'Why would the EU do that when they know we need a deal more than they do? They've read all the dealmaking books too and have been involved in a fair few negotiations. They know how to play the game.'
Do they?
Their track record suggests the opposite
They offered us a crap deal to stay in the EU on the basis we would never vote to leave....
After we voted to leave they thought we would reconsider.....
After we didn't reconsider they thought we would want to stay in the single market / customs union...
Rochdale update: Danczuk to stand as an Independent, so worth a flutter on the LDs, I'd say.
What about the Tories? At last election, they were (a) 3rd, ahead of the Lib Dems, and (b) the combined vote share of the Conservative and 2nd placed Ukip candidates was 35.8%, i.e. 10.3% adrift of Danczuk.
Rochdale is so far down the Conservative target list that it must fall outside of the top 150, but given the circumstances that you describe it can't be regarded as totally unwinnable, surely?
Until the 1958 by election Rochdale was a Tory seat!
I'm not sure what we're supposed to learn from that, other that don't make threats you don't wish to see called.
Like not trying to pretend that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'?
Greece actually had more leverage than we have now.
No.
We have a lot more leverage. If we leave without a deal it will be painful. But nothing like as painful as a disorderly Euro exit.
Absolutely. Sterling might fall again but it will not drop 50%. In any case, UK is to some extent like Japan. Japan has very high debts [ about 250% of GDP ]. But most of it are with Japanese banks.
That is why I have never understood this obsession with Debt / GDP or more precisely actual deficit numbers even if Debt/GDP ratio was falling. What's wrong with a small deficit but with the ratio falling.
Trump's likely budget: Do they give a damn ? What happened to the national debt under Reagan ?
Because with an even smaller deficit, or a surplus, the ratio falls faster. The same goes for the amount spent on debt interest, which is currently equivalent to the half of the schools budget.
But if ever there was a time to do a soft landing , it is now with interest rates so low. Why tear up the social fabric when the "cost" of debt , for governments, almost a tenth of what it was 10 years ago. Even 30 year gilts are around 1.7% now.
FWIW, I have a BMI of 28 and a score of 15. Higher than I would like, and a powerful motivator.
Cheers, that is very good indeed. My BMI is much higher, risk level 17. I will keep going!!
Keep up the good work Mr Observer!
Apparently my BMI is 26.3 giving me a factor of 8, but if I lose that 1.3 and get my BMI to 24.9 then I will go from the second lowest category to the lowest. My biggest factor is my age but apart from weight, all my other factors are zero.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
On and off, I have tried various but none of them sincerely [ I mean without cheating ]. THe only time it has really worked is by actually counting what I ate. There are websites for that e.g. Spark. I was looking from a diabetics point of view but the principle is the same.
Good luck with yours.
Low carb high fat. Although Dr Foxinsox probably wouldn't approve (although as diabetes is a problem with dealing with carbohydrates it seems to me the best strategy is to stop eating them). It is self sustaining, as fat is more satiating and you train your body to burn fat rather than expect a constant top-up of sugary and starchy snacks
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum ....... – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
And nowhere near as painful as what Greece actually went through.
On a rational basis, the EU have as much to lose as do we - a smaller percentage of EU GDP, of course, but in nominal terms, probably something similar. Rational actors would come to a reasonable settlement, but sadly I'm far from sure that those negotiating will fall into that category.
The best thing for Greece would have been an orderly Euro exit, with the IMF recapitalising the Greek banking sector, and supporting the rest of the economy through devaluation. The worst thing would have been a disorderly exit. What they did was something in between.
I think it's important to realise just how painful a disorderly exit would have been. The Greek economy in 2015 ran a (large) primary budget deficit, and was also utterly dependent on tourism from the rest of the EU.
At the point of departure, the Greek government owed many billions to the EU and the ECB. The Greek government would not have been able to raise money abroad because it would have been in default. Greek banks would have been shut out of funding, and would have seen their remaining deposits fly out the door as depositors desparately tried to get Euros before devaluation day.
Greek companies would have Euro, Dollar and Sterling obligations to overseas suppliers, and those bills would not have been redenominated downwards; instead they would have had to be paid out of bank accounts that now only had Drachma in them.
With an economy utterly dependent on tourism for foreign currency income, there would be no easy substitutes for Greece from the Europeans. 18% of Greek GDP is from tourism, and more than 60% of its foreign currency earnings.
Now, longer term, the Greek economy and tourism would benefit from being outside the Eurozone (because prices would be lower). But in the short term, visitors not being able to use banks to withdraw money (because Greek banks were shut out of the international system) would have been utterly catastrophic.
Personal view (repeated ad nauseum on here) is that the Greek should have taken the IMF offer at the beginning of 2015 and left the Eurozone in an orderly fashion supported by the IMF and the EU. It would have been painful, because they would still have had to make the cuts to public expenditure they made under the IMF/troika plan. But it would also have enabled them to default outside the Eurozone and to cut debt-to-GDP to perhaps 100%. I have no doubt that the economy would be growing nicely now if they had done that. But both Varoufakis (who refused to make cuts to spending) and Tsipras (who feared he could not hold his party together if he left the Eurozone) who made the choice to stay. (And once they made that choice, and after their bluff had been called, their negotiating position was shot to hell.)
I'm not sure what we're supposed to learn from that, other that don't make threats you don't wish to see called.
Like not trying to pretend that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'?
Greece actually had more leverage than we have now.
No.
We have a lot more leverage. If we leave without a deal it will be painful. But nothing like as painful as a disorderly Euro exit.
Absolutely. Sterling might fall again but it will not drop 50%. In any case, UK is to some extent like Japan. Japan has very high debts [ about 250% of GDP ]. But most of it are with Japanese banks.
That is why I have never understood this obsession with Debt / GDP or more precisely actual deficit numbers even if Debt/GDP ratio was falling. What's wrong with a small deficit but with the ratio falling.
Trump's likely budget: Do they give a damn ? What happened to the national debt under Reagan ?
Because with an even smaller deficit, or a surplus, the ratio falls faster. The same goes for the amount spent on debt interest, which is currently equivalent to the half of the schools budget.
But if ever there was a time to do a soft landing , it is now with interest rates so low. Why tear up the social fabric when the "cost" of debt , for governments, almost a tenth of what it was 10 years ago. Even 30 year gilts are around 1.7% now.
Arguably that has what has been done - we still have a big deficit, and the next recession must be coming up pretty soon.
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum ....... – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
But she didn't win a majority, and the Greens went back on their manifesto commitment.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
'Why would the EU do that when they know we need a deal more than they do? They've read all the dealmaking books too and have been involved in a fair few negotiations. They know how to play the game.'
Do they?
Their track record suggests the opposite
They offered us a crap deal to stay in the EU on the basis we would never vote to leave....
After we voted to leave they thought we would reconsider.....
After we didn't reconsider they thought we would want to stay in the single market / customs union...
Surely they can't get it wrong yet again ?
I don't think that correct at all. The EU27 accepted that Brexit means Brexit means Hard Brexit from the beginning of July. They have been planning it for 10 months now. See Tusk's comments in October last year for example:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum ....... – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
Cameron had a majority mandate, Sturgeon inconveniently doesn’t…
Update: I've accessed the census data - Rochdale is a relatively young constituency and the population is one quarter Asian-British, the vast majority of whom are Pakistani and Bangladeshi, i.e. there are lots of Muslims in Rochdale (Muslim population: 23.6%.) BES research suggests about 75% of Muslim voters support Labour.
The age and ethnic profile therefore strongly favours Labour. They'll probably hold.
Yeah, looks like a Labour hold. I suppose one could just about envisage the Tories sneaking through if Labour's vote splits three ways Lab/LD/Danczuk, but I suspect Danczuk is not going to get very far. Isn't there some rule about MPs who stand down without re-contesting not getting a redundancy payment?
I'd want more than 4/1 on the Tories.
I believe so. I seem to recall reading that one of the SNP MPs who had the whip withdrawn wasn't standing again, and as a result would not be entitled to redundancy money. Assuming that this is the case, £500 for a deposit would be a small price for Danczuk to pay to secure a (presumably quite handsome) return.
I am puzzled about that. Redundancy should be about losing your job. Are you saying a retiring MP does not receive any money ?
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum ....... – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
Cameron had a majority mandate, Sturgeon inconveniently doesn’t…
That's neither here or there. Both got it through their parliament. Therefore, was legal.
Update: I've accessed the census data - Rochdale is a relatively young constituency and the population is one quarter Asian-British, the vast majority of whom are Pakistani and Bangladeshi, i.e. there are lots of Muslims in Rochdale (Muslim population: 23.6%.) BES research suggests about 75% of Muslim voters support Labour.
The age and ethnic profile therefore strongly favours Labour. They'll probably hold.
Yeah, looks like a Labour hold. I suppose one could just about envisage the Tories sneaking through if Labour's vote splits three ways Lab/LD/Danczuk, but I suspect Danczuk is not going to get very far. Isn't there some rule about MPs who stand down without re-contesting not getting a redundancy payment?
I'd want more than 4/1 on the Tories.
I believe so. I seem to recall reading that one of the SNP MPs who had the whip withdrawn wasn't standing again, and as a result would not be entitled to redundancy money. Assuming that this is the case, £500 for a deposit would be a small price for Danczuk to pay to secure a (presumably quite handsome) return.
I am puzzled about that. Redundancy should be about losing your job. Are you saying a retiring MP does not receive any money ?
Casper Schmeichel to sign for Man Utd after he recently changed agents to replace Real Madrid bound David De Gea
Kasper signed a 5 year deal last summer, reportedly on £100k wages. He will be very expensive for Man Utd.
However our owners are loaded, and last summer refused to sell key players at any price (Kante had a buyout clause, but more recent contracts reputedly do not). They will not sell cheaply and quite likely not at all.
Money is no object at Man Utd and he was with his Father in the stands at one of Uniteds recent home games. I think the attraction of following in his Fathers's footsteps will also be strong
He is known to be a Man U fan.
Our owners are substantially as rich as the Glasers, and better businessmen. They will not sell unless they want to, and I don't think they will want to.
Holding players this way is not always wise, we did last year for Vardy, Mahrez and Drinkwater, and it did seem to cause some discontent.
I Think Kasper will only go to a Champions League cup, and I think Man City might make an offer of Joe Hart plus some cash. I think the owners may well go for that if they sell at all.
You may be right but the clear signs are that he has a new agent and will sign for Man Utd
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
SPaceX launched a military satellite and returned the first stage back to the landing site. The video is quite remarkable: go to 14m14s to see the stages split and the first stage rotate to come home.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I just use the Stop Eating When You Go Over 180 Pounds Diet. It's so easy it's brilliant. If I go over that figure, I stop eating. I walk around a bit more in the evening, hike up Primrose Hill instead of eating supper. After a day or two, it comes back down. I allow myself breakfast, so I don't faint.
It's seen my weight (which peaked at 210 pounds - ugh - five years ago) remain around 178-180 ever since I lost the blubber in 2014.
The only problem is when I go away and don't have daily access to scales. I've just come back from France and all that pleasant (but not world shattering!) food, and I'm up to 183. So a few days of austerity beckon.....
Read beyond the headline. What she actually says is the election is about confirming the right of the Scottish parliament to decide to have a referendum.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
On and off, I have tried various but none of them sincerely [ I mean without cheating ]. THe only time it has really worked is by actually counting what I ate. There are websites for that e.g. Spark. I was looking from a diabetics point of view but the principle is the same.
Good luck with yours.
Low carb high fat. Although Dr Foxinsox probably wouldn't approve (although as diabetes is a problem with dealing with carbohydrates it seems to me the best strategy is to stop eating them). It is self sustaining, as fat is more satiating and you train your body to burn fat rather than expect a constant top-up of sugary and starchy snacks
I think low carb, and low refined carbs inc sugar in particular, is the way to go. Look at the Glycaemic Index on foods in particular, as high GI foods spark an insulin surge that makes people hungry.
Fat lowers a meals glycaemic index so makes people feel full. In practice fat as too high a percentage of food is not very palatable. Fat also is the best medium to carfy the chemically aromatic compounds that give food its flavour.
Plenty of fibre to soak up the flavour is a good bet too, and also helps satiate. few of us would be injured by eating more veg!
Eventually a single state in EU27 will be able to cause a breakdown of Brexit talks. For all the British whingeing about how hard the talks will be, it seems to me that the Commission's job may be a lot harder.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Do what works. Slow weight loss is better for you than fast weight loss
FWIW, I have a BMI of 28 and a score of 15. Higher than I would like, and a powerful motivator.
Thanks.
26 and 7 for me
I would like to get my BMI below 25.
I find it easier to do more exercise in summer so I can sometimes push it into the healthy zone by September and then I put the weight on again over winter.
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum ....... – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
Cameron had a majority mandate, Sturgeon inconveniently doesn’t…
That's neither here or there. Both got it through their parliament. Therefore, was legal.
Sturgeon doesn't have a mandate, though. She only won the vote in the Scottish Parliament because the Green MSPs changed their position into something different from what was in their manifesto. It's legal for MSPs and MPs to vote however they like, but that doesn't give them a mandate. If the SNP had a majority, they would have a mandate. But they lost it. In any case, the Scottish Parliament has decided to send the referendum request.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Do what works. Slow weight loss is better for you than fast weight loss
I think that's bollocks. I lost my weight fast. And kept it off. Fast is psychologically good because it is encouraging: you can see the difference on the scales, and then in the mirror, very quickly. This means you stick to the diet.
Slow is discouraging. Nothing happens. You eat to console yourself. Et voila.
Slow is considered better because it is usually done by making gradual adjustments to your diet and giving you time to get used to the changes. That way the weight loss stays with you and you do not put weight back on again. Eventually the "diet" becomes your normal intake and your weight stabilises.
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum ....... – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
Scotland isn't being taken out of the EU against its will. The Scottish people have never been asked if Scotland should leave the EU.
But if that is to be the excuse to renege on the Edinburgh Agreement, then the question on the ballot paper will be "Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom and join the European Union", right?
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Do what works. Slow weight loss is better for you than fast weight loss
I think that's bollocks. I lost my weight fast. And kept it off. Fast is psychologically good because it is encouraging: you can see the difference on the scales, and then in the mirror, very quickly. This means you stick to the diet.
Slow is discouraging. Nothing happens. You eat to console yourself. Et voila.
Fast is better if you can do it. This may be some help: The Hacker's Diet.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Do what works. Slow weight loss is better for you than fast weight loss
Slow weight loss is better than no weight loss certainly, but there is good scientific evidence that extreme low calorie diets have specific advantages. Read Prof Roy Taylors work on the subject.
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum ....... – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
Cameron had a majority mandate, Sturgeon inconveniently doesn’t…
That's neither here or there. Both got it through their parliament. Therefore, was legal.
The Scottish Parliament has no power to hold a referendum...
Just looked at Eastleigh County Councillors, 3 UKIP, 3 LibDem, 1 Tory The results for the 3 UKIP in 2013 were only a few percent ahead of the LibDems. I suspect 3 UKIP losses probably to LibDems. The GE betting on Betfair was 1/14 Tory and 5/1 LibDem, so I've put a tenner on the previous LibDem MP. He may not win but I think 5/1 is worth a shot.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Do what works. Slow weight loss is better for you than fast weight loss
Slow weight loss is better than no weight loss certainly, but there is good scientific evidence that extreme low calorie diets have specific advantages. Read Prof Roy Taylors work on the subject.
The hardest part is keeping the weight off. Like giving up smoking, most people lapse to old habits.
I thought there was considerable evidence that extreme low calorie diets were in fact bad for you, in that, if they persist for more than a few days, they encourage the metabolism to reset at a lower level and that it is very hard to reverse this slow down.
Scotland isn't being taken out of the EU against its will. The Scottish people have never been asked if Scotland should leave the EU.
Why should they be? And if they should be, why shouldn't the residents of Ipswich? Scotland isn't a member of the EU and can't leave it. Get independence first and then have a plebiscite on whether to apply, or on some agreed terms of joining. Or get a mandate for including "Scotland should become independent and apply to join the EU" as an option on a referendum ballot if you want. Sturgeon could announce tomorrow that she is calling a Scottish general election. Saying Scotland should become independent just so that it can keep allowing Poles and Romanians in and be in a single market with Germany be such a delightfully non-xenophobic and outward-looking country that loves being in the EU, at the price of having a hard border with England, with which it carries out the vast majority of its trade, is an extreme example of a political lie.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Do what works. Slow weight loss is better for you than fast weight loss
Slow weight loss is better than no weight loss certainly, but there is good scientific evidence that extreme low calorie diets have specific advantages. Read Prof Roy Taylors work on the subject.
The hardest part is keeping the weight off. Like giving up smoking, most people lapse to old habits.
I thought there was considerable evidence that extreme low calorie diets were in fact bad for you, in that, if they persist for more than a few days, they encourage the metabolism to reset at a lower level and that it is very hard to reverse this slow down.
On another note entirely - you know when you're a fat git when you lose two stone in weight and no-one notices!!
Congratulations & commisserations!
I'm trying the 5:2 diet which is remarkably easy after the first couple of weeks....
Is that the one where you eat very little 2 days of the week ?
Exactly. 5 days eat as you normally would, (try to be sensible, but effectively 'no change') and on two days limit yourself to 600 calories - one light meal, or several snacks (I find apples good) and a lighter meal - drink plenty of water. I found the first couple of weeks tough for two days, now its easy - I also found I've appreciated the taste of food more and don't try to 'catch up' by eating more on the non-fasting days. Haven't looked at the scales, but some clothes are noticeably looser....
I did try that and found it a bit too challenging. Since it was effectively removing around 3,000 calories a week by cutting back on two days, I went for a more moderate 4:3 diet so I limit myself to 1,000 calories for three days a week. The weight loss is about the same but I am probably losing the benefits of the "restriction" side of the diet but since I have no health issues I am not worried about that side of things.
My understanding is that 3500 calories = 1 lb So, in your case, cutting 3000 calories a week , you'd lose just under half a kilo a week.
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Do what works. Slow weight loss is better for you than fast weight loss
I think that's bollocks. I lost my weight fast. And kept it off. Fast is psychologically good because it is encouraging: you can see the difference on the scales, and then in the mirror, very quickly. This means you stick to the diet.
Slow is discouraging. Nothing happens. You eat to console yourself. Et voila.
I lost nine stone five years ago. A couple have crept back on. But not bad going.
In a lot of those cases it won't be a job lost but a new job created elsewhere. The City is a phenomenal wealth and jobs creation engine, in a post-Brexit world released from the shackles of EU regulations those jobs and more will come back in some fashion.
Comments
Do they?
Their track record suggests the opposite
They offered us a crap deal to stay in the EU on the basis we would never vote to leave....
After we voted to leave they thought we would reconsider.....
After we didn't reconsider they thought we would want to stay in the single market / customs union...
Surely they can't get it wrong yet again ?
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Get_involved/Fundraising-events/million-step/
'influct', v.t.: to commit gross harm to onself, to f*uck oneself over, especially in relation to ceding concessions unnecessarily in negotiations.
Apparently my BMI is 26.3 giving me a factor of 8, but if I lose that 1.3 and get my BMI to 24.9 then I will go from the second lowest category to the lowest. My biggest factor is my age
"We believe that the Scottish
Parliament should have the right to
hold another referendum ....... – or if there is
a significant and material change in
the circumstances that prevailed in
2014, such as Scotland being taken
out of the EU against our will"
On that Nicola got 47 per cent of the vote. Cameron held a referendum on 37 per cent.
Or alternatively Cameron had a parliamentary majority for it - so has Sturgeon.
For any democrat the mandate is unanswerable. Of course we should no longer take democratic acceptance as a given these days - at least not from Tory PBers. .
I think it's important to realise just how painful a disorderly exit would have been. The Greek economy in 2015 ran a (large) primary budget deficit, and was also utterly dependent on tourism from the rest of the EU.
At the point of departure, the Greek government owed many billions to the EU and the ECB. The Greek government would not have been able to raise money abroad because it would have been in default. Greek banks would have been shut out of funding, and would have seen their remaining deposits fly out the door as depositors desparately tried to get Euros before devaluation day.
Greek companies would have Euro, Dollar and Sterling obligations to overseas suppliers, and those bills would not have been redenominated downwards; instead they would have had to be paid out of bank accounts that now only had Drachma in them.
With an economy utterly dependent on tourism for foreign currency income, there would be no easy substitutes for Greece from the Europeans. 18% of Greek GDP is from tourism, and more than 60% of its foreign currency earnings.
Now, longer term, the Greek economy and tourism would benefit from being outside the Eurozone (because prices would be lower). But in the short term, visitors not being able to use banks to withdraw money (because Greek banks were shut out of the international system) would have been utterly catastrophic.
Personal view (repeated ad nauseum on here) is that the Greek should have taken the IMF offer at the beginning of 2015 and left the Eurozone in an orderly fashion supported by the IMF and the EU. It would have been painful, because they would still have had to make the cuts to public expenditure they made under the IMF/troika plan. But it would also have enabled them to default outside the Eurozone and to cut debt-to-GDP to perhaps 100%. I have no doubt that the economy would be growing nicely now if they had done that. But both Varoufakis (who refused to make cuts to spending) and Tsipras (who feared he could not hold his party together if he left the Eurozone) who made the choice to stay. (And once they made that choice, and after their bluff had been called, their negotiating position was shot to hell.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/its-hard-brexit-or-no-brexit-at-all-says-eu-council-president
http://www.politico.eu/article/monster-at-the-berlaymont-martin-selmayr-european-commission-jean-claude-juncker/
To be honest, I couldn't do that. I have, so far successfully, been losing about 1 kilo a month.
Looking at the last council elections, the LDs fielded very few candidates, so not sure of the strength of the local party these days.
Key issue here is turnout - the pensioners in Bamford, Norden and Littleborough will turn up and may well go for TMay.
How many of the younger voters in Central and Falinge turn out is crucial for the SLab vote holding up.
Not heard who the LD candidate is yet, but think its a far more open contest than it would seem on paper.
SPaceX launched a military satellite and returned the first stage back to the landing site. The video is quite remarkable: go to 14m14s to see the stages split and the first stage rotate to come home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQpkQ1etdA#t=14m14s
Blooming remarkable.
Fat lowers a meals glycaemic index so makes people feel full. In practice fat as too high a percentage of food is not very palatable. Fat also is the best medium to carfy the chemically aromatic compounds that give food its flavour.
Plenty of fibre to soak up the flavour is a good bet too, and also helps satiate. few of us would be injured by eating more veg!
More on glycaemic index here:
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Carbohydrates-and-diabetes/Glycaemic-index-and-diabetes/
26 and 7 for me
I would like to get my BMI below 25.
I find it easier to do more exercise in summer so I can sometimes push it into the healthy zone by September and then I put the weight on again over winter.
But if that is to be the excuse to renege on the Edinburgh Agreement, then the question on the ballot paper will be "Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom and join the European Union", right?
http://www.humansarenotbroken.com/reversing-type-2-diabetes-the-university-of-newcastle-research-with-diet-plan/
The hardest part is keeping the weight off. Like giving up smoking, most people lapse to old habits.
3 UKIP, 3 LibDem, 1 Tory
The results for the 3 UKIP in 2013 were only a few percent ahead of the LibDems. I suspect 3 UKIP losses probably to LibDems.
The GE betting on Betfair was 1/14 Tory and 5/1 LibDem, so I've put a tenner on the previous LibDem MP. He may not win but I think 5/1 is worth a shot.
Which will free up office space and housing for other businesses and people.
As it seems business and people from around the world wish to move to London it will thus have effectively no impact at all.