Cannot say I have been following Brazilian election much, but after previous pieces about how loathed the leading far right candidate is by women for being a misogynist apparently, I am surprised to see in this latest roundup that apparently the polling says he is in fact the leading choice for women as well. Must be divisive indeed.
Speaking of elections, boy other places can be complicated
A total of five presidents and 14 prime ministers must be elected in the country's complex system of government...
n Republika Srpska voters will elect MPs, a president and two vice-presidents. In the Muslim-Croat Federation a bicameral parliament will be elected that includes a president and two vice presidents
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
Cannot say I have been following Brazilian election much, but after previous pieces about how loathed the leading far right candidate is by women for being a misogynist apparently, I am surprised to see in this latest roundup that apparently the polling says he is in fact the leading choice for women as well. Must be divisive indeed.
The polls suggest Bolsanaro, said to be Brazil's Trump and candidate of the conservative misleadingly named Social Liberal party, will come comfortably first today and will then face Fernando Haddad of the Worker's party in the runoff on 28th October.
However Haddad still narrowly leads Bolsanaro in runoff polling.
I agree with you that intervention is very often not the answer.
But Corbyn went further. The organisation he chaired claimed that Yazidi suffering was invented or exaggerated. That was wrong and morally despicable. You can argue that intervention would make a very bad situation worse. But to deny the facts about human suffering in order to justify your own pre-existing policy? Yuck.
If his claim to be on the side of the oppressed means something, what does it mean? Nice words? Providing refuge? What?
Did Corbyn suggest, for instance, that Yazidis should be given priority for asylum in the UK?
Easy to send a nice tweet now that a prize has been won. But that’s meaningless waffle.
There's a reasonably balanced piece here which did urge him to break links with the Stop the War group:
Like the author, I think they're too keen to condemn every war and downplay any group embraced by the US, and although I don't follow them closely I can well imagine that they did exactly that about the Yazidis. That said, he's not their chairman now and hasn't been since 2015, and I don't think he has to give a running commentary on their positions or make a speech breaking with them. He'd certainly favour giving the Yazidis asylum, and it's not a question of priority over someone else - he's in favour of the most liberal asytlum policy that one could possibly want, and is often attacked for that too.
Stop the War arguing that the Yazidi crisis was a "false story" to justify American warmongering occurred in August 2014 - when Corbyn was still chair of the organisation. It's hardly his and their first offence either. See his questioning of Serbian crimes in Kosovo, friendship with Srebenica deniers.
Face it, you're defending a man who is prepared to look the other way on genocide when it requires action that doesn't fit with his anti-Western ideology, and has done so consistently and repeatedly. But then he's shameless enough to try and get credit for praising survivors he'd have done nothing to help. And what saved many Yazidis was an American intervention he opposed, so saying he'd have accepted refugees is nonsense. If he had his way there'd have been a lot fewer refugees. Because they'd be dead or enslaved.
Please stop arguing for this despicable man before he entitrely drags your morality down into the sewer.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
As someone who is not ethnically British, I won't vote for a party whose leader uses the phrase "citizens of nowhere".
No-one is “ethnically British” because British isn’t an ethnicity.
English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc are ethnicities. British is a nationality.
Really? I've always considered my ethnicity to be White British and that's the box I normally end up ticking on a form asking for it.
My wife's half Scottish so my kids are quarter Scottish. Can you please explain the ethnic differences between English, Scottish and Welsh? Or Irish?
Oh Dear, Just because they pretend it is real by making it the only option on a form. Look at last part of your post , no mention of British. PS: Only idiots like Gordon Brown who claimed to be North British believe it.
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
G, best of a bad lot , far superior to rest of UK and still in public hands. Wales NHS in toilet under Labour and England being privatised and going down under Tories.
I agree with you that intervention is very often not the answer.
But Corbyn went further. The organisation he chaired claimed that Yazidi suffering was invented or exaggerated. That was wrong and morally despicable. You can argue that intervention would make a very bad situation worse. But to deny the facts about human suffering in order to justify your own pre-existing policy? Yuck.
If his claim to be on the side of the oppressed means something, what does it mean? Nice words? Providing refuge? What?
Did Corbyn suggest, for instance, that Yazidis should be given priority for asylum in the UK?
Easy to send a nice tweet now that a prize has been won. But that’s meaningless waffle.
There's a reasonably balanced piece here which did urge him to break links with the Stop the War group:
Like the author, I think they're too keen to condemn every war and downplay any group embraced by the US, and although I don't follow them closely I can well imagine that they did exactly that about the Yazidis. That said, he's not their chairman now and hasn't been since 2015, and I don't think he has to give a running commentary on their positions or make a speech breaking with them. He'd certainly favour giving the Yazidis asylum, and it's not a question of priority over someone else - he's in favour of the most liberal asytlum policy that one could possibly want, and is often attacked for that too.
Thanks for the article. I will read later.
After a very wet day yesterday which I spent at the garden centre choosing bulbs it is nice and dry today so need to get on with it.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
As someone who is not ethnically British, I won't vote for a party whose leader uses the phrase "citizens of nowhere".
No-one is “ethnically British” because British isn’t an ethnicity.
English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc are ethnicities. British is a nationality.
Really? I've always considered my ethnicity to be White British and that's the box I normally end up ticking on a form asking for it.
My wife's half Scottish so my kids are quarter Scottish. Can you please explain the ethnic differences between English, Scottish and Welsh? Or Irish?
Oh Dear, Just because they pretend it is real by making it the only option on a form.
Having had to perform the tedious task of stamping returned forms which include that sort of info, it is a common game to pass the time to see how many people object to the White British label, and how vociferously. Plenty of "No, white English" to be found, though probably not as many as the equivalent amount in Scotland.
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
To be fair to Nicola & the SNP, the NHS and education are way, way better in Scotland than in Wales (as judged by any independent metric).
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
I believe NHS Scotland beats NHS England by most independent metrics.
Including spending. £2,500/head vs £2,200. I suppose you could call that the 'Union Dividend' or, 'Uniondivvie' for short.
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
No way the nasties will do SNP any favours. We will see when the time comes , the moronic old unionists are disappearing fast and not being replaced. One thing is certain it will not be a Tory government.
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
We will see when the time comes , the moronic old unionists are disappearing fast and not being replaced.
Indeed, they are being replaced by non-moronic new unionists!
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
There is just one slight problem with fhis plan - it does not deliver Brexit.
In any event, the backstop is the EU’s option, not ours. So all Barnier has to do it wait until the end of 2020 and announce that he does not want to activate the backstop because it will result in what you describe, so the UK will have to leave without a deal (but of course 40bn poorer).
Any permanent backstop sellout is just going to involve another cliff edge in two years time. If there was a solution to this, it would have been found by now. The only way there can ever be a lasting deal is if the backstop is withdrawn. Boris, of course, is right.
Like the author, I think they're too keen to condemn every war and downplay any group embraced by the US, and although I don't follow them closely I can well imagine that they did exactly that about the Yazidis. That said, he's not their chairman now and hasn't been since 2015, and I don't think he has to give a running commentary on their positions or make a speech breaking with them. He'd certainly favour giving the Yazidis asylum, and it's not a question of priority over someone else - he's in favour of the most liberal asytlum policy that one could possibly want, and is often attacked for that too.
Stop the War arguing that the Yazidi crisis was a "false story" to justify American warmongering occurred in August 2014 - when Corbyn was still chair of the organisation. It's hardly his and their first offence either. See his questioning of Serbian crimes in Kosovo, friendship with Srebenica deniers.
Face it, you're defending a man who is prepared to look the other way on genocide when it requires action that doesn't fit with his anti-Western ideology, and has done so consistently and repeatedly. But then he's shameless enough to try and get credit for praising survivors he'd have done nothing to help. And what saved many Yazidis was an American intervention he opposed, so saying he'd have accepted refugees is nonsense. If he had his way there'd have been a lot fewer refugees. Because they'd be dead or enslaved.
Please stop arguing for this despicable man before he entitrely drags your morality down into the sewer.
Here's the thing. I am not interested in the Middle East or far left politics and so I have no idea of this than what you have just written. So it all sounds very plausible and very damning. But. Corbyn's critics have thrown so much at him. Much of what we hear about him is self evidently nonsense. Even more is patently motivated by partisan prejudice. So most of us just block it out.
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
We will see when the time comes , the moronic old unionists are disappearing fast and not being replaced.
Indeed, they are being replaced by non-moronic new unionists!
I'd hope at least.
No they are being replaced by intelligent young people who favour independence, only a few bad winters to go.
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
No way the nasties will do SNP any favours. We will see when the time comes , the moronic old unionists are disappearing fast and not being replaced. One thing is certain it will not be a Tory government.
I do not think my wife is moronic by supporting the union Malc. Many Scots do support the union
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
There is just one slight problem with fhis plan - it does not deliver Brexit.
In any event, the backstop is the EU’s option, not ours. So all Barnier has to do it wait until the end of 2020 and announce that he does not want to activate the backstop because it will result in what you describe, so the UK will have to leave without a deal (but of course 40bn poorer).
Any permanent backstop sellout is just going to involve another cliff edge in two years time. If there was a solution to this, it would have been found by now. The only way there can ever be a lasting deal is if the backstop is withdrawn. Boris, of course, is right.
Legally the backstop once signed has to be activated once the transition period has ended in December 2020, if no FTA has been agreed and no technical solution found for the Irish border whether Barnier likes it or not
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
Salmond could not get any legislation through without the support of Goldie and the Tories and of course it is Sturgeon who will need the Tories support to stay in power
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
We will see when the time comes , the moronic old unionists are disappearing fast and not being replaced.
Indeed, they are being replaced by non-moronic new unionists!
I'd hope at least.
No they are being replaced by intelligent young people who favour independence, only a few bad winters to go.
Then why did the winters of 2015 and 2016 lead to a drop in support of the Indy party by the time of 2017?
Boris would be a mistake for the Tories but he is one that they are increasingly unlikely to make. My concern is that when we look up out of the Brexit trenches the strategic picture remains challenging.
After 8 years of graft the deficit is now down to a sustainable level once again but the damage done over the last decade is severe. Our debt as a share of national income has risen from below 40% to well above 80%. That means additional debt of over £400bn. We face major demographic challenges in Social Care and Health Spending over the next decade at least. We are also growing more slowly than we did for both demographic and deficit related reasons.
In the insane period up to 2008 Brown was boosting an economy that was already running hot with both an on balance sheet deficit of 3% plus a large amount of off balance sheet capital expenditure. This was obviously completely unsustainable and contributed to the severity of the crash. Without that sort of fiscal boost however our economy is more likely to grow at 2% rather than 3% or more. New money will help but it is not the answer.
The personalities are less important than the context. Corbyn is an extreme example of Labour's fiscal incontinence but if he is replaced it is likely to be someone of a similar bent. Boris is somewhat flakier and less reliable than other Tories but he will be constrained to keep spending tight. Our path is set but the optimum way forward is governments willing and able to work on that path rather than indulging in expensive and damaging diversions.
National Debt as a share of GDP is lower than at the time of the 1959 election - and no higher than when the Tories lost power in 1964. Nobody was seriously suggesting at either of those elections that the nation needed 'another 20 years or so of austerity'.
In those days trend growth was higher, the demographics more favourable and overseas competition outside Europe and North America much weaker.
@DavidL is correct, there is no room for fiscal incontinence, especially as we are coming due for a recession with or without Brexit, though the latter increases its challenges.
That is not to say that austerity needs to continue, but it does mean that ending austerity needs to come via a balanced budget rather than borrowing.
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
No way the nasties will do SNP any favours. We will see when the time comes , the moronic old unionists are disappearing fast and not being replaced. One thing is certain it will not be a Tory government.
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
It was a much more vague arrangement than confidence & supply in 2007, and it was in fact the Greens that voted in an SNP minority government with Salmond as FM. If that was the best they could manage then, consider how difficult any deal would be now.
Salmond could not get any legislation through without the support of Goldie and the Tories and of course it is Sturgeon who will need the Tories support to stay in power
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
National Debt as a share of GDP is lower than at the time of the 1959 election - and no higher than when the Tories lost power in 1964. Nobody was seriously suggesting at either of those elections that the nation needed 'another 20 years or so of austerity'.
Brown: not quite as bad economically as WW2. Well it's a bold claim but possibly arguable.
But in the 1950s and 1960s we were effectively doubling the size of our workforce by the emancipation of women (free to work) and had a very young population with a relatively modest number of pensioners. Watch Robert's videos on demographics. The implications are profound and they will drive our politics for the next 20 years.
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
There is just one slight problem with fhis plan - it does not deliver Brexit.
In any event, the backstop is the EU’s option, not ours. So all Barnier has to do it wait until the end of 2020 and announce that he does not want to activate the backstop because it will result in what you describe, so the UK will have to leave without a deal (but of course 40bn poorer).
Any permanent backstop sellout is just going to involve another cliff edge in two years time. If there was a solution to this, it would have been found by now. The only way there can ever be a lasting deal is if the backstop is withdrawn. Boris, of course, is right.
Legally the backstop once signed has to be activated once the transition period has ended in December 2020, if no FTA has been agreed and no technical solution found for the Irish border whether Barnier likes it or not
Legally? There is no legal text yet! But the December agreement does not in any way force the EU to activate the backstop and it is extraordinary unlikely that the EU will agree to he forced to do so. There is absolutly no way that Barnier will agree that the UK can stay in the SM and CU via the backstop indefinitely without accepting the four ‘freedoms’ - he has spent the last two years trying to avoid just such an outcome.
The most likely outcome if Barnier is pushed to accept an all UK backstop is that he will insist that the EU can convert the backstop to EEA/CU.
I know that you are desperate for May to complete her sellout but it is going to be a lot harder than you think.
Boris would be a mistake for the Tories but he is one that they are increasingly unlikely to make. My concern is that when we look up out of the Brexit trenches the strategic picture remains challenging.
After 8 years of graft the deficit is now down to a sustainable level once again but the damage done over the last decade is severe. Our debt as a share of national income has risen from below 40% to well above 80%. That means additional debt of over £400bn. We face major demographic challenges in Social Care and Health Spending over the next decade at least. We are also growing more slowly than we did for both demographic and deficit related reasons.
In the insane period up to 2008 Brown was boosting an economy that was already running hot with both an on balance sheet deficit of 3% plus a large amount of off balance sheet capital expenditure. This was obviously completely unsustainable and contributed to the severity of the crash. Without that sort of fiscal boost however our economy is more likely to grow at 2% rather than 3% or more. New money will help but it is not the answer.
The personalities are less important than the context. Corbyn is an extreme example of Labour's fiscal incontinence but if he is replaced it is likely to be someone of a similar bent. Boris is somewhat flakier and less reliable than other Tories but he will be constrained to keep spending tight. Our path is set but the optimum way forward is governments willing and able to work on that path rather than indulging in expensive and damaging diversions.
National Debt as a share of GDP is lower than at the time of the 1959 election - and no higher than when the Tories lost power in 1964. Nobody was seriously suggesting at either of those elections that the nation needed 'another 20 years or so of austerity'.
In those days trend growth was higher, the demographics more favourable and overseas competition outside Europe and North America much weaker.
@DavidL is correct, there is no room for fiscal incontinence, especially as we are coming due for a recession with or without Brexit, though the latter increases its challenges.
That is not to say that austerity needs to continue, but it does mean that ending austerity needs to come via a balanced budget rather than borrowing.
Also the fifties and early sixties are a bad example as there were a number of electoral bribes, oops, inflationary budgets followed by austerity budgets.
And indeed, arguably, the Seventies into the Eighties were the comeback for such profligacy and complacency in terms of austerity.
Boris would be a mistake for the Tories but he is one that they are increasingly unlikely to make. My concern is that when we look up out of the Brexit trenches the strategic picture remains challenging.
After 8 years of graft the deficit is now down to a sustainable level once again but the damage done over the last decade is severe. Our debt as a share of national income has risen from below 40% to well above 80%. That means additional debt of over £400bn. We face major demographic challenges in Social Care and Health Spending over the next decade at least. We are also growing more slowly than we did for both demographic and deficit related reasons.
...insane ... Tories ... will be constrained to ... work on ...indulging...
National Debt as a share of GDP is lower than at the time of the 1959 election - and no higher than when the Tories lost power in 1964. Nobody was seriously suggesting at either of those elections that the nation needed 'another 20 years or so of austerity'.
In those days trend growth was higher, the demographics more favourable and overseas competition outside Europe and North America much weaker.
@DavidL is correct, there is no room for fiscal incontinence, especially as we are coming due for a recession with or without Brexit, though the latter increases its challenges.
That is not to say that austerity needs to continue, but it does mean that ending austerity needs to come via a balanced budget rather than borrowing.
I enjoyed the boasts of Gordon Brown in his early budgets when he was able to point to the National Debt repaid and the money saved on debt interest payments that could then be spent on public services.
I'd like to see that happen again.
I think we should increase the share of national income that is paid as taxes so that we can equitably pay for the increase in health and social care costs that is required by an ageing population. Which taxes, and by how much is an answer for which there is not space in this comment box.
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
Has she contacted her local autism support group? Even if she is not formally diagnosed with ASD, the problem sounds very similar to some I have come across before among people with certain types of autism. They might be able to help:
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
There are a large number of private mental health practitioners, one of which will be able to help with her anxiety and obsessions. The difficulty is in finding the right one for her problems.
A local support group might be able to help with this.
I'd suggest that GPs are very unlikely to consider sectioning her if she isn't a suicide risk, and even then they are reluctant. She could approach a GP and ask for a referral to explore a formal diagnosis.
If someone thinks the consequences of no deal are so catastrophic that is rather surprising to me. I understand Rees-Mogg thinking it, since he thinks no deal will be fine, and I don't think it impossible that a bad deal is indeed worse than no deal, but when playing up how bad no deal is a deal would have to be pretty darn bad to be worse.
Is there anyone who isn't either personally very financially secure or who is living outside of the country who actually continues to advocate no deal?
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
Nick, I am not a doctor but this sounds like a severe form of OCD. It can of course be a severely debilitating condition. My family has some experience of this and generally CBT treatments are the most effective, if at times difficult to go through. There are a number of therapists offering this who get referrals from the NHS but also take clients direct which might be better if she is concerned about official intervention. My relative who had this also found an OCD help group very helpful and supportive even although their condition was manifesting itself in different ways.
If someone thinks the consequences of no deal are so catastrophic that is rather surprising to me. I understand Rees-Mogg thinking it, since he thinks no deal will be fine, and I don't think it impossible that a bad deal is indeed worse than no deal, but when playing up how bad no deal is a deal would have to be pretty darn bad to be worse.
Is there anyone who isn't either personally very financially secure or who is living outside of the country who actually continues to advocate no deal?
People who say they will vote down any deal that comes back, no matter what it is, without a plan to prevent accidental no deal. That's advocation of no deal by proxy.
In fairness many have such a plan, even if those plans are far riskier than they pretend (eg, a GE 'somehow')
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
Sounds to me like she is more likely to respond to 'alternative' ideas rather than traditional medical methodologies such as Pills, Doctors, Physiatrists etc, as she appears to have built up her own phobias to exclude them. Those can be powerful.
Locally I am involved in a charity that provides Social and Horticultural Therapy to people with mental issues. It is non threatening in the ways that she appears to perceive threats from the limited details. Ideally you need to find a project that employees staff who are qualified in SHT. Our project here in Hertfordshire has a good reputation for helping a wide range of mental conditions.
If all other avenues have failed why not suggest something completely harmless but away from mainstream views. I know it will be derided as wacky, but something like regression hypnosis (I am avoiding using the word 'therapy' after regression). She has a mental issue, and it is about finding something that she believes will / has helped her and doing so without triggering her fears.
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
It sounds to me like a mixed phobia incorporating agorophobia. Unfortunately these are not catered well in NHS units, which are hard to access except in a crisis, hence suicide is a major issue. Private psychiatry units tend to be focussed on eating disorders or addictions, so may be not very appropriate.
Lincs is not too far from York, which does have The Retreat, which tends to focus more on a talking therapy approach and holistic assessment. It is a not for profit charitable unit, and my well be a reasonable fit for your relative:
Hunt has a net negative rating with the public of -44% and with Tories of -12%.
Boris has a net negative rating with the public of -28% but a net positive rating with Tories of +9%. (p5)
Javid has a net negative rating with the public of -21% and a net negative rating with Tories of -1% (p6)
May has a net negative rating of -23% with the public but a net positive rating of +62% with Tories.
May also does better than Corbyn who has a net negative rating of -28% with the public and Cable who has a net negative rating of -27% with the public (p4-5)
So all prior to the Conservative conference. The Opinium poll is more current and has May way ahead of Johnson on every metric with the public at large and Conservative voters.
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
There is just one slight problem with fhis plan - it does not deliver Brexit.
In any event, the backstop is the EU’s option, not ours. So all Barnier has to do it wait until the end of 2020 and announce that he does not want to activate the backstop because it will result in what you describe, so the UK will have to leave without a deal (but of course 40bn poorer).
Any permanent backstop sellout is just going to involve another cliff edge in two years time. If there was a solution to this, it would have been found by now. The only way there can ever be a lasting deal is if the backstop is withdrawn. Boris, of course, is right.
Legally the backstop once signed has to be activated once the transition period has ended in December 2020, if no FTA has been agreed and no technical solution found for the Irish border whether Barnier likes it or not
Legally? There is no legal text yet! But the December agreement does not in any way force the EU to activate the backstop and it is extraordinary unlikely that the EU will agree to he forced to do so. There is absolutly no way that Barnier will agree that the UK can stay in the SM and CU via the backstop indefinitely without accepting the four ‘freedoms’ - he has spent the last two years trying to avoid just such an outcome.
The most likely outcome if Barnier is pushed to accept an all UK backstop is that he will insist that the EU can convert the backstop to EEA/CU.
I know that you are desperate for May to complete her sellout but it is going to be a lot harder than you think.
Think you're completely missing my point.
If the agreed backstop includes things both sides really dislike it'll make the activation of it much more unlikely and ergo an agreeded fta/customs arrangement during the transition more desired by both sides.
Boris would be a mistake for the Tories but he is one that they are increasingly unlikely to make. My concern is that when we look up out of the Brexit trenches the strategic picture remains challenging.
/blockquote>
National Debt as a share of GDP is lower than at the time of the 1959 election - and no higher than when the Tories lost power in 1964. Nobody was seriously suggesting at either of those elections that the nation needed 'another 20 years or so of austerity'.
In those days trend growth was higher, the demographics more favourable and overseas competition outside Europe and North America much weaker.
@DavidL is correct, there is no room for fiscal incontinence, especially as we are coming due for a recession with or without Brexit, though the latter increases its challenges.
That is not to say that austerity needs to continue, but it does mean that ending austerity needs to come via a balanced budget rather than borrowing.
Also the fifties and early sixties are a bad example as there were a number of electoral bribes, oops, inflationary budgets followed by austerity budgets.
And indeed, arguably, the Seventies into the Eighties were the comeback for such profligacy and complacency in terms of austerity.
Despite 'Stop Go' the National Debt continued to decline as a proportion of GDP until the GFC - and has in the last decade reverted to what were normal levels barely 50 years ago. It remains well below the levels reached for most of the 20th century - and indeed the period from circa 1750 to circa 1850.
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
Reading this, I wonder if the answer is to try more CBT. This appears to have worked in the past. Was there a reason why it stopped?
Easy to send a nice tweet now that a prize has been won. But that’s meaningless waffle.
There's a reasonably balanced piece here which did urge him to break links with the Stop the War group:
Please stop arguing for this despicable man before he entitrely drags your morality down into the sewer.
Here's the thing Even more is patently motivated by partisan prejudice. So most of us just block it out.
There's been some nonsense, definitely. The 'Agent COB' stuff for one. But here's the thing. The evidence of a lot of the bad, bad things Corbyn has done, the awful people, like blood libellers, holocaust deniers and theocratic tyrants he's shilled for or associated with over the years are incontrevertible and true. There's video or pictures of him doing it, or it's in Hansard or the register of interests. There's video of him spouting conspiracy theories on PressTV three years after he said (lying) he quit the channel due to its human rights abuses. It being catnip to the Daily Mail and Tories doesn't change those facts. Those of us on the left who knew these things tried to raise them politely back in 2015 and 2016 but were dismissed as awful Blairites. So now we're less polite. You're supporting a fraud who's happy standing alongside some of the worst people on Earth, providing they don't like Western capitalism much - even if he does do a convincing bumbling 'man of peace' act. Within his own party, he's happy having rabid hard left fanatics as his closest advisers like Andrew 'North Korea ain't so bad' Murray and look the other way at his more thuggish supporters exploits.
But his supporters are a bit like Trump's. They don't want to believe the man's a fraud, because they've invested hopes in him, and no amount of evidence that he isn't the man of peace, or the business genius, he claims to be will move them because a) They've parked their morals for the chance at a 'radical' government, and b) They're in too deep now to say, 'Oh sorry, I've looked into this, and yes he does keep doing these awful things, I'll act accordingly'.
If the agreed backstop includes things both sides really dislike it'll make the activation of it much more unlikely and ergo an agreeded fta/customs arrangement during the transition more desired by both sides.
You make an interesting point, but I don't think that's how negations work. Each side negotiates to its greatest advantage. The EU perceive themselves (correctly in my view) having the stronger hand. They will aim to minimise anything they don't like.
The core conundrum is that any Brexit outcome requires either a hard border in Ireland; one in the Irish Sea; or a do as you are told relationship covering the whole UK aka the Vassal State. Upto Chequers May rejected all three. Chequers tried to square the circle by accepting a bit of all of them. The EU rejects the Irish land border - as incidentally do most people in Northern Ireland, only the DUP really wants the hard border. It will accept an Irish Sea border. It doesn't want to commit to the Vassal State as that ties its hand for future state negotiations that come after Brexit.
My best guess forfor negotiated settlement is that the NI backstop stays as the default. The EU will concede a little bit on a whole UK backstop, so that goes in as a definite maybe. This then has to go through parliament. By that point the prospect of No Deal will be focusing minds. We leave and then we need to start negotiating for a longer term arrangement, bearing in mind the next cliff edge than two years later when the transition finishes.
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'the beer's gone flat.'
Well you can, clearly, fool some of the people all of the time... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/beto-o-rourke-ted-cruz-texas-election-battle-can-he-do-it Out on his ranch, Gary Henderson, 64, is surveying his cows sheltering under mesquite and American oak. He thinks the problem with Democrats is that they believe money grows like leaves on those trees. “It has to stop somewhere – they keep giving millionaires tax breaks.”
But Trump has just given a $30bn tax break to individuals making more than $1m a year.
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'the beer's gone flat.'
Well you can, clearly, fool some of the people all of the time... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/beto-o-rourke-ted-cruz-texas-election-battle-can-he-do-it Out on his ranch, Gary Henderson, 64, is surveying his cows sheltering under mesquite and American oak. He thinks the problem with Democrats is that they believe money grows like leaves on those trees. “It has to stop somewhere – they keep giving millionaires tax breaks.”
But Trump has just given a $30bn tax break to individuals making more than $1m a year.
“That’s true, but it wasn’t political.”...
But money does come from plants. It's produced by mint.
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
Reading this, I wonder if the answer is to try more CBT. This appears to have worked in the past. Was there a reason why it stopped?
Yes, CBT does have the best record in terms of non-pharmacological treatment of neuroses, obsessions and phobias.
I would also recommend taking up some non-verbal pastime involving exercise, preferably outdoors. Music is a good one as the concentration requires blotting out of intrusive thoughts, but also gardening, birdwatching, or simply rambling in the countryside, even getting a (quiet!) dog.
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'the beer's gone flat.'
Well you can, clearly, fool some of the people all of the time... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/beto-o-rourke-ted-cruz-texas-election-battle-can-he-do-it Out on his ranch, Gary Henderson, 64, is surveying his cows sheltering under mesquite and American oak. He thinks the problem with Democrats is that they believe money grows like leaves on those trees. “It has to stop somewhere – they keep giving millionaires tax breaks.”
But Trump has just given a $30bn tax break to individuals making more than $1m a year.
“That’s true, but it wasn’t political.”...
But money does come from plants. It's produced by mint.
"Informed consent" - makes Brexit sound like rape.. Mind you the whole "Deep and special partnership" from May is just as bad.
Wollaston is a Doctor, and informed consent is medical jargon for a procedure. Litigation often revolves around the concept of whether the risks and benefits were adequately explained.
Yes, CBT does have the best record in terms of non-pharmacological treatment of neuroses, obsessions and phobias.
I would also recommend taking up some non-verbal pastime involving exercise, preferably outdoors. Music is a good one as the concentration requires blotting out of intrusive thoughts, but also gardening, birdwatching, or simply rambling in the countryside, even getting a (quiet!) dog.
I think CBT is part of the answer (last time she gave it up when the psychiatrist retired: his successor was useless and basically said "it's very difficult, but do come and see me once a year"), but when she's feeling especially besieged by her problems, getting help feels like too much, and of course CBT is a long haul rather than instant relief. She does have some pets which she sees as the only bright spot in her life (though she worries that if she was suddenly rushed into care they'd starve). She's OK about being outside and actually gets on well with strangers as a rule, unless they inadvertently trigger one of the reflexes (but if they do, she'll sometimes brood obsessively about it for months or years).
I think The Retreat would be difficult for her because it involves multi-bed wards with other patients (and the CQC report is a bit mixed), but DavidL's suggestion of helplines sounds good and I've passed on numbers to her. I'll raise philiph's idea when I get the chance.
I don't want to spam the thread with my family problem, so I'll leave it there, but thanks everyone. If anyone has any further suggestions do drop me a private note (nickmp1@aol.com).
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
Reading this, I wonder if the answer is to try more CBT. This appears to have worked in the past. Was there a reason why it stopped?
Yes, CBT does have the best record in terms of non-pharmacological treatment of neuroses, obsessions and phobias.
I would also recommend taking up some non-verbal pastime involving exercise, preferably outdoors. Music is a good one as the concentration requires blotting out of intrusive thoughts, but also gardening, birdwatching, or simply rambling in the countryside, even getting a (quiet!) dog.
Nick,
If you can, persuade her GP to refer her to the Maudsley in London, they have a national centre for OCD and obsession type behaviour.
Via an acquaintance I know that their skills, techniques and intensive methods are in a different league to anything a local hospital can provide.
It would involve a stay, but his experience doesn't sound like the 'just stop suicide' ward you mention.
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'the beer's gone flat.'
Well you can, clearly, fool some of the people all of the time... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/beto-o-rourke-ted-cruz-texas-election-battle-can-he-do-it Out on his ranch, Gary Henderson, 64, is surveying his cows sheltering under mesquite and American oak. He thinks the problem with Democrats is that they believe money grows like leaves on those trees. “It has to stop somewhere – they keep giving millionaires tax breaks.”
But Trump has just given a $30bn tax break to individuals making more than $1m a year.
“That’s true, but it wasn’t political.”...
But money does come from plants. It's produced by mint.
I'll get my coat...
Sage advice for our thyme.
Enough of your sauce please Dr! Otherwise we will stuff this thread with herb puns...
I wonder if anyone can advise me on a personal issue (I'd be grateful if any responses don't take up political implications, views on the NHS etc etc). I have a relative who for many years has suffered from acute anxiety and obsessions about certain common words and behaviour, especially loud noises. She lives quietly in a village near Lincoln, and has no friends. She says the condition is getting steadily worse, and she often screams in desperation. She doesn't feel able to read a book or watch TV in case the words appear. So she spends all day playing Candy Crush or the like or just brooding.
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
Not a psychiatrist, but this sounds an awful lot like a classic phobia presentation, which often responds very well to exposure therapy in a controlled environment with a therapist who specialises in treating such things. Exposure therapy is always under the control of the patient & is about allowing the patient to re-train the panic-response that they've learnt to their personal triggers - for many patient it gets to the point where even thinking about the trigger becomes enough to start a panic response, which creates a self-fulfilling reinforcement loop. Breaking this loop by showing the patient that they can cope, is the purpose of the therapy & I've read about some cases where a single session resulted in a complete cure for a patient who was previously unable to go out of their home. Not all patients respond so positively of course, but it might be worth a try, if you can find someone.
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'the beer's gone flat.'
Well you can, clearly, fool some of the people all of the time... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/beto-o-rourke-ted-cruz-texas-election-battle-can-he-do-it Out on his ranch, Gary Henderson, 64, is surveying his cows sheltering under mesquite and American oak. He thinks the problem with Democrats is that they believe money grows like leaves on those trees. “It has to stop somewhere – they keep giving millionaires tax breaks.”
But Trump has just given a $30bn tax break to individuals making more than $1m a year.
“That’s true, but it wasn’t political.”...
But money does come from plants. It's produced by mint.
I'll get my coat...
Sage advice for our thyme.
Enough of your sauce please Dr! Otherwise we will stuff this thread with herb puns...
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'the beer's gone flat.'
Well you can, clearly, fool some of the people all of the time... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/beto-o-rourke-ted-cruz-texas-election-battle-can-he-do-it Out on his ranch, Gary Henderson, 64, is surveying his cows sheltering under mesquite and American oak. He thinks the problem with Democrats is that they believe money grows like leaves on those trees. “It has to stop somewhere – they keep giving millionaires tax breaks.”
But Trump has just given a $30bn tax break to individuals making more than $1m a year.
“That’s true, but it wasn’t political.”...
But money does come from plants. It's produced by mint.
I'll get my coat...
Sage advice for our thyme.
Enough of your sauce please Dr! Otherwise we will stuff this thread with herb puns...
OK, I will cease. In other words that's shallot.
I'm heading off to plan tomorrow's lessons to ensure I don't get a further pasting.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-45757937
A total of five presidents and 14 prime ministers must be elected in the country's complex system of government...
n Republika Srpska voters will elect MPs, a president and two vice-presidents. In the Muslim-Croat Federation a bicameral parliament will be elected that includes a president and two vice presidents
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45774872
I wonder how anything gets done!
However Haddad still narrowly leads Bolsanaro in runoff polling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Brazilian_general_election,_2018
Face it, you're defending a man who is prepared to look the other way on genocide when it requires action that doesn't fit with his anti-Western ideology, and has done so consistently and repeatedly. But then he's shameless enough to try and get credit for praising survivors he'd have done nothing to help. And what saved many Yazidis was an American intervention he opposed, so saying he'd have accepted refugees is nonsense. If he had his way there'd have been a lot fewer refugees. Because they'd be dead or enslaved.
Please stop arguing for this despicable man before he entitrely drags your morality down into the sewer.
PS: Only idiots like Gordon Brown who claimed to be North British believe it.
After a very wet day yesterday which I spent at the garden centre choosing bulbs it is nice and dry today so need to get on with it.
the Supreme Court of Texas managed an all-female bench as long ago as 1925
I'd hope at least.
In any event, the backstop is the EU’s option, not ours. So all Barnier has to do it wait until the end of 2020 and announce that he does not want to activate the backstop because it will result in what you describe, so the UK will have to leave without a deal (but of course 40bn poorer).
Any permanent backstop sellout is just going to involve another cliff edge in two years time. If there was a solution to this, it would have been found by now. The only way there can ever be a lasting deal is if the backstop is withdrawn. Boris, of course, is right.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1048883476588634112
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1048900985505153024?s=20
@DavidL is correct, there is no room for fiscal incontinence, especially as we are coming due for a recession with or without Brexit, though the latter increases its challenges.
That is not to say that austerity needs to continue, but it does mean that ending austerity needs to come via a balanced budget rather than borrowing.
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1048873385848176646
She has seen a number of GPs and counsellors when it was a little less acute, and has been given medicine, which at low doses has no effect and at high doses makes her feel so muzzy that she can't cope at all. She is well-educated, intelligent and entirely lucid and sensible when not reacting to any of these triggers; she is not suicidal and never has been. She had CBT a long while back and it helped a bit. She is afraid of seeking more medical help, since she thinks they may feel they have to section her; her experience of voluntary in-patient treatment (which she did once for a few days) is that the focus is on preventing suicide, so you're in a room with plastic cutlery and woken every hour by nurses checking that you're not killing yourrself; moreover, she thinks that hearing other patients screaming etc. would simply make her worse. Cost is not an issue: she'd be happy to pay for private treatment.
What advice should I give? Is there a form of in-patient treatment that doesn't involve the harsh anti-suicide regime that she describes? Are there alternatives?
But in the 1950s and 1960s we were effectively doubling the size of our workforce by the emancipation of women (free to work) and had a very young population with a relatively modest number of pensioners. Watch Robert's videos on demographics. The implications are profound and they will drive our politics for the next 20 years.
The most likely outcome if Barnier is pushed to accept an all UK backstop is that he will insist that the EU can convert the backstop to EEA/CU.
I know that you are desperate for May to complete her sellout but it is going to be a lot harder than you think.
And indeed, arguably, the Seventies into the Eighties were the comeback for such profligacy and complacency in terms of austerity.
I'd like to see that happen again.
I think we should increase the share of national income that is paid as taxes so that we can equitably pay for the increase in health and social care costs that is required by an ageing population. Which taxes, and by how much is an answer for which there is not space in this comment box.
http://www.lincolnshireautisticsociety.org.uk/support-for-people-with-autism/
No idea if they're any good or not, but it might be worth a try.
A local support group might be able to help with this.
I'd suggest that GPs are very unlikely to consider sectioning her if she isn't a suicide risk, and even then they are reluctant. She could approach a GP and ask for a referral to explore a formal diagnosis.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/07/sarah-wollaston-fights-to-save-totnes-seat-brexiters
In fairness many have such a plan, even if those plans are far riskier than they pretend (eg, a GE 'somehow')
Locally I am involved in a charity that provides Social and Horticultural Therapy to people with mental issues. It is non threatening in the ways that she appears to perceive threats from the limited details. Ideally you need to find a project that employees staff who are qualified in SHT. Our project here in Hertfordshire has a good reputation for helping a wide range of mental conditions.
If all other avenues have failed why not suggest something completely harmless but away from mainstream views. I know it will be derided as wacky, but something like regression hypnosis (I am avoiding using the word 'therapy' after regression). She has a mental issue, and it is about finding something that she believes will / has helped her and doing so without triggering her fears.
Lincs is not too far from York, which does have The Retreat, which tends to focus more on a talking therapy approach and holistic assessment. It is a not for profit charitable unit, and my well be a reasonable fit for your relative:
https://www.theretreatyork.org.uk/older-adult-services/
https://twitter.com/Dasein90/status/1048403505675997189
If the agreed backstop includes things both sides really dislike it'll make the activation of it much more unlikely and ergo an agreeded fta/customs arrangement during the transition more desired by both sides.
But his supporters are a bit like Trump's. They don't want to believe the man's a fraud, because they've invested hopes in him, and no amount of evidence that he isn't the man of peace, or the business genius, he claims to be will move them because a) They've parked their morals for the chance at a 'radical' government, and b) They're in too deep now to say, 'Oh sorry, I've looked into this, and yes he does keep doing these awful things, I'll act accordingly'.
Here's a link to an Indy article on Corbyn's organisations shameful slurs against the Yazidis: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-stop-the-war-coalition-should-do-us-all-a-favour-and-disband-9702292.html
The original, like a lot of stuff from their foul website, has been deleted since Corbyn became leader.
The core conundrum is that any Brexit outcome requires either a hard border in Ireland; one in the Irish Sea; or a do as you are told relationship covering the whole UK aka the Vassal State. Upto Chequers May rejected all three. Chequers tried to square the circle by accepting a bit of all of them. The EU rejects the Irish land border - as incidentally do most people in Northern Ireland, only the DUP really wants the hard border. It will accept an Irish Sea border. It doesn't want to commit to the Vassal State as that ties its hand for future state negotiations that come after Brexit.
My best guess forfor negotiated settlement is that the NI backstop stays as the default. The EU will concede a little bit on a whole UK backstop, so that goes in as a definite maybe. This then has to go through parliament. By that point the prospect of No Deal will be focusing minds. We leave and then we need to start negotiating for a longer term arrangement, bearing in mind the next cliff edge than two years later when the transition finishes.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/beto-o-rourke-ted-cruz-texas-election-battle-can-he-do-it
Out on his ranch, Gary Henderson, 64, is surveying his cows sheltering under mesquite and American oak. He thinks the problem with Democrats is that they believe money grows like leaves on those trees. “It has to stop somewhere – they keep giving millionaires tax breaks.”
But Trump has just given a $30bn tax break to individuals making more than $1m a year.
“That’s true, but it wasn’t political.”...
I'll get my coat...
I would also recommend taking up some non-verbal pastime involving exercise, preferably outdoors. Music is a good one as the concentration requires blotting out of intrusive thoughts, but also gardening, birdwatching, or simply rambling in the countryside, even getting a (quiet!) dog.
I think The Retreat would be difficult for her because it involves multi-bed wards with other patients (and the CQC report is a bit mixed), but DavidL's suggestion of helplines sounds good and I've passed on numbers to her. I'll raise philiph's idea when I get the chance.
I don't want to spam the thread with my family problem, so I'll leave it there, but thanks everyone. If anyone has any further suggestions do drop me a private note (nickmp1@aol.com).
If you can, persuade her GP to refer her to the Maudsley in London, they have a national centre for OCD and obsession type behaviour.
Via an acquaintance I know that their skills, techniques and intensive methods are in a different league to anything a local hospital can provide.
It would involve a stay, but his experience doesn't sound like the 'just stop suicide' ward you mention.
The Conservatives.
Mr. Pulpstar, quite. It's as bad as when the media endlessly wibbles about the 'special relationship'.
NEW THREAD