To know him is to find him unprofessional and crassly insensitive it would appear. Satisfyingly this seems to accord with all the available evidence for those of us who don't know Nuttall.
More importantly, I wonder when ordinary NHS patients will start joining the dots on another important issue. SNIP
if tories start campaigning on this it will be as cynical as labour's "days to save the nhs" bs. The right thing to do would be to honestly present the types of healthcare systems that could be viable in the future. This "health tourism" stuff is just UKIP vote chasing nonsense
*edited to remove "campaign". forgot they were in govt for a moment
"This "health tourism" stuff is just UKIP vote chasing nonsense"
I disagree as a very anti UKIP voter, this "health tourism" stuff is about to become an even more major issue on the back of Brexit! If we leave the EU, then our health authorities are going to have to be well prepared and have the infrastructure in place to deal with it, just as any Brit travelling abroad to the EU will then need to make sure they have the relevant full health insurance in place to cover themselves.
I can see that there may be some extra issues, but really, it's going to be a small beer by comparision with the challenges posed by an ageing, fattening population. These challenges will probably be made worse if immigration ends up being restricted, right enough.
Well it looks like the BMA among others are now starting a campaign to portray the NHS "in permanent winter" as year-round pressures increase
Just a thought while we are at it, a major revamp of UK nurse training to bring it back into line with the staffing levels we used to enjoy here in the UK before the last major training reforms might also be the answer. Now that Nursing has become a University degree, that Having taken away that very clear incentive to train as nurses, and then replaced it with a long term debt to be paid off when you qualify, is it any wonder that we are suffering from a shortage of trained staff....
the nursing shortage is not due to applicants but due to places. Because each -pace was funded through bursaries the numbers were capped. As I understand it now that the removal of the bursary is accompained by the removal of the cap on numbers. Labour's big meme is that the removal of bursaries as resulted in a collapse in applications.
It is true that applications are down, but still three times higher than places available.
Given the fall in nurses coming from the EU we will need more domestically trained nurses so we should restore the bursary and maintain and even increase the expansion in placements
There is probably a few nurses around here looking for a job
One long-time senior EU official said few would ultimately want to snub Britain if it had a change of heart. “But,” the person said, “the EU could want to impose some conditions, limiting the special status it has enjoyed in so many areas.”
Schengen, Euro, rebate etc... as people have been saying here for some time.
And who can blame them?
An (at best) half-hearted member who might be interested in staying in?
I think they'd be quite within their rights to say 'the full monty or nothing'
Mike, think the Stoke Lib Dems have put another 8 page style magazine round, almost the total constituency on Saturday, called Potteries LIFE, on Saturday. I have a copy, mainly focussed on their candidate. It's not bad. The Conservaive effort is not bad, Labour and UKIP tend to be more slanging leaflets Main view is that there will be a very low poll and in that scenario underestimate the Conseravtives and Liberal Democrats at your peril, their voters are more likely to turn out.
I think the Tories get second in Stoke overtaking UKIP and win Copeland
Betting wise, I am now on Lab for Stoke, Tories for Copeland. A LibDem win in either would also pay out.
Labour win Stoke and the Tories win Copeland is how I see it too but the latter could be close
One long-time senior EU official said few would ultimately want to snub Britain if it had a change of heart. “But,” the person said, “the EU could want to impose some conditions, limiting the special status it has enjoyed in so many areas.”
Schengen, Euro, rebate etc... as people have been saying here for some time.
And who can blame them?
An (at best) half-hearted member who might be interested in staying in?
I think they'd be quite within their rights to say 'the full monty or nothing'
Absolutely. But it puts in context all those who have been suggesting we can bail on A50 somewhen in the next couple of years (assuming that is found to be lawful) and rejoin as if nothing had changed - ie. its bollox.
Mr. Jessop, the information should be at least made known to some sort of government body that can assess whether it's acceptable (I can see a commercial case for not having it in the public sphere, although that might be outweighed by the need for public reassurance).
See my post below: I might well have been wrong in my assertion. And it's an important one to get right, as it was one of my major concerns with fracking.
if tories start campaigning on this it will be as cynical as labour's "days to save the nhs" bs. The right thing to do would be to honestly present the types of healthcare systems that could be viable in the future. This "health tourism" stuff is just UKIP vote chasing nonsense
*edited to remove "campaign". forgot they were in govt for a moment
"This "health tourism" stuff is just UKIP vote chasing nonsense"
I disagree as a very anti UKIP voter, this "health tourism" stuff is about to become an even more major issue on the back of Brexit! If we leave the EU, then our health authorities are going to have to be well prepared and have the infrastructure in place to deal with it, just as any Brit travelling abroad to the EU will then need to make sure they have the relevant full health insurance in place to cover themselves.
I can see that there may be some extra issues, but really, it's going to be a small beer by comparision with the challenges posed by an ageing, fattening population. These challenges will probably be made worse if immigration ends up being restricted, right enough.
Well it looks like the BMA among others are now starting a campaign to portray the NHS "in permanent winter" as year-round pressures increase
Just a thought while we are at it, a major revamp of UK nurse training to bring it back into line with the staffing levels we used to enjoy here in the UK before the last major training reforms might also be the answer. Now that Nursing has become a University degree, that Having taken away that very clear incentive to train as nurses, and then replaced it with a long term debt to be paid off when you qualify, is it any wonder that we are suffering from a shortage of trained staff....
the nursing shortage is not due to applicants but due to places. Because each -pace was funded through bursaries the numbers were capped. As I understand it now that the removal of the bursary is accompained by the removal of the cap on numbers. Labour's big meme is that the removal of bursaries as resulted in a collapse in applications.
It is true that applications are down, but still three times higher than places available.
Given the fall in nurses coming from the EU we will need more domestically trained nurses so we should restore the bursary and maintain and even increase the expansion in placements
There is probably a few nurses around here looking for a job
Does the Lib Den false newspaper count as "fake news"?
The front page of the Whitehaven News above seems much worse. Is it common for this to happen?
The Lib Dem newspaper I got through the door the other day counts as fake news!
They are running the Fracking Causes Cancer scare story, which was the one Friends of the Earth had to withdraw after being given a whole year to provide evidence by the ASA.
What evidence is possible under such circumstances? Waiting for people to get cancer?
There are many possible routes for indicative evidence or even proof:
*) Prior examples: has fracking caused an increase in cancer in the many areas it has been used in the past? *) Analogues: has laboratory replication of some part of the fracking process caused cancer in an analogue (e.g. mice). *) Direct proof: discovery of a strong mechanism by which fracking can cause cancer.
If the FoE cannot do any of the above (or other mechanisms) to back up their 'story', then it's just a scare: "you must believe that something I don't like will have bad consequences. Because, well, belief."
As it happens, I have concerns that the companies doing the fracking can keep their formulas secret: if they're pumping it into the ground, they ought to disclose what the chemicals are. It is one of these areas where I would not be surprised if a strong link between fracking and cancer was found (especially due to the secrecy), but the protesters don't seem to have any firm evidence.
Yet.
That sounds an awful lot like the 'patent medicine' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most of which turned out to be full of highly addictive stimulants that are now controlled drugs.
One long-time senior EU official said few would ultimately want to snub Britain if it had a change of heart. “But,” the person said, “the EU could want to impose some conditions, limiting the special status it has enjoyed in so many areas.”
Schengen, Euro, rebate etc... as people have been saying here for some time.
And who can blame them?
An (at best) half-hearted member who might be interested in staying in?
I think they'd be quite within their rights to say 'the full monty or nothing'
Agreed. Staying in or rejoining would involve committing to all, lest we mess them about again, and that's if they even permitted the latter.
To the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central: Happy days there will more and more leaflets to come between today and Thursday. I just wonder at the cost of it all per voters especially where there will be a very low turnout.
Does the Lib Den false newspaper count as "fake news"?
The front page of the Whitehaven News above seems much worse. Is it common for this to happen?
The Lib Dem newspaper I got through the door the other day counts as fake news!
They are running the Fracking Causes Cancer scare story, which was the one Friends of the Earth had to withdraw after being given a whole year to provide evidence by the ASA.
What evidence is possible under such circumstances? Waiting for people to get cancer?
There are many possible routes for indicative evidence or even proof:
*) Prior examples: has fracking caused an increase in cancer in the many areas it has been used in the past? *) Analogues: has laboratory replication of some part of the fracking process caused cancer in an analogue (e.g. mice). *) Direct proof: discovery of a strong mechanism by which fracking can cause cancer.
If the FoE cannot do any of the above (or other mechanisms) to back up their 'story', then it's just a scare: "you must believe that something I don't like will have bad consequences. Because, well, belief."
As it happens, I have concerns that the companies doing the fracking can keep their formulas secret: if they're pumping it into the ground, they ought to disclose what the chemicals are. It is one of these areas where I would not be surprised if a strong link between fracking and cancer was found (especially due to the secrecy), but the protesters don't seem to have any firm evidence.
Yet.
That sounds an awful lot like the 'patent medicine' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most of which turned out to be full of highly addictive stimulants that are now controlled drugs.
Again, see below: I think I'm wrong on this.
Fair play - in which case the LD 'newspaper' is even more fake news.
One long-time senior EU official said few would ultimately want to snub Britain if it had a change of heart. “But,” the person said, “the EU could want to impose some conditions, limiting the special status it has enjoyed in so many areas.”
Schengen, Euro, rebate etc... as people have been saying here for some time.
And who can blame them?
An (at best) half-hearted member who might be interested in staying in?
I think they'd be quite within their rights to say 'the full monty or nothing'
Agreed. Staying in or rejoining would involve committing to all, lest we mess them about again, and that's if they even permitted the latter.
I think even if its legal possible its political impossible, there will always be the suspicion that we will reach for A50 again the next time we lose something in QMV that we object to. Leaving aside the minor detail that there is not the faintest chance of a politician selling the GBP on the Euro (given Greece), Schengen (given Calais), EU Army, EU Border Control etc etc.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
By-election literature (and general election literature, and for that matter all political campaigning) always contain exaggerations, economy with the truth and downright porkies.
By comparison the £350 million available for the NHS was merely a case of telling the truth but not the whole truth. And even the threat of the Wardrobe Monster from Remain was only gross exaggeration.
Give it up, you fanatical Remainers, you'll make yourself ill if you carry on.
The only honest political campaign in recent electoral history seems to have been Trumps (and I didn't believe a word of it).
To the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central: Happy days there will more and more leaflets to come between today and Thursday. I just wonder at the cost of it all per voters especially where there will be a very low turnout.
Partly why it was reported some of the UK overseas aid budget will go to Eastern Europe to try and cut the UK's payments to the EU
And the minor detail of the 20-ish % of EU assets that we need to be compensated for. After a lot of bickering we will probably flip a coin for the fiver left in the kitty.
This is not news. It has always been the stated case that we cannot do trade deals while negotiating exit. Many in the EU are spiteful. They show their true colours and confirm why we should leave.
Partly why it was reported some of the UK overseas aid budget will go to Eastern Europe to try and cut the UK's payments to the EU
And the minor detail of the 20-ish % of EU assets that we need to be compensated for. After a lot of bickering we will probably flip a coin for the fiver left in the kitty.
To the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central: Happy days there will more and more leaflets to come between today and Thursday. I just wonder at the cost of it all per voters especially where there will be a very low turnout.
Someone should produce data about overall spending, and individual party's spending, versus turnout for each by-election.
That would be a really interesting study, and quite easy to get figures for.
The Manchester Central by-election in 2012 would be interesting: a turnout of ~16,500. How much did the parties spend on it (although it was a very safe seat, so it might not be the best example).
Does the Lib Den false newspaper count as "fake news"?
The negative Lab ad on the front page of the paper looks much worse IMHO. How many people thought it was editorial and didn't realise it was a political ad?
Edit: beaten to it by @JosiasJessop. As a guess it's probably too expensive to do this for anything except a Parliamentary by-election, but I'm surprised it's allowed at all - and that the newspaper would want to be seen as so partisan with such a negative message on its front page.
It's the first time I've seen a political wrap around (have a vague memory of one of unions doing it with the Standard in the past). It's clever by Labour.
The Tories did it here (Leamington) during the last general election. It must be very good money because newspapers risk alienating a lot of readers when carrying ads like that.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
I hope local councils have become more clued-up about the value of their property portfolios. I've come across hair-raising examples of councils being ripped off by builders, developers, pub-chains, shop owners etc. Because they never bothered to get proper professional advice.
Partly why it was reported some of the UK overseas aid budget will go to Eastern Europe to try and cut the UK's payments to the EU
And the minor detail of the 20-ish % of EU assets that we need to be compensated for. After a lot of bickering we will probably flip a coin for the fiver left in the kitty.
If the EU want to go down the route of €60bn in payments (c.3% of U.K. GDP) then the U.K. Response will be to say OK fine, we'll leave two years from now to WTO terms, your move.
Hopefully all this initial posturing on all sides will be replaced by some sensible realpolitik once the negotiations actually start.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
To the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central: Happy days there will more and more leaflets to come between today and Thursday. I just wonder at the cost of it all per voters especially where there will be a very low turnout.
Plenty more phone calls too
How does Copeland look now? Still 50:50 or do you expect the Tories to win?
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
To the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central: Happy days there will more and more leaflets to come between today and Thursday. I just wonder at the cost of it all per voters especially where there will be a very low turnout.
Plenty more phone calls too
How does Copeland look now? Still 50:50 or do you expect the Tories to win?
If iis too close to call then Labour is good value.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
Are they going to start voting Corbyn?
Anyway, if they don't want good quality care in their final years that is their call. Just don't expect the rest of the country to pay for it instead.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
today's context (which I'm sure plato knows all about) is that a recording of him defending relationships between 13 yr old boys and older men is doing the rounds e.g.
I've read about it before, but the behaviour of the people involved is quite amazing from my perspective. You find something glowing a strange, ethereal light: what do you do?
1) Contact the authorities. 2) Run. 3) Take it into your house and try to break it open.
The Nuttall implosion will be used to drive the narrative of the reason for the *touches wood* UKIP failure. But the truth is Labour were always going to win (I think)
Copeland.
Genuinely not sure but its a two horse race for first. And I don't know who of LDs or UKIP will finish third.
You need to differentiate between 'hazard' and 'risk' and understand the difference.
You are drinking carcinogens with your breakfast coffee, tea, and bacon. Oxygen is extremely toxic, and drinking too much water can kill you. Cell multiplication (living) is carcinogenic.
Paracelsus (the dose makes the poison) must be spinning in his 500 year old grave.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
Sadly, that could well be true. Cameron and Osborne, with their ‘triple lock’ hoped ....and seemed to have ...... ‘locked in much of the pensioner vote. However, like many other such quick fixes it’s becoming more and more damaging. It’s encouraging that we are now beginning to get stories in the Press of grandparents worrying about how their grandchildren will manage. For a start, our Christmas Bonuses and Winter Fuel Allowances should be taxed.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
today's context (which I'm sure plato knows all about) is that a recording of him defending relationships between 13 yr old boys and older men is doing the rounds e.g.
'I'm grateful to Father Michael, I wouldn't give such good head if it wasn't for him.'
He's such a card!
You still don't get it - this is why the liberal elite lost. Paedophilia is fine if it is being condoned by attention seeking right wingers. What part of your sneering metropolitan leftie mind-set does not get this?
I've read about it before, but the behaviour of the people involved is quite amazing from my perspective. You find something glowing a strange, ethereal light: what do you do?
1) Contact the authorities. 2) Run. 3) Take it into your house and try to break it open.
I feel sympathy for the little girl. The thieves and scrap merchants handling stolen goods, less so.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
Are they going to start voting Corbyn?
Anyway, if they don't want good quality care in their final years that is their call. Just don't expect the rest of the country to pay for it instead.
Virtually the entirety of modern British politics is predicated on voters wanting the state to do everything for them but for someone else to pay. The voters are schizophrenic, they are Corbynite on public spending, but Thatcherite on taxation. Taxation should apparently be to tax the rich (richer than me), the old (older than me), the young (younger than me) or the landed (bigger house than me).
The only way to make paying for it uncontroversial in the long term is mandatory personal accounts with an employer contribution, which are topped up by the government if you can't afford to make the payments yourself eg. Central Provident Funds of Singapore.
To the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central: Happy days there will more and more leaflets to come between today and Thursday. I just wonder at the cost of it all per voters especially where there will be a very low turnout.
Plenty more phone calls too
How does Copeland look now? Still 50:50 or do you expect the Tories to win?
Tories fractionally ahead but depends on which side gets its vote out
You need to differentiate between 'hazard' and 'risk' and understand the difference.
You are drinking carcinogens with your breakfast coffee, tea, and bacon. Oxygen is extremely toxic, and drinking too much water can kill you. Cell multiplication (living) is carcinogenic.
Paracelsus (the dose makes the poison) must be spinning in his 500 year old grave.
The Maillard reaction is *tasty*
and I shall continue to enjoy it, accepting my increased 0.01% chance of whatever is has been weakly associated with
I've read about it before, but the behaviour of the people involved is quite amazing from my perspective. You find something glowing a strange, ethereal light: what do you do?
1) Contact the authorities. 2) Run. 3) Take it into your house and try to break it open.
I feel sympathy for the little girl. The thieves and scrap merchants handling stolen goods, less so.
Indeed.
ISTR another case where some Soviet woodsmen discovered a metal object standing in an area clear of snow. As it was warm, they took into their cabin and used it as a heat source.
It was a radio-thermal generator that had been abandoned by the army.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
Are they going to start voting Corbyn?
Anyway, if they don't want good quality care in their final years that is their call. Just don't expect the rest of the country to pay for it instead.
snip
The only way to make paying for it uncontroversial in the long term is mandatory personal accounts with an employer contribution, which are topped up by the government if you can't afford to make the payments yourself eg. Central Provident Funds of Singapore.
The old adage: Brits want Scandinavian levels of public services at American tax rates.
A 10% across-the-board estates tax on death might work?
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
If they want social care it has to be paid for, though higher NI for the 50 to 65s who are still working and who have paid off the mortgage and whose children have left home would be sensible and Matthew Parris suggested this on Saturday as would those who can afford it being encouraged to take out annuities
Stoke Central: betting odds, Conservatives coming in fast now down to 10-1 at Ladbrokes, 14-1 at Hills.
Poor odds, however I thought this might happen so to allow myself to relax a bit over the next few days I took some various 33-1 last night to flip the Tories from red to green.
My ex-neighbours had a baby a few months before we did. They give us all the plastic toys they'd been given as gifts, as they were worried about carcinogens in the plastics.
A while later I saw the husband looking frazzled by his damaged car, alongside a blown-out tyre on the ground. It turned out he'd been driving at 100 MPH with his son in the back, when he'd suffered a blow-out. With crazy luck he'd only had a minor crash.
On getting home, his son had been placed upstairs and pulled a bookcase over on himself, and had ended up in A&E.
So: plastic toys were a major risk and a no-no. Driving like a madman with your baby in the back, and not tying back your furniture: fine.
They were both educated and intelligent, and had well-paid jobs.
People are terrible at analysing risks. And I include myself in that ...
He is a provocateur. And any progressive thinking society needs provocateurs to keep us honest. We need provocateurs from both the right and the left, top and bottom. Bring Milo and the George Galloways on.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
His opponents have played their final career destroying card - he's a paedo apologist. And produced the most epically edited video to smear him. Given he's exposed 3 paedos [one is in court next month] and was subjected to abuse by a Catholic priest himself as a young teen... It's all an appalling outrage circus.
There's plenty of things one can disagree with him on - and I do, but this is beyond vile.
Stoke Central: betting odds, Conservatives coming in fast now down to 10-1 at Ladbrokes, 14-1 at Hills.
That doesn't seem right - but if the Lab and UKIP candidates are both trying to lose, then it's entirely possible that the Tories might sneak through on a very low turnout.
There's 20/1 around with Sky, Paddy and BF fixed-odds. Definitely no value at 10/1 from Shadsy though.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
Are they going to start voting Corbyn?
Anyway, if they don't want good quality care in their final years that is their call. Just don't expect the rest of the country to pay for it instead.
snip
The only way to make paying for it uncontroversial in the long term is mandatory personal accounts with an employer contribution, which are topped up by the government if you can't afford to make the payments yourself eg. Central Provident Funds of Singapore.
The old adage: Brits want Scandinavian levels of public services at American tax rates.
A 10% across-the-board estates tax on death might work?
Americans take out more insurance, higher NI for the middle-aged and more annuities not a new estates tax is the way forward and would be more politically acceptable
The Chancellor is set to receive a rare piece of good news on Budget day as the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) forecast is expected to reveal lower borrowing projections and stronger GDP growth, according to the EY ITEM Club Budget preview.
Stronger than expected tax receipts should push down the OBR’s borrowing forecast for the current fiscal year by £3b to £65b. At the same time, the EY ITEM Club report says that better-than-expected momentum in the UK economy is likely to lead the OBR to revise its GDP forecast for this year upwards from 1.4% to 1.6% or 1.7%.
Americans take out more insurance, higher NI for the middle-aged and more annuities not a new estates tax is the way forward and would be more politically acceptable
I'm guessing this "middle aged" tax will begin at 40 right after I've cleared the student loan ?
He is a provocateur. And any progressive thinking society needs provocateurs to keep us honest. We need provocateurs from both the right and the left, top and bottom. Bring Milo and the George Galloways on.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
His opponents have played their final career destroying card - he's a paedo apologist. And produced the most epically edited video to smear him. Given he's exposed 3 paedos [one is in court next month] and was subjected to abuse by a Catholic priest himself as a young teen... It's all an appalling outrage circus.
There's plenty of things one can disagree with him on - and I do, but this is beyond vile.
It's almost as if what Milo does is being done back to him. You'd need a heart of stone ...
He is a provocateur. And any progressive thinking society needs provocateurs to keep us honest. We need provocateurs from both the right and the left, top and bottom. Bring Milo and the George Galloways on.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
His opponents have played their final career destroying card - he's a paedo apologist. And produced the most epically edited video to smear him. Given he's exposed 3 paedos [one is in court next month] and was subjected to abuse by a Catholic priest himself as a young teen... It's all an appalling outrage circus.
There's plenty of things one can disagree with him on - and I do, but this is beyond vile.
His playbook's the same as the likes of Howard Stern have been doing for decades - saying uncomfortable and controversial things to get a reaction. His opponents still don't understand that the only reason he's so popular is that he makes them go absolutely nuts! If they want him to go away, they need to start ignoring him for a bit.
He is a provocateur. And any progressive thinking society needs provocateurs to keep us honest. We need provocateurs from both the right and the left, top and bottom. Bring Milo and the George Galloways on.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
His opponents have played their final career destroying card - he's a paedo apologist. And produced the most epically edited video to smear him. Given he's exposed 3 paedos [one is in court next month] and was subjected to abuse by a Catholic priest himself as a young teen... It's all an appalling outrage circus.
There's plenty of things one can disagree with him on - and I do, but this is beyond vile.
It's almost as if what Milo does is being done back to him. You'd need a heart of stone ...
Appalling Outrage Circus, great live band but just couldn't transfer it to the studio. Tragic that they all choked to death on their own and each other's vomit(™Spinal Tap).
He is a provocateur. And any progressive thinking society needs provocateurs to keep us honest. We need provocateurs from both the right and the left, top and bottom. Bring Milo and the George Galloways on.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
His opponents have played their final career destroying card - he's a paedo apologist. And produced the most epically edited video to smear him. Given he's exposed 3 paedos [one is in court next month] and was subjected to abuse by a Catholic priest himself as a young teen... It's all an appalling outrage circus.
There's plenty of things one can disagree with him on - and I do, but this is beyond vile.
Americans take out more insurance, higher NI for the middle-aged and more annuities not a new estates tax is the way forward and would be more politically acceptable
I'm guessing this "middle aged" tax will begin at 40 right after I've cleared the student loan ?
No, the higher NI would begin at 50 when not only the student loan but the mortgage starts to have been paid off and children begin to leave home, it then ends at 65-67 once you take your pension
< Sadly, that could well be true. Cameron and Osborne, with their ‘triple lock’ hoped ....and seemed to have ...... ‘locked in much of the pensioner vote. However, like many other such quick fixes it’s becoming more and more damaging. It’s encouraging that we are now beginning to get stories in the Press of grandparents worrying about how their grandchildren will manage. For a start, our Christmas Bonuses and Winter Fuel Allowances should be taxed.
Interesting responses but we have, as we are told by the experts on here, the Conservatives ahead with every group (nearly) and a double digit polling lead guaranteeing them a landslide in 2020.
So what better time to be radical ? Blair had a huge majority in 1997 and wasted it through fear of upsetting his recent converts from the Conservative side.
With Corbyn opposite, why can't May do something really courageous and challenge the fiscal supremacy of the old ? If, as Conservatives claim, they want to cut spending and reduce the power of the State, why do we have such benefits for the elderly many of whom apparently have a better lifestyle and more income than those in work /
She won't of course but why not ? Who would the disillusioned elderly turn to ? No one or anyone ? The country can't afford the ongoing fiscal bribery of a section of the electorate - the irony is of course the very same group who refuse to countenance giving up their free tv licences are the very ones who will need the social care we can't afford because of all the over-generous payments and benefits.
Perhaps we should tell Trump we will be cutting our defence spending because we have a lot of old people to look after - I mean, he's pretty old himself, I'm sure he'll understand.
He is a provocateur. And any progressive thinking society needs provocateurs to keep us honest. We need provocateurs from both the right and the left, top and bottom. Bring Milo and the George Galloways on.
The fact the Dems controlled the house for 40 years shows how broad their base was. Rural conservative poor seats in the south, wealthy liberal seats in New England and California and wwc seats in the mid west. Wow. How did that coalition last so long?
I've never heard any of his stuff. I have no intention of doing so - and from what people say i'd find it dull and irritating anyway.
But he has a right to say it and it is outrageous that opponents should use the fear of violence or commercial pressure to try and shut down his right to free speech
His opponents have played their final career destroying card - he's a paedo apologist. And produced the most epically edited video to smear him. Given he's exposed 3 paedos [one is in court next month] and was subjected to abuse by a Catholic priest himself as a young teen... It's all an appalling outrage circus.
There's plenty of things one can disagree with him on - and I do, but this is beyond vile.
His playbook's the same as the likes of Howard Stern have been doing for decades - saying uncomfortable and controversial things to get a reaction. His opponents still don't understand that the only reason he's so popular is that he makes them go absolutely nuts! If they want him to go away, they need to start ignoring him for a bit.
It will be interesting to see how much coverage this gets, but today is the anniversary of the calling of the EU referendum. It was a year ago that PM Cameron returned from the Brussels summit and announced his 'deal', the referendum and his intention to campaign to remain in the EU.
Some might say that it was the day that represented the beginning of the end of David Cameron as PM, it was certainly the day when he lost the support of many people who had been positive about him for more than a decade.
One long-time senior EU official said few would ultimately want to snub Britain if it had a change of heart. “But,” the person said, “the EU could want to impose some conditions, limiting the special status it has enjoyed in so many areas.”
Schengen, Euro, rebate etc... as people have been saying here for some time.
A 10% across-the-board estates tax on death might work?
Possibly. But expect to see lots of better off oldies divesting themselves of their properties in their 60s, either to their children or trusts, and then renting or continuing to living in the properties by agreement with their children.
If they want social care it has to be paid for, though higher NI for the 50 to 65s who are still working and who have paid off the mortgage and whose children have left home would be sensible and Matthew Parris suggested this on Saturday as would those who can afford it being encouraged to take out annuities
Increasingly rare in these days of high family breakup, lots of (especially) men in their late 40s or early 50s are starting their second families these days. I would have though the simpler solution would be a lifetime saving account, mandatory contribution of 1% of income up to some limit, mandatory contribution of maybe 0.5% by your employers, guaranteed interest rate by the government, with aim of making a fund sufficiently large as to cover individual social care and basic state pension.
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
Sadly, that could well be true. Cameron and Osborne, with their ‘triple lock’ hoped ....and seemed to have ...... ‘locked in much of the pensioner vote. However, like many other such quick fixes it’s becoming more and more damaging. It’s encouraging that we are now beginning to get stories in the Press of grandparents worrying about how their grandchildren will manage. For a start, our Christmas Bonuses and Winter Fuel Allowances should be taxed.
There are a few mixed messages on this. On one hand we're told that the UK spends the least on old age provision of the G8 and on the other it's pensioners are too rich. As I'm approaching pension age, I've realised that over the years I've paid a huge amount into my pensions and am looking forward to reaping the rewards.
I agree we should look at abolishing the NI contribution cut off, rich pensioners pay tax for example. I would like to see some hypothecation though.
One long-time senior EU official said few would ultimately want to snub Britain if it had a change of heart. “But,” the person said, “the EU could want to impose some conditions, limiting the special status it has enjoyed in so many areas.”
Schengen, Euro, rebate etc... as people have been saying here for some time.
We should accept them all.
Good luck on the doorstep with that one. I think Labour should propose it, possibly the only way they can get their polling any lower.
We have some polling which already shows more Leavers regretting their vote than Remainers and with it looking like the poorest will be hit the hardest most by Brexit then that figure may very well rise.
Or not, as yesterdays header showed.
In anycase the EU grande fromages have been saying to anyone that would listen that they would not want us back anyway - see the link to Euactiv earlier.
To the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central: Happy days there will more and more leaflets to come between today and Thursday. I just wonder at the cost of it all per voters especially where there will be a very low turnout.
Plenty more phone calls too
How does Copeland look now? Still 50:50 or do you expect the Tories to win?
Tories fractionally ahead but depends on which side gets its vote out
Quite noticeable that appeals to Labour members to pitch in have largely shifted from Stoke (which we're pretty confident about - those bets on the Tories there are lost at whatever odds, unless they're planned as trading bets) to Copeland (where we think we're slightly ahead but also think it's close).
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done.
and given the power of the Grey vote, instantly lose the next, and probably subsequent election.
So the oldie hold the country to ransom in perpetuity because the Tories need their votes to stay in power. Great for the Tories, not so great for the future of the country I suspect.can't win an election with
The only way I can see it happening is the post Brexit UK experiences an economic slump, whilst the EU booms.
and without Greece blowing up into an unholy mess later in the year when the IMF walks away from the next bailout and the Germans are forced to follow suit.
The only way I can see it happening is the post Brexit UK experiences an economic slump, whilst the EU booms.
But might that not just be blamed on the EU anyway?
What ever the merits of the case, delusions to the left of me, wishful thinking to the right, I strongly suspect we're out, and out for the foreseeable future.
The only way I can see it happening is the post Brexit UK experiences an economic slump, whilst the EU booms.
But might that not just be blamed on the EU anyway?
What ever the merits of the case, delusions to the left of me, wishful thinking to the right, I strongly suspect we're out, and out for the foreseeable future.
It depends, the electorate might blame those politicians who said Leaving the EU would be quick and easy/lead to sunlit economic uplands
The only way I can see it happening is the post Brexit UK experiences an economic slump, whilst the EU booms.
But might that not just be blamed on the EU anyway?
What ever the merits of the case, delusions to the left of me, wishful thinking to the right, I strongly suspect we're out, and out for the foreseeable future.
It depends, the electorate might blame those politicians who said Leaving the EU would be quick and easy/lead to sunlit economic uplands
The only way I can see it happening is the post Brexit UK experiences an economic slump, whilst the EU booms.
and without Greece blowing up into an unholy mess later in the year when the IMF walks away from the next bailout and the Germans are forced to follow suit.
How much does Greece owe to the IMF now?
If the IMF walks and Greece goes bust then that money is all lost. I would not rule out another big serving of fudge to keep the show on the road.
The only way I can see it happening is the post Brexit UK experiences an economic slump, whilst the EU booms.
and without Greece blowing up into an unholy mess later in the year when the IMF walks away from the next bailout and the Germans are forced to follow suit.
How much does Greece owe to the IMF now?
If the IMF walks and Greece goes bust then that money is all lost. I would not rule out another big serving of fudge to keep the show on the road.
It will be another lesson in advanced can kicking.
Comments
Satisfyingly this seems to accord with all the available evidence for those of us who don't know Nuttall.
An (at best) half-hearted member who might be interested in staying in?
I think they'd be quite within their rights to say 'the full monty or nothing'
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/833568600388730880
It appears to be covered by section 7.4 of http://www.ukoog.org.uk/images/ukoog/pdfs/Shale_Gas_Well_Guidelines_Issue_4.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/20/jean-claude-juncker-could-step-european-commission-president
Busy start to the week with everyone getting overheated about by-election trivia. Fortunately, the real world is still about:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38982643
Council leaders crying wolf - maybe, but it's those well known "lefties" Izzi Seecombe and David Hodge. The fundamental problem is this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35633213
The Government has basically told local authorities they will have to be financially independent of Government by 2020. This is why Councils are frantically establishing investment property portfolios as an example - yes, Councils will be able to keep Business Rates which will help some more than others and there are varying levels of Transition Relief from the Government (which I suspect will be increased in next month's Budget).
The problem is adult social care demands and costs are rising far faster than any Transitional relief and beyond the ability of Councils to generate sufficient income locally. The options are therefore either cuts in other services or going to the residents for more Council Tax as Surrey threatened to do the other day.
There's an opening here for the Opposition to talk about a broad-based sensible funding settlement for adult social care provision with a combination of Government help and personal responsibility - putting money aside for our pension and augmenting that to include provision for care. With care home costs at £1000 per week (or higher), the resources of those even with significant capital assets in the form of property are quickly depleted so this whole issue needs a fundamental re-think.
By-election literature (and general election literature, and for that matter all political campaigning) always contain exaggerations, economy with the truth and downright porkies.
By comparison the £350 million available for the NHS was merely a case of telling the truth but not the whole truth. And even the threat of the Wardrobe Monster from Remain was only gross exaggeration.
Give it up, you fanatical Remainers, you'll make yourself ill if you carry on.
The only honest political campaign in recent electoral history seems to have been Trumps (and I didn't believe a word of it).
That would be a really interesting study, and quite easy to get figures for.
The Manchester Central by-election in 2012 would be interesting: a turnout of ~16,500. How much did the parties spend on it (although it was a very safe seat, so it might not be the best example).
Hopefully all this initial posturing on all sides will be replaced by some sensible realpolitik once the negotiations actually start.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/alistair-burt-its-time-for-remainers-to-accept-the-referendum-result-and-i-say-that-as-a-pro-european.html
Anyway, if they don't want good quality care in their final years that is their call. Just don't expect the rest of the country to pay for it instead.
'I'm grateful to Father Michael, I wouldn't give such good head if it wasn't for him.'
He's such a card!
I'm doing some background reading on radiation poisoning, and the Goiana Incident is quite startlingly bad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiânia_accident#Hospital_abandonment
I've read about it before, but the behaviour of the people involved is quite amazing from my perspective. You find something glowing a strange, ethereal light: what do you do?
1) Contact the authorities.
2) Run.
3) Take it into your house and try to break it open.
The Nuttall implosion will be used to drive the narrative of the reason for the *touches wood* UKIP failure.
But the truth is Labour were always going to win (I think)
Copeland.
Genuinely not sure but its a two horse race for first.
And I don't know who of LDs or UKIP will finish third.
You need to differentiate between 'hazard' and 'risk' and understand the difference.
You are drinking carcinogens with your breakfast coffee, tea, and bacon. Oxygen is extremely toxic, and drinking too much water can kill you. Cell multiplication (living) is carcinogenic.
Paracelsus (the dose makes the poison) must be spinning in his 500 year old grave.
However, like many other such quick fixes it’s becoming more and more damaging. It’s encouraging that we are now beginning to get stories in the Press of grandparents worrying about how their grandchildren will manage.
For a start, our Christmas Bonuses and Winter Fuel Allowances should be taxed.
The only way to make paying for it uncontroversial in the long term is mandatory personal accounts with an employer contribution, which are topped up by the government if you can't afford to make the payments yourself eg. Central Provident Funds of Singapore.
and I shall continue to enjoy it, accepting my increased 0.01% chance of whatever is has been weakly associated with
"Just remove OAPs exemption from National Insurance taxation. Job done"
And see pictures of frail old pensioners dying horribly with rats eating at their extremities. Those SJWs can play dirty.
ISTR another case where some Soviet woodsmen discovered a metal object standing in an area clear of snow. As it was warm, they took into their cabin and used it as a heat source.
It was a radio-thermal generator that had been abandoned by the army.
Edit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/world/in-georgian-region-race-to-recover-nuclear-fuel.html
A 10% across-the-board estates tax on death might work?
edit, I'd never even heard of Peter Whittle, joint fav. there you go
My ex-neighbours had a baby a few months before we did. They give us all the plastic toys they'd been given as gifts, as they were worried about carcinogens in the plastics.
A while later I saw the husband looking frazzled by his damaged car, alongside a blown-out tyre on the ground. It turned out he'd been driving at 100 MPH with his son in the back, when he'd suffered a blow-out. With crazy luck he'd only had a minor crash.
On getting home, his son had been placed upstairs and pulled a bookcase over on himself, and had ended up in A&E.
So: plastic toys were a major risk and a no-no. Driving like a madman with your baby in the back, and not tying back your furniture: fine.
They were both educated and intelligent, and had well-paid jobs.
People are terrible at analysing risks. And I include myself in that ...
There's plenty of things one can disagree with him on - and I do, but this is beyond vile.
There's 20/1 around with Sky, Paddy and BF fixed-odds. Definitely no value at 10/1 from Shadsy though.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/stoke-on-trent-central-by-election/winning-party
Stronger than expected tax receipts should push down the OBR’s borrowing forecast for the current fiscal year by £3b to £65b. At the same time, the EY ITEM Club report says that better-than-expected momentum in the UK economy is likely to lead the OBR to revise its GDP forecast for this year upwards from 1.4% to 1.6% or 1.7%.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/economic-growth/opinion/ey/83404/top-city-firm-eys-spring-budget-predictions
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.129131205
Edited extra bit: humbug, down to 14 already.
If not I wouldn't go taking 14s downward.
Shadsy's 10/1 on the Tories have made him best price 7/4 on UKIP now though, if anyone wants some?
So what better time to be radical ? Blair had a huge majority in 1997 and wasted it through fear of upsetting his recent converts from the Conservative side.
With Corbyn opposite, why can't May do something really courageous and challenge the fiscal supremacy of the old ? If, as Conservatives claim, they want to cut spending and reduce the power of the State, why do we have such benefits for the elderly many of whom apparently have a better lifestyle and more income than those in work /
She won't of course but why not ? Who would the disillusioned elderly turn to ? No one or anyone ? The country can't afford the ongoing fiscal bribery of a section of the electorate - the irony is of course the very same group who refuse to countenance giving up their free tv licences are the very ones who will need the social care we can't afford because of all the over-generous payments and benefits.
Perhaps we should tell Trump we will be cutting our defence spending because we have a lot of old people to look after - I mean, he's pretty old himself, I'm sure he'll understand.
He's a judge on America's Got Talent with Cowell now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Stern
I agree we should look at abolishing the NI contribution cut off, rich pensioners pay tax for example. I would like to see some hypothecation though.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
One for Sunil
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/rail-journeys/Overnight-sleeper-trains-ten-of-the-best-trips/
Or not, as yesterdays header showed.
In anycase the EU grande fromages have been saying to anyone that would listen that they would not want us back anyway - see the link to Euactiv earlier.
As for 'black women', wasn't that tosh, with some of Milo's followers (but not himself) being obnoxious? Unfamiliar with the other examples.
What ever the merits of the case, delusions to the left of me, wishful thinking to the right, I strongly suspect we're out, and out for the foreseeable future.
Gillian Troughton told LabourList there were just days left to “save the NHS” in West Cumbria before voters go to the polls on Thursday.
http://labourlist.org/2017/02/exclusive-three-days-to-save-the-nhs-in-west-cumbria-by-election-candidate-says/
If the IMF walks and Greece goes bust then that money is all lost. I would not rule out another big serving of fudge to keep the show on the road.