actively discussed by my profession. The health economics as well as the ethics of preserving life. I am an advisor in some major commissioning issues where we have to trade off and argue the case for one over another. There are limits to what is acceptable though. We cannot abandon someone in a gutter just because they are going to die in a few weeks and the cost of that nursing is too high.
One shameful thing is that most hospices are run as charities, better funding would certainly help the burden of long term care. Nearly 50% of patients transferred to hospices are dead within 2 days, when actually the quality of care and ambiance is far better than most acute medical wards.
With respect (and FAOD that isn't sarcasm) that discussion is behind closed doors. To the world stage large, the impression that the BMA and the colleges give us an unsubtle spend more money. It's not one of recognising and understanding the trade offs test must be made. To your particular points, it's not one of abandoning people but recognising limits. I can give anecdotal evidence of those limits not being recognised in the elderly but that's anecdotal. To take a more local case, there are prosecutions running against a number of staff in Leicester over letting a young patient die. We can argue about whether their behaviour amounted to negligence or more but the bigger, and unaddressed, question is one of why we (that is the state in the guise of the NHS) trying so hard to keep the patient alive in the first place.
A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
Why should I pay for other people's kids !
Because their kids will be working to 75 to pay your state pension?
Except many of us have accepted that we will probably not get a state pension and are responsible enough to have made other arrangements rather than relying on someone else to pay for us. Again we come back to the point that state pensions, like all other benefits, should not be a right. The welfare system was designed to provide a safety net not to act as an alternative to personal responsibility.
What we need is a sea change in peoples attitudes regarding both the role of the State in their lives and the notion of the dependency culture. The fact is this has now extended beyond the individual to businesses as well which is one reason why tax credits are such pernicious nonsense. The role of the state should not be to subsidise companies by allowing them to pay low wages in the expectation that the tax payer will make up the difference.
Whether it is pensions, the NHS or welfare, we need a fundamental rethink about what the state should be providing and what people should be doing for themselves.
Many people are not confident of themselves to withstand the vicissitudes of life and even their own mistakes of judgement and have looked to government to shield them from the consequences. Politicians will always claim to be the protectors of their voters and further increase peoples' perceptions of their "rights". The clock will not be turned back until a major catastrophe occurs where the remedies are clearly unaffordable.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
Didn't doctors used to give the most hopeless cases big morphine overdoses to finish them off - as an act of mercy to them, and to free up resources for more readily treatable patients - until Shipman buggered that up for them?
These things are fairly actively discussed by my profession. The health economics as well as the ethics of preserving life. I am an advisor in some major commissioning issues where we have to trade off and argue the case for one over another. There are limits to what is acceptable though. We cannot abandon someone in a gutter just because they are going to die in a few weeks and the cost of that nursing is too high.
One shameful thing is that most hospices are run as charities, better funding would certainly help the burden of long term care. Nearly 50% of patients transferred to hospices are dead within 2 days, when actually the quality of care and ambiance is far better than most acute medical wards.
Matt said With respect (and FAOD that isn't sarcasm) that discussion is behind closed doors. To the world stage large, the impression that the BMA and the colleges give us an unsubtle spend more money. It's not one of recognising and understanding the trade offs test must be made. To your particular points, it's not one of abandoning people but recognising limits. I can give anecdotal evidence of those limits not being recognised in the elderly but that's anecdotal. To take a more local case, there are prosecutions running against a number of staff in Leicester over letting a young patient die. We can argue about whether their behaviour amounted to negligence or more but the bigger, and unaddressed, question is one of why we (that is the state in the guise of the NHS) trying so hard to keep the patient alive in the first place.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
Didn't doctors used to give the most hopeless cases big morphine overdoses to finish them off - as an act of mercy to them, and to free up resources for more readily treatable patients - until Shipman buggered that up for them?
I've been told that by a few senior surgeons.
Is the past tense accurate?
I gather they're shit scared of doing it since Shipman
My Nan didn't physically suffer. She's been in decline since my Grampy died earlier this year and it was all very quick and peaceful.
Just to put some context on how incredibly expensive care for the 'elderly' is. My Dad is 61. It costs the government nearly £3000 a month for his one-to-one care (the tests were rigorous to ensure he needed the paid-for care altjough he is now completely dependant on the nurses). Of course, he lost his pension and sick benefits etc, but the care is still bloody expensive. And he is just one of very many people who will live an indeterminate amount of time. He may live another five years.
Four years back he was on rugby tour with us in Vegas! Fit and loving life. Alzheimers is going to cost a fortune. It's scary how young some of the sufferers are.
"If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS'"
Quite the reverse I would have thought. The situation we have now is due in no small measure to the emphasis on healthy living over the last thirty years or so.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
May we ask how old you are? Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen for a 'sensible conversation' if you were a sick person in their 80s (forgive me if you are) who had paid into the NHS all their working life, and expected it to look after you, not write you off.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following: -Saturated fat is bad -Unsaturated fat is good -Pasteurised milk is healthy -Grains should make up the bulk of our diet -Eggs are to be limited -Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
That is exactly what private healthcare insurer Vitality Health are preaching.
BJO - did you enjoy last night? That was a very accomplished performance from Wednesday.
Very impressive, brilliant atmosphere, credit to Arsenal fans who mostly stayed to the end and applauded Wednesday win.
Pleased to see Sam Hutchinson on the score sheet, if he got as many goals as he does yellow cards he would be worth millions. My club Chelsea don't do many things right but they did right by Hutchinson.
Hope all is well with you BJO, talk about a shit year.
Also the current recommendation is not that saturated fats are bad, it is that the average current diet has too much saturated fat in it (and not by a huge amount, juat a couple of grams per day over the recommended daily amount)
OT. Just seen Dan Hannan on a program with Howard Jacobson and Alan Yentob about the Merchant of Venice and Shylock in particular. He's very impressive and I liked his interpretation. I always thought he was just a crazed right winger
Dan Hannan is a very intelligent man. The best speaker I've heard.
Just seen Spectre. Wow: fantastic fun. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It's a bit 'super-slick action-flick' - and light on plot depth with a few loose ends that I didn't think were satisfactorily tied off, or even made sense. However, it had exoticness, breadth and a real sense of adventure. The locations were superb, and the Bond girl was absolutely beautiful.
The Sam Smith song works exceptionally well with the titles and I loved the subtle nod to one of the original Fleming stories.
They possibly tried to cram a tad too much action in it, and I wouldn't necessarily have finished it off in London/UK again.
But, overall? Much more satisfying and enjoyable than Skyfall.
Ahead of tonight's debate I have cashed in a fair proportion of my gains backing in Rubio and laying Bush (and my loss laying Trump). I haven't reversed those positions, I've just cut my risk/reward.
Whens the republican debate start btw - might make a special effort to stay up and watch the loons. On a non betting level I quite like Jeb Bush actually - but his family name probably more of a hindrance atm than say "Clinton !"
Polls put Clinton 38 and 41 points ahead respectively in Iowa by the way.
"If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS'"
Quite the reverse I would have thought. The situation we have now is due in no small measure to the emphasis on healthy living over the last thirty years or so.
Whilst healthier living might be a factor might I suggest that the effect of technological and medicinal advances are equally "responsible". Sorry for delay, just enjoying Man U's fine display of penalty taking.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
May we ask how old you are? Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen for a 'sensible conversation' if you were a sick person in their 80s (forgive me if you are) who had paid into the NHS all their working life, and expected it to look after you, not write you off.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following: -Saturated fat is bad -Unsaturated fat is good -Pasteurised milk is healthy -Grains should make up the bulk of our diet -Eggs are to be limited -Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
That is exactly what private healthcare insurer Vitality Health are preaching.
The Philosophy profession has been trying to raise the level of debate on the quality of life issue for decades - as part of attempt to come up with a coherent approach to medical ethics. The problem is two fold - politicians see anything that smells of "Qualys" as toxic, and many doctors seem to believe that medical ethics are innate to their Doctorhood (bit like acquired Godhood). So you have a large number of influential people who's contribution to the debate is "shut up and don't talk about it". Still, some progress has been made.
Interestingly the vast majority of philosophers are really, really not in favour of the idea writing off the elderly that some seem to associate with this kind of thinking - and which seems to come up regularly from the medical side.
Having dealt with dying (but conscious, coherent etc) relatives in hospital and seen the way in which some medical staff behave towards (and think of) those they have "written off", I am completely against giving the medical profession unfettered control of this.
Just seen Spectre. Wow: fantastic fun. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It's a bit 'super-slick action-flick' - and light on plot depth with a few loose ends that I didn't think were satisfactorily tied off, or even made sense. However, it had exoticness, breadth and a real sense of adventure. The locations were superb, and the Bond girl was absolutely beautiful.
The Sam Smith song works exceptionally well with the titles and I loved the subtle nod to one of the original Fleming stories.
They possibly tried to cram a tad too much action in it, and I wouldn't necessarily have finished it off in London/UK again.
But, overall? Much more satisfying and enjoyable than Skyfall.
Part of the film was shot outside my business partners flat in Covent Gdn
You have my sympathies over your loss. It is never easy to lose a loved one, even when it is a merciful release.
I think that you are right. Politicians have too long pretended that we can have first class public services, but always imply that the taxes will fall on others. The honest thing to balance the budgeet would be 5p or so on the lower rate of tax and the same on thd higher rate, but they want to pretend that we can live on the never-never.
Adding a penny on income tax raises £4 billion. If we added 5p (and assumed no behavioural change as a consequence), that would make £20 billion a year, adding 5p on the higher rate would raise £5 billion (assuming no behavioural changes, which is a big assumption). Thats a third of the deficit..
The problem isnt we dont tax enough, its that we spend too much. Tax revenue over the last fifteen years has oscillated between 35% and 38% of GDP. There has been a few one offs when it has peaked. Income tax now raises more or less the same percent of gdp as it did ten years ago, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago.
We can close a deficit (and we need to do so with the economy at this phase of the cycle) by either taxing more or spending less, or both. I think that it needs to be both. A penny on the basic rate to pay for the delay in Tax credit cuts would focus the debate very differently to PMQs today, and we do need to debate both options.
The basic problem is that if they balanced the books on a Xp tax rise, the politicians would spend into a deficit by lunchtime the following day. Right, left and centre. Buying votes with borrowed money is popular.
Just seen Spectre. Wow: fantastic fun. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It's a bit 'super-slick action-flick' - and light on plot depth with a few loose ends that I didn't think were satisfactorily tied off, or even made sense. However, it had exoticness, breadth and a real sense of adventure. The locations were superb, and the Bond girl was absolutely beautiful.
The Sam Smith song works exceptionally well with the titles and I loved the subtle nod to one of the original Fleming stories.
They possibly tried to cram a tad too much action in it, and I wouldn't necessarily have finished it off in London/UK again.
But, overall? Much more satisfying and enjoyable than Skyfall.
Whens the republican debate start btw - might make a special effort to stay up and watch the loons. On a non betting level I quite like Jeb Bush actually - but his family name probably more of a hindrance atm than say "Clinton !"
Polls put Clinton 38 and 41 points ahead respectively in Iowa by the way.
Great stuff. Looks like she got Biden's (polled) vote - which makes sense
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
May we ask how old you are? Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen for a 'sensible conversation' if you were a sick person in their 80s (forgive me if you are) who had paid into the NHS all their working life, and expected it to look after you, not write you off.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following: -Saturated fat is bad -Unsaturated fat is good -Pasteurised milk is healthy -Grains should make up the bulk of our diet -Eggs are to be limited -Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
That is exactly what private healthcare insurer Vitality Health are preaching.
I know, I've got Vitality Health too - and they reward you by giving you Starbucks vouchers. The whole thing is a farce (if well-intentioned).
"If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS'"
Quite the reverse I would have thought. The situation we have now is due in no small measure to the emphasis on healthy living over the last thirty years or so.
Whilst healthier living might be a factor might I suggest that the effect of technological and medicinal advances are equally "responsible". Sorry for delay, just enjoying Man U's fine display of penalty taking.
I certainly wouldn't argue with that, Mr. Cide. Plus of course once people are living very long lives and so contracting all sorts of illnesses that are now treatable or at least semi-manageable the costs escalate even further beyond what is affordable.
If something cannot go on then it will not, the question is how and when do we change course. To my mind some form of rationing is essential and it should be done as openly and as transparently as possible. The quacks and the politicians are going to hate that but into every life a little rain must fall. If thirty years ago those quacks and politicians had actually bothered to think through the policies they were so keen on then we would not be where we are today.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
May we ask how old you are? Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen for a 'sensible conversation' if you were a sick person in their 80s (forgive me if you are) who had paid into the NHS all their working life, and expected it to look after you, not write you off.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following: -Saturated fat is bad -Unsaturated fat is good -Pasteurised milk is healthy -Grains should make up the bulk of our diet -Eggs are to be limited -Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
That is exactly what private healthcare insurer Vitality Health are preaching.
I know, I've got Vitality Health too - and they reward you by giving you Starbucks vouchers. The whole thing is a farce (if well-intentioned).
And cinema tickets! I'm a PMI broker and sell their policy among others, there reasoning is the cinema stuff and Starbucks is to reduce stress. To be fair if you engage in it then it is a very good product.
Also the current recommendation is not that saturated fats are bad, it is that the average current diet has too much saturated fat in it (and not by a huge amount, juat a couple of grams per day over the recommended daily amount)
Well it doesn't have too much, it doesn't have enough. It has too much polyunsaturated fat - grotesque mock food that is one molecule away from being a plastic. This is the process for making margarine:
These things are fairly actively discussed by my profession. The health economics as well as the ethics of preserving life. I am an advisor in some major commissioning issues where we have to trade off and argue the case for one over another. There are limits to what is acceptable though. We cannot abandon someone in a gutter just because they are going to die in a few weeks and the cost of that nursing is too high.
One shameful thing is that most hospices are run as charities, better funding would certainly help the burden of long term care. Nearly 50% of patients transferred to hospices are dead within 2 days, when actually the quality of care and ambiance is far better than most acute medical wards.
Matt said With respect (and FAOD that isn't sarcasm) that discussion is behind closed doors. To the world stage large, the impression that the BMA and the colleges give us an unsubtle spend more money. It's not one of recognising and understanding the trade offs test must be made. To your particular points, it's not one of abandoning people but recognising limits. I can give anecdotal evidence of those limits not being recognised in the elderly but that's anecdotal. To take a more local case, there are prosecutions running against a number of staff in Leicester over letting a young patient die. We can argue about whether their behaviour amounted to negligence or more but the bigger, and unaddressed, question is one of why we (that is the state in the guise of the NHS) trying so hard to keep the patient alive in the first place.
A lot of the discussions are out in the open. The problem is that the media is rarely interested, or if it is interested then the story is "heartless NHS refuses potentially lifesaving treatment X".
The child death case at my Trust is a tragic one, and the court is yet to decide a verdicy:
"If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS'"
Quite the reverse I would have thought. The situation we have now is due in no small measure to the emphasis on healthy living over the last thirty years or so.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
May we ask how old you are? Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen for a 'sensible conversation' if you were a sick person in their 80s (forgive me if you are) who had paid into the NHS all their working life, and expected it to look after you, not write you off.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following: -Saturated fat is bad -Unsaturated fat is good -Pasteurised milk is healthy -Grains should make up the bulk of our diet -Eggs are to be limited -Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
That is exactly what private healthcare insurer Vitality Health are preaching.
I know, I've got Vitality Health too - and they reward you by giving you Starbucks vouchers. The whole thing is a farce (if well-intentioned).
And cinema tickets! I'm a PMI broker and sell their policy among others, there reasoning is the cinema stuff and Starbucks is to reduce stress. To be fair if you engage in it then it is a very good product.
Well I certainly believe in the getting active part. I don't however believe that calorie restriction is a healthy or effective way to lose weight.
So, next time, Labour are going to have to spell out what they'd cut?
Or take, Mr. Nabavi, or take. If the politicians are to be required to spell out in detail what they would cut then they must also spell out in detail what taxes they would raise.
The whole argument as put forward by OGH is, of course, a load of dingos' kidneys and, I regret to say, appears to be just another sad example of someone not being able to come to terms with his party's catastrophic election result.
Ahead of tonight's debate I have cashed in a fair proportion of my gains backing in Rubio and laying Bush (and my loss laying Trump). I haven't reversed those positions, I've just cut my risk/reward.
C Christie +309 Trump +2 Bush +59 Rubio +23 Paul +480 Cruz +190 The Field +140 Fiorina +48.89 Carson +169.1
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
We should be having sensible conversations about why we aim to keep people alive regardless of quality of life. Whether length is all. The medical profession should be leading this. Where are they?
May we ask how old you are? Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen for a 'sensible conversation' if you were a sick person in their 80s (forgive me if you are) who had paid into the NHS all their working life, and expected it to look after you, not write you off.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following: -Saturated fat is bad -Unsaturated fat is good -Pasteurised milk is healthy -Grains should make up the bulk of our diet -Eggs are to be limited -Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
That is exactly what private healthcare insurer Vitality Health are preaching.
I know, I've got Vitality Health too - and they reward you by giving you Starbucks vouchers. The whole thing is a farce (if well-intentioned).
And cinema tickets! I'm a PMI broker and sell their policy among others, there reasoning is the cinema stuff and Starbucks is to reduce stress. To be fair if you engage in it then it is a very good product.
Well I certainly believe in the getting active part. I don't however believe that calorie restriction is a healthy or effective way to lose weight.
That entirely depends on your starting point.
Restricting calories to a more normal intake for your body size/type is a good thing.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.
Add in Assange's minders...
The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities
The police really can be pretty bloody stupid sometimes but I think that's pretty universal and in the stupidity/ corrupt stakes we come way down the field.
My uncle was KIA in the police (Before I was born) so I have alot of respect for the rank and file officer, the bods at the top though. Well.
To put 29 officers onto 1 missing person strikes of policing by fear of tabloid press.
I mostly agree with you sentiments, but I disagree with your last sentence. This can only be put down to stupidity on a scale so stupid that the initiators should have the cost stopped out of their salaries and be banned from taking any further expenses paid jaunts to anywhere warmer than the UK or having more snow (the Royal protection officers included).
No doubt you both think you are both being very clever, but huge numbers of police officers get put on similar cases. It's a pity the Portuguese police were so useless in the outset and the UK press contented itself with sensasionalism. We have done all we could in a strange and controversial case. One way or another I feel sorry for a poor poor poor little girl. How about you?
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
The NHS spends huge amounts treating conditions related to diet, type 2 diabetes etc. If we weren't spending so much on this, then later life illnesses would not be unaffordable.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
The NHS spends huge amounts treating conditions related to diet, type 2 diabetes etc. If we weren't spending so much on this, then later life illnesses would not be unaffordable.
I'll go back to my starting point shall I. We are in the situation we are with regard to the NHS/care is in no small measure because of policies that have been promoted and pursued by successive governments over the last thirty years.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
The NHS spends huge amounts treating conditions related to diet, type 2 diabetes etc. If we weren't spending so much on this, then later life illnesses would not be unaffordable.
What about other health services? What do they spend their money on?
How long can the triple lock on pensions be sustainable ?
I suspect quite long, for the very simple reason that the state pension is so low - max £6K a year for the old-style basic state pension, or £7.9K for the 'new' one. This is not exactly wealth beyond the dreams of avarice however you look at it. The idea that pensioners are being treated lavishly is a myth.
Restricting calories to a more normal intake for your body size/type is a good thing.
I believe that obesity relates more to poor nutrition rather than over-nutrition. Put briefly, I believe we add weight due to an insulin response to high blood glucose levels, which is why people can consume high levels of calories in the form of fats, and not put on weight.
And I don't think our bodies lie to us and tell us we want things when we don't - on the contrary, we lie to our bodies. Take sweet things for example. Sweetness is the apple's way of telling you it's at maximum mineral and vitamin value. Eat it (in moderation - but nature will stop you from eating too many in one sitting), and you satisfy your body's craving for that sweet thing. Eat a packet of haribo instead, and your body will continue its search for the apple, and you'll continue to crave something sweet. So the trick isn't to ignore your body because it's wrong and you know better (restricting calories), it's more to give your body what it's really asking for.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
A healthy person doesn't develop dementia? Perhaps not on the planet Sausage but it happens on Earth quite often.
Comments
To put 29 officers onto 1 missing person strikes of policing by fear of tabloid press.
There are now two clubs in Manchester to share the city's allocation of goals.
Manchester needs to apply to Sep Blatter for an increased allocation. Cash only.
If noone had any kids, we'd die out eliminate all debt and it'd do wonders for the planet
But don't you think, in Tower Hamlets and Newham, Labour might emphasise the fact he is a muslim?
Why should I pay for other people's kids
You are Andrew Lloyd Webber and i claim my prize!!
My point is a system which just relies on ever more people isn't all that sustainable in the long run...
What we need is a sea change in peoples attitudes regarding both the role of the State in their lives and the notion of the dependency culture. The fact is this has now extended beyond the individual to businesses as well which is one reason why tax credits are such pernicious nonsense. The role of the state should not be to subsidise companies by allowing them to pay low wages in the expectation that the tax payer will make up the difference.
Whether it is pensions, the NHS or welfare, we need a fundamental rethink about what the state should be providing and what people should be doing for themselves.
There can be no G-d given universal right to a state pension or any other form of taxpayer-funded benefit. Benefits should be for those in hardship through no fault of their own.
It was on yesterday on BBC 1. The visit to the Ghetto in Venice is fascinating but it's as interesting an examination of Shylock as I've seen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06myq5v/imagine-autumn-2015-1-shylocks-ghost
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/oct/27/tuesdays-best-tv-eamonn-and-ruth-how-the-other-half-lives-professor-green-suicide-and-me-catastrophe
Not that I'm bitter.
The root of a lot of our problems starts with poor public health. We have poor public health in part because those in influence themselves don't know how to produce healthy individuals, so even if they managed to push people toward their desired outcome, if wouldn't result in healthier individuals. Current health idiocies include the following:
-Saturated fat is bad
-Unsaturated fat is good
-Pasteurised milk is healthy
-Grains should make up the bulk of our diet
-Eggs are to be limited
-Foods can be fortified with vitamins and iron to replace natural vitamin and mineral content
These politically correct dietary principles, along with contaminants in our food supply, are simply making us all sick.
NHS is a misnomer - it's actually the national sickness service; it treats us when we're sick. If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS' as it stands.
Bless.
Not that you probably cared, but I was annoyed with Arsenal for not wearing their home kit. We didn't wear that monstrosity of a kit at Spurs in the third round and wearing it at Hillsborough was disrespectful to Wednesday.
It must be nice to be able to ignore all the crap things your party have done.
One shameful thing is that most hospices are run as charities, better funding would certainly help the burden of long term care. Nearly 50% of patients transferred to hospices are dead within 2 days, when actually the quality of care and ambiance is far better than most acute medical wards.
I've been told that by a few senior surgeons.
Incidentally you can palliate many of these effects by culturing your milk into yoghurt, which is what I do with all my milk now, since you can't get raw milk in Scotland and it costs £15 for 6 pints to get it via mail order from England! Scotland's policy on this is balls, and will harm the health of the country even as it seeks to turn it around.
-Forgot to mention enzymes in my milk rant - a crucial part of digestibility that's completely killed by pasteurisation.
With respect (and FAOD that isn't sarcasm) that discussion is behind closed doors. To the world stage large, the impression that the BMA and the colleges give us an unsubtle spend more money. It's not one of recognising and understanding the trade offs test must be made. To your particular points, it's not one of abandoning people but recognising limits. I can give anecdotal evidence of those limits not being recognised in the elderly but that's anecdotal. To take a more local case, there are prosecutions running against a number of staff in Leicester over letting a young patient die. We can argue about whether their behaviour amounted to negligence or more but the bigger, and unaddressed, question is one of why we (that is the state in the guise of the NHS) trying so hard to keep the patient alive in the first place.
My Nan didn't physically suffer. She's been in decline since my Grampy died earlier this year and it was all very quick and peaceful.
Just to put some context on how incredibly expensive care for the 'elderly' is. My Dad is 61. It costs the government nearly £3000 a month for his one-to-one care (the tests were rigorous to ensure he needed the paid-for care altjough he is now completely dependant on the nurses). Of course, he lost his pension and sick benefits etc, but the care is still bloody expensive. And he is just one of very many people who will live an indeterminate amount of time. He may live another five years.
Four years back he was on rugby tour with us in Vegas! Fit and loving life. Alzheimers is going to cost a fortune. It's scary how young some of the sufferers are.
Quite the reverse I would have thought. The situation we have now is due in no small measure to the emphasis on healthy living over the last thirty years or so.
Hope all is well with you BJO, talk about a shit year.
It's a bit 'super-slick action-flick' - and light on plot depth with a few loose ends that I didn't think were satisfactorily tied off, or even made sense. However, it had exoticness, breadth and a real sense of adventure. The locations were superb, and the Bond girl was absolutely beautiful.
The Sam Smith song works exceptionally well with the titles and I loved the subtle nod to one of the original Fleming stories.
They possibly tried to cram a tad too much action in it, and I wouldn't necessarily have finished it off in London/UK again.
But, overall? Much more satisfying and enjoyable than Skyfall.
Interestingly the vast majority of philosophers are really, really not in favour of the idea writing off the elderly that some seem to associate with this kind of thinking - and which seems to come up regularly from the medical side.
Having dealt with dying (but conscious, coherent etc) relatives in hospital and seen the way in which some medical staff behave towards (and think of) those they have "written off", I am completely against giving the medical profession unfettered control of this.
Phenomenal.
Oscar for Idris, I sincerely hope.
Thanks for the tip btw.
If something cannot go on then it will not, the question is how and when do we change course. To my mind some form of rationing is essential and it should be done as openly and as transparently as possible. The quacks and the politicians are going to hate that but into every life a little rain must fall. If thirty years ago those quacks and politicians had actually bothered to think through the policies they were so keen on then we would not be where we are today.
http://www.westonaprice.org/wp-content/uploads/edibleoilflowchart.gif
'Degumming'. 'Bleaching'. And they are allowed to advertise this poison as a healthy alternative.
The child death case at my Trust is a tragic one, and the court is yet to decide a verdicy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11915178/Boy-6-died-after-negligent-doctor-mistook-him-for-child-under-DNR-order.html
So, next time, Labour are going to have to spell out what they'd cut?
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
The whole argument as put forward by OGH is, of course, a load of dingos' kidneys and, I regret to say, appears to be just another sad example of someone not being able to come to terms with his party's catastrophic election result.
Trump +2
Bush +59
Rubio +23
Paul +480
Cruz +190
The Field +140
Fiorina +48.89
Carson +169.1
For me.
Restricting calories to a more normal intake for your body size/type is a good thing.
How about you?
And I don't think our bodies lie to us and tell us we want things when we don't - on the contrary, we lie to our bodies. Take sweet things for example. Sweetness is the apple's way of telling you it's at maximum mineral and vitamin value. Eat it (in moderation - but nature will stop you from eating too many in one sitting), and you satisfy your body's craving for that sweet thing. Eat a packet of haribo instead, and your body will continue its search for the apple, and you'll continue to crave something sweet. So the trick isn't to ignore your body because it's wrong and you know better (restricting calories), it's more to give your body what it's really asking for.