On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
I fear you are being optimistic in suggesting we can put all this behind us so easily but I certainly agree that we should wish the EU well in an increasingly unstable world. My guess is that the focus of the worlds attention will continue to switch from Europe to the Pacific. If we are lucky Europe will become a quiet and largely irrelevant backwater where people can live peaceful and prosperous lives while wars and disasters happen elsewhere.
We should think about the Netherlands. From a global superpower in the 1700s to a quiet, prosperous, unassuming country now. No illusions about the past or the future and no constantly harking back to the golden days of sailing up the Medway or running Asia through the VOC. Its not a bad place to end up.
*) Too high a calorific intake *) The 'wrong' sorts of calories / foods *) Not enough exercise / sedentary lives.
ISTM that the problem is not just the first, but the second and third as well. I wonder whether encouraging people to do more exercise would be just as useful as regulated calorie restrictions?
(Although as an aside, a pizza I love from Morrisons contains over half of my recommended daily intake of calories. That seems rather insane. Although tasty.)
Just buy a smaller size of your favourite Pizza or cut it in half and have it on consecutive days.
Telegraph front page has wibbling of government plans to impose calorie caps on servings of food (pizzas, ready meals etc).
Puritanical tosh.
I appreciate that you’re very clever and virtuous but these have an effect. Look at the number of fat fuckers waddling around British high streets. The more they are shamed and don’t pollute our cities with their wobbling, the better.
Fuller figures are getting an ear bashing this morning, the Christmas good cheer long gone.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
I don't see anything wrong with Schengen and the Euro. But I don't think the EU would insist on them.
That's a very curious claim. What makes you think the EU, run on an increasingly overt federalist agenda, would not insist on us joining the two key planks of the agenda if we rejoined?
They've said explicitly that if we cancelled A50 they wouldn't require any changes at all. Whether that would apply if we left and then wanted to rejoin is a slightly different question. I think they would want some signs of long-term commitment (joining the Euro would be a good one) - the idea of having us back but then constantly threatening to leave again would lack appeal.
Mr. Ace, the change happened when it became socially/culturally unacceptable. Drink driving had been more common for a long time whilst still being illegal.
A bureaucrat passing a regulation didn't make the difference in behaviour. Condemnation from social groups/peer pressure did.
But we live in a world where pointing out weighing 400lbs is unhealthy is deemed by some as 'fat-shaming'. So instead of tackling the problem when it occurs in people, everybody gets affected by puritanical bullshit, which can, nevertheless, be easily sidestepped by the cunning measure of buying large quantities of smaller portions.
It's faintly hilarious. We've got puritanical rules on sugar and calories (incoming), yet the Beach Body Ready Ad was deemed unacceptable for having a healthy woman depicted*.
*There was a male version too, with a shirtless chap equipped with a ridiculous set of abs. Nobody gave a shit.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
Yup, Ted Heath’s deal was rubbish. Rubbish because he was personally desperate get in at any cost.
Ted Heath is the perpetrator of the original sin in that he said he wouldn’t take us in “without the whole hearted consent of the British people”. He never got it, he never tried to get it even, and we’ve essentially been where we are now, grumpily split ever since.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
I fear you are being optimistic in suggesting we can put all this behind us so easily but I certainly agree that we should wish the EU well in an increasingly unstable world. My guess is that the focus of the worlds attention will continue to switch from Europe to the Pacific. If we are lucky Europe will become a quiet and largely irrelevant backwater where people can live peaceful and prosperous lives while wars and disasters happen elsewhere.
We should think about the Netherlands. From a global superpower in the 1700s to a quiet, prosperous, unassuming country now. No illusions about the past or the future and no constantly harking back to the golden days of sailing up the Medway or running Asia through the VOC. Its not a bad place to end up.
Yes it’s a good model.
Of course if we are unlucky the Pacific wars will impact on us, the collapse of populous nation states in Africa will overwhelm our continent and our relative economic decline will threaten our security. But these things will largely be done to us. The days of Europe shaping the world are over.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Mr. Ace, the change happened when it became socially/culturally unacceptable. Drink driving had been more common for a long time whilst still being illegal.
A bureaucrat passing a regulation didn't make the difference in behaviour. Condemnation from social groups/peer pressure did.
But we live in a world where pointing out weighing 400lbs is unhealthy is deemed by some as 'fat-shaming'. So instead of tackling the problem when it occurs in people, everybody gets affected by puritanical bullshit, which can, nevertheless, be easily sidestepped by the cunning measure of buying large quantities of smaller portions.
It's faintly hilarious. We've got puritanical rules on sugar and calories (incoming), yet the Beach Body Ready Ad was deemed unacceptable for having a healthy woman depicted*.
*There was a male version too, with a shirtless chap equipped with a ridiculous set of abs. Nobody gave a shit.
I do see the contradiction. On the one hand, we all know that being obese is dangerous and a drain on the economy and on the other, calling someone in the street a slab cracker is considered bad form. Unfortunately, this is one of the occasions where the government does have to step in.
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
*) Too high a calorific intake *) The 'wrong' sorts of calories / foods *) Not enough exercise / sedentary lives.
ISTM that the problem is not just the first, but the second and third as well. I wonder whether encouraging people to do more exercise would be just as useful as regulated calorie restrictions?
(Although as an aside, a pizza I love from Morrisons contains over half of my recommended daily intake of calories. That seems rather insane. Although tasty.)
Only insane if you are eating them all the time. What will the interfering wuckfits think of next. Soon we will be getting probes installed so they have full control. All they will do is put another tax on it and make more money out of the misery , the callous barstewards care not a jot for the public.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
Thank you Alastair, very interesting. I do take issue with your view that if only leavers backed the deal then remainers would too. I'm sorry, but I think they can see a route to no Brexit and they are going to pursue it vigorously.
That might be true of some, but nowhere near enough to matter, had leavers grasped May’s deal. Which is underlined by the fact that quite a few of those who voted remain would still accept May’s deal.
As a Remainer I will accept May's Deal.
As Yougov also showed while Remain leads No Deal and the Deal on first preferences it fails to get over 50%, put the Deal head to head against No Deal or Remain and 372 constituencies, a clear majority, prefer the Deal
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
we don't charge
- people who drink too much - people who smoke - people who don't take the medication they are prescribed - people who act like idiots
and with good reason. It is a massive distraction from the primary purpose of the NHS, to care for those in need.
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
we don't charge
- people who drink too much - people who smoke - people who don't take the medication they are prescribed - people who act like idiots
and with good reason. It is a massive distraction from the primary purpose of the NHS, to care for those in need.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European e wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
I fear you are being optimistic in suggesting we can put all this behind us so easily but I certainly agree that we should wish the EU well in an increasingly unstable world. My guess is that the focus of the worlds attention will continue to switch from Europe to the Pacific. If we are lucky Europe will become a quiet and largely irrelevant backwater where people can live peaceful and prosperous lives while wars and disasters happen elsewhere.
We should think about the Netherlands. From a global superpower in the 1700s to a quiet, prosperous, unassuming country now. No illusions about the past or the future and no constantly harking back to the golden days of sailing up the Medway or running Asia through the VOC. Its not a bad place to end up.
Yes it’s a good model.
Of course if we are unlucky the Pacific wars will impact on us, the collapse of populous nation states in Africa will overwhelm our continent and our relative economic decline will threaten our security. But these things will largely be done to us. The days of Europe shaping the world are over.
India, China and the US will shape this century but the EU will still be a force in the economic sphere and the UK needs to find a way back to navigating its route between the US and EU and developing its historic ties with India and Hong Kong to project influence
Worry about clathrates on the sea beds being released by warming. They are highly unstable and there is some evidence that they were the main cause of the Permian extinction that wiped out nearly 90% of all marine life
Indeed though my recollection of reading about the Permian event was the release of methane from the oceans was one of a number of events including a huge outbreak of volcanic activity which caused the ecological and biological catastrophe.
Just to note both Japan and China (and I believe Russia too) are looking at extracting methane hydrates as an energy source - the technology isn't there yet but is only a few years away.
It was a long time ago and the evidence is difficult and inferred from various indirect pieces of evidence. The version i read attributed a rise in global temps to vulcanism and then the increase in temp increase caused a catastrophic clathrate release
In spite of life nearly being wiped out, it recovered well and quickly. Evolution is a powerful force
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
we don't charge
- people who drink too much - people who smoke - people who don't take the medication they are prescribed - people who act like idiots
and with good reason. It is a massive distraction from the primary purpose of the NHS, to care for those in need.
The top two are taxed heavily.
Not via the NHS, which is where MD was going with that. They are instead taxed at source, which is really a version of regulation with which MD was contrasting the NHS option.
Mrs C, there's a videogame in development (maybe Phoenix Rising or similar is the title) based on a mixture of XCOM and evolution [the creator is the chap behind the original XCOM games].
Essentially, the player commands forces attacking alien invaders. Through random mutations, the aliens change. If you find it harder, the evolutionary change sticks (so if you're flaming giant rats and they start hiding underground, that might improve their success). if it can work, it'd be a very interesting game dynamic.
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
we don't charge
- people who drink too much - people who smoke - people who don't take the medication they are prescribed - people who act like idiots
and with good reason. It is a massive distraction from the primary purpose of the NHS, to care for those in need.
The top two are taxed heavily.
Not via the NHS, which is where MD was going with that. They are instead taxed at source, which is really a version of regulation with which MD was contrasting the NHS option.
Given the NHS is funded via general taxation that is a distinction without a difference.
We now have a sugar tax which is equivalent to tobacco and alcohol taxes.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European e wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
I fear you are being optimistic in suggesting we can put all this behind us so easily but I certainly agree that we should wish the EU well in an increasingly unstable world. My guess is that the focus of the worlds attention will continue to switch from Europe to the Pacific. If we are lucky Europe will become a quiet and largely irrelevant backwater where people can live peaceful and prosperous lives while wars and disasters happen elsewhere.
We should think about the Netherlands. From a global superpower in the 1700s to a quiet, prosperous, unassuming country now. No illusions about the past or the future and no constantly harking back to the golden days of sailing up the Medway or running Asia through the VOC. Its not a bad place to end up.
Yes it’s a good model.
Of course if we are unlucky the Pacific wars will impact on us, the collapse of populous nation states in Africa will overwhelm our continent and our relative economic decline will threaten our security. But these things will largely be done to us. The days of Europe shaping the world are over.
India, China and the US will shape this century but the EU will still be a force in the economic sphere and the UK needs to find a way back to navigating its route between the US and EU and developing its historic ties with India and Hong Kong to project influence
You do understand that HK is part of the PRC, is become ever more subject to the whims of Beijing, is increasingly unimportant in the context of the wider Chinese economy and has the end of Basic Law to look forward to?
Forgot to add to others appreciating the good leading article - it's always good if forecasters own up to past forecasts (the Economist, home of the confident forecast, is especially rubbish at that). Alasatair did well...
Personally I think May's deal with embellishing non-binding statements will stagger over the line, maybe at second attempt. I predicted both May's survival and the ultimate agreement throughout last year, but didn't anticipate how grouchy everyone would feel about it all. That said, few bets on sitting party leaders leaving early work out, and I suspect we'll still be looking at May vs Corbyn in a year's time. Quite apart from their multiply-proven personal resilience, people underestimate how satisfying being a party leader is for a politician - they have reached the highest point in their careers and the hope that with one more policy announcement they can turn opinion in their favour lingers in the most hard-pressed leaders.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
The problem with the deal from a leaver's perspective is that the tory party isn't going to be in government forever and Corbo isn't going to be leader of the Labour party forever. They need to achieve the most decisive and conclusive brexit possible while the constellations are aligned. The deal is neither decisive or conclusive.
It isn't intended to be. It's a transitory arrangement from which a final deal can be negotiated. Some aspects of the final agreement are there, e.g. the arbitration panel, the lack of CJEU jurisdiction and the free movement in Ireland. But there's more to do.
But the key point is, it's out. Once we are out, it would require a huge amount of time and effort, including a referendum, to go back in, and re-entry would certainly be on appalling, indeed unacceptable terms including signing up to Schengen and the Euro. There just isn't the appetite for it, whatever the likes of Soubry or Benn or Cable may fantasise about. (And incidentally whatever the shortcomings of this deal it's a great deal better than full federalism.)
So why are the Leavers jibbing? Well, I got into trouble once for comparing Rees-Mogg's brain to that of a stuffed rabbit. And with hindsight I was indeed completely wrong to make that comparison. Stuffed rabbits are way smarter than he is,
There is no barrier to rejoining that can't be surmounted. Leave hasn't even managed to maintain its lead in the polls let alone build on it.
Belatedly, anybody who returns to their predictions objectively is brave and honest . I think of it as a dog returning to it’s own vomit.....
On a similar thought process, if there could be a resolution for poster to this site for next year, perhaps it could be that where a quote or grab from Twitter is posted, perhaps a history of the twitterers accuracy rate could be set alongside it? Honesty helps.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
we don't charge
- people who drink too much - people who smoke - people who don't take the medication they are prescribed - people who act like idiots
and with good reason. It is a massive distraction from the primary purpose of the NHS, to care for those in need.
The top two are taxed heavily.
Not via the NHS, which is where MD was going with that. They are instead taxed at source, which is really a version of regulation with which MD was contrasting the NHS option.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
No man is an island. Ask not for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee.
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
Even easier is to just insult fat people for being fat.
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
we don't charge
- people who drink too much - people who smoke - people who don't take the medication they are prescribed - people who act like idiots
and with good reason. It is a massive distraction from the primary purpose of the NHS, to care for those in need.
The top two are taxed heavily.
Notably, unlike with sugar, that didn't cause the manufacturers to "reformulate" with grossly inferior alternatives.
Mrs C, there's a videogame in development (maybe Phoenix Rising or similar is the title) based on a mixture of XCOM and evolution [the creator is the chap behind the original XCOM games].
Essentially, the player commands forces attacking alien invaders. Through random mutations, the aliens change. If you find it harder, the evolutionary change sticks (so if you're flaming giant rats and they start hiding underground, that might improve their success). if it can work, it'd be a very interesting game dynamic.
I will look out for that - X Com and X Com 2 are two of the finest games I have ever played.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
No man is an island. Ask not for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee.
"From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are (in most country population is very low but based on growth) expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth."
Note that only the USA and Indonesia are on the Pacific. The reality is that Europe is at the centre of the mass population growth which is coming from Africa, Middle East and South Asia.
My partner is from Iran. In 1956 their population was 20 million. It is now 80 million and heading to over 100 million by 2050. Pakistan this year reached 200 million and will overtake the USA eventually. In comparison Japan is 120 million with no growth.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
No man is an island. Ask not for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee.
Mr. Floater, first heard about it a couple of years ago. May still be a little way off (unsure if it's coming to consoles). But the concept is very intriguing, but the proof of the pudding will be in the execution.
Mr. Stopper, be easier to simply charge the morbidly obese for medical care. Less political appetite (ahem) for that, though. For better to scrounge tax money and inflict regulations on everybody. It's equal opportunities puritanism.
Even easier is to just insult fat people for being fat.
What's not to enjoy?
I remember a friend of mine was a trainee nurse in Brum. All the trainees were in permanent fear of a particular Matron.
Until one day, they were dealing with a woman who had been anaesthatised for surgery. A very large women. Matron went up to her and with a well aimed shove, set this mound of unknowing flesh in motion, whilst singing "Jelly wobble, jelly wobble, jelly on a plate...."
Mr. Floater, first heard about it a couple of years ago. May still be a little way off (unsure if it's coming to consoles). But the concept is very intriguing, but the proof of the pudding will be in the execution.
Consoles - I think I may have heard of those things :-)
"The version i read attributed a rise in global temps to vulcanism and then the increase in temp increase caused a catastrophic clathrate release."
So many possible confounding factors. My curiosity was triggered by a recent BBC programme on ice. It briefly mentioned a correlation between air temperatures and carbon dioxide levels in ice cores as being good evidence for global warming.
Associations are interesting (in one sense of the word), but I wondered why more wasn't being made of it, so I looked into it. I discovered a relevant headline from the New Scientist (a proponent of AGW) which summarised it like this ...
"Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming. The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming."
I can't argue with that, but I see why it isn't a major argument. The carbon dioxide levels followed the temperature increases - they didn't precede them. The gas solubility in the oceans explains a little of this, but there's more going on. However, the AGW argument is now based on the speed at which temperature rise in now occurring this century.
That's the worst thing about confounding factors, you don't know when they'll make their presence felt and give your favourite theory an unexpected uppercut.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
No man is an island. Ask not for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee.
If you interested here is a good study on the cost of diabetes. You are right that the cost of complications dwarfs the primary care cost but most of the complications no longer lead to quick death. You can have a foot removed and still live on for many years. The average person lives for 5 years on dialysis and this number is increasing constantly.
If you interested here is a good study on the cost of diabetes. You are right that the cost of complications dwarfs the primary care cost but most of the complications no longer lead to quick death. You can have a foot removed and still live on for many years. The average person lives for 5 years on dialysis and this number is increasing constantly.
Sure, but dialysis is only around 10% of total cost
CV co-morbidity (which is also the primary cause of excess inpatient days) is what blows the figures through the roof
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European e wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
I fear you are being optimistic in suggesting we can put allen elsewhere.
We should think about the Netherlands. From a global superpower in the 1700s to a quiet, prosperous, unassuming country now. No illusions about the past or the future and no constantly harking back to the golden days of sailing up the Medway or running Asia through the VOC. Its not a bad place to end up.
Yes it’s a good model.
Of course if we are unlucky the Pacific wars will impact on us, the collapse of populous nation states in Africa will overwhelm our continent and our relative economic decline will threaten our security. But these things will largely be done to us. The days of Europe shaping the world are over.
India, China and the US will shape this century but the EU will still be a force in the economic sphere and the UK needs to find a way back to navigating its route between the US and EU and developing its historic ties with India and Hong Kong to project influence
You do understand that HK is part of the PRC, is become ever more subject to the whims of Beijing, is increasingly unimportant in the context of the wider Chinese economy and has the end of Basic Law to look forward to?
Chinese economic growth has largely been driven by moving away from the economic principles of Mao towards those pursued in Hong Kong. By the end of the century India may well have overtaken China and the US to be the largest global economy anyway
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p, while a bunch of healthy options remain basically unchanged in price, for example Tesco healthy choices mushroom risotto goes from £2.50 to £2.90, but a pepperoni pizza goes from £1.50 to £2.50 suddenly good choices become far more cost effective.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
*) Too high a calorific intake *) The 'wrong' sorts of calories / foods *) Not enough exercise / sedentary lives.
ISTM that the problem is not just the first, but the second and third as well. I wonder whether encouraging people to do more exercise would be just as useful as regulated calorie restrictions?
(Although as an aside, a pizza I love from Morrisons contains over half of my recommended daily intake of calories. That seems rather insane. Although tasty.)
That's the key, isn't it? Exercise more and enjoy all foods, but don't cane the bad stuff too often. It's not an easy solution to enforce, I admit. When I joined the fire service over 20 years ago, there were some big old units who struggled to climb stairs, let alone a ladder. Now we have a yearly fitness test, which while not too difficult- it's literally a brisk walk up a steepening hill for 12 minutes- it is pass or fail, and if you fail, there's a 6 week fitness program to follow, followed by a more stringent job related test that results in disciplinary action if failed. I'm not saying we should test the population once a year, but maybe there could be a proper carrot and stick approach to the fitness of the general population. I don't have an answer to how that could work or be applied, but as a nation we need a radical rethink. It will benefit the economy in the long run.
The intervention has been done, and with good results:
Generally obese people are fully aware of the fact that they are overweight, and the reasons for it. Mocking them is rarely helpful, but untangling the reasons that they are overweight and the best way to improve is not straight forward. People are mostly lazy and impulsive. Availiability of easy to eat calories is one factor and unwillingness to walk much are big factors.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Good argument, but I think the conclusion will be different. No deal or No Brexit both lead to a large group of irreconcilables either of which would be even more politically toxic the TM's deal. So TMs deal will go through reluctantly.
Worth keeping an eye on in the 2019 prediction business is this: If all goes according to plan (!) we leave on 29 March. At that moment the mandate of the referendum has been absolutely, literally and constitutionally discharged. The referendum period is over. The scene then changes to the next act. For democratic constitutionalists on 30 March it becomes entirely proper to seek to be a member of the EU and to seek a mandate for it.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
No man is an island. Ask not for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee.
On the substantive of the EU, I have to confess my view has long been there are only two coherent positions - all in or all out. Our half hearted rebate-obsessed opt-out riddled compromise of a membership was ultimately unsatisfactory for both us and the EU.
Perhaps after Suez we felt we had no other place in the world but to be part of Europe but as so many have said, we aren't European at heart.
Perhaps there are those in Brussels who already see the European Federation as a logical and inevitable outcome - convincing the people of the wisdom of that will take a long time, I suspect.
As so often in history, the European continent will have issues at its peripheries - the UK at one end, Russia on the other, the proximity of Turkey and the Middle East and of course the mess that is Africa to the south. The challenge for European integration will be to mitigate all these potential risks and hazards.
For us, it would be good if we wished the EU project well and aspired to be a friendly neighbour while resuming our global engagement.
As an aside, leaving the EU doesn't solve the problem of our identity or place in the world - I've no desire to live in Singapore-on-Thames pouring coffee for the billionaires lured here by our low-tax low-regulation economy.
The challenge is to create a post-EU economy and society that works for all of us. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any answers but nor does anyone else at this time.
No man is an island. Ask not for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee.
There are at least eight women in the UK called Isla Mann......
There are at least 16 evil people with bullied kids you mean?
Reminds me of the story a couple of months ago where a woman was complaining that some airline employees were mocking her daughter Abcde because of her name.
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Good argument, but I think the conclusion will be different. No deal or No Brexit both lead to a large group of irreconcilables either of which would be even more politically toxic the TM's deal. So TMs deal will go through reluctantly.
Worth keeping an eye on in the 2019 prediction business is this: If all goes according to plan (!) we leave on 29 March. At that moment the mandate of the referendum has been absolutely, literally and constitutionally discharged. The referendum period is over. The scene then changes to the next act. For democratic constitutionalists on 30 March it becomes entirely proper to seek to be a member of the EU and to seek a mandate for it.
Rejoin is legitimate once we leave although now that there has been a popular vote to leave I don’t think that a manifesto commitment or parliamentary vote to rejoin has sufficient weight
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Good argument, but I think the conclusion will be different. No deal or No Brexit both lead to a large group of irreconcilables either of which would be even more politically toxic the TM's deal. So TMs deal will go through reluctantly.
Worth keeping an eye on in the 2019 prediction business is this: If all goes according to plan (!) we leave on 29 March. At that moment the mandate of the referendum has been absolutely, literally and constitutionally discharged. The referendum period is over. The scene then changes to the next act. For democratic constitutionalists on 30 March it becomes entirely proper to seek to be a member of the EU and to seek a mandate for it.
Rejoin is legitimate once we leave although now that there has been a popular vote to leave I don’t think that a manifesto commitment or parliamentary vote to rejoin has sufficient weight
A clear manifesto commitment and a subsequent majority always outweighs a referendum.
Telegraph front page has wibbling of government plans to impose calorie caps on servings of food (pizzas, ready meals etc).
Puritanical tosh.
I appreciate that you’re very clever and virtuous but these have an effect. Look at the number of fat fuckers waddling around British high streets. The more they are shamed and don’t pollute our cities with their wobbling, the better.
They don't do me any harm. I expect that your objection to them is aesthetic.
*) Too high a calorific intake *) The 'wrong' sorts of calories / foods *) Not enough exercise / sedentary lives.
ISTM that the problem is not just the first, but the second and third as well. I wonder whether encouraging people to do more exercise would be just as useful as regulated calorie restrictions?
(Although as an aside, a pizza I love from Morrisons contains over half of my recommended daily intake of calories. That seems rather insane. Although tasty.)
That's the key, isn't it? Exercise more and enjoy all foods, but don't cane the bad stuff too often. It's not an easy solution to enforce, I admit. When I joined the fire service over 20 years ago, there were some big old units who struggled to climb stairs, let alone a ladder. Now we have a yearly fitness test, which while not too difficult- it's literally a brisk walk up a steepening hill for 12 minutes- it is pass or fail, and if you fail, there's a 6 week fitness program to follow, followed by a more stringent job related test that results in disciplinary action if failed. I'm not saying we should test the population once a year, but maybe there could be a proper carrot and stick approach to the fitness of the general population. I don't have an answer to how that could work or be applied, but as a nation we need a radical rethink. It will benefit the economy in the long run.
The intervention has been done, and with good results:
Generally obese people are fully aware of the fact that they are overweight, and the reasons for it. Mocking them is rarely helpful, but untangling the reasons that they are overweight and the best way to improve is not straight forward. People are mostly lazy and impulsive. Availiability of easy to eat calories is one factor and unwillingness to walk much are big factors.
I average 16,000 steps a day- down from the 21,000 last year- but I have returned to full time work.
I am partial to crisps and boiled sweets at the expense of fruit though- but your assessment that people eat the wrong stuff and don't move that much is spot on; combine those two and you become fat, and unless you change you will stay fat and develop heart disease, and spend many of your later years in poor health.
Mr. Ace, alcohol duty has certainly led to the absence of drunkenness in the UK.
You can't regulate a lifestyle into people.
Of course governments can and do. Drink driving used to be common and socially acceptable.
If people are ashamed of their behaviour, then governments can regulate it. Smoking bans in public places can either be very successful (if smokers are ashamed of their behaviour) or completely ineffectual (if they aren't ).
The fox hunting ban is an example of an effort to change behaviour that failed, because hunters feel no shame about hunting.
Javid and Hunt all but declaring themselves as candidates for the leadership today.
And both talking bollox whilst dog whistling at full throttle. Javid- I'm back in frontline children's social work; child sexual exploitation is rife and the vast majority of it is perpetrated by white men. And Hunt and his crusade for Christianity- I mean FFS. Look at the persecution faced by Muslims in Burma, China and India for instance. Why do we have to suffer these really excruciatingly manipulative and calculating fuckwits who are only interested in serving their own egos?
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Good argument, but I think the conclusion will be different. No deal or No Brexit both lead to a large group of irreconcilables either of which would be even more politically toxic the TM's deal. So TMs deal will go through reluctantly.
Worth keeping an eye on in the 2019 prediction business is this: If all goes according to plan (!) we leave on 29 March. At that moment the mandate of the referendum has been absolutely, literally and constitutionally discharged. The referendum period is over. The scene then changes to the next act. For democratic constitutionalists on 30 March it becomes entirely proper to seek to be a member of the EU and to seek a mandate for it.
Rejoin is legitimate once we leave although now that there has been a popular vote to leave I don’t think that a manifesto commitment or parliamentary vote to rejoin has sufficient weight
A clear manifesto commitment and a subsequent majority always outweighs a referendum.
Not sure that it does
You end up in a debate on whether people were really voting for p17 of the manifesto or whether 12, 14 and 28 were more important
Moreover since MPs are elected as representatives manifestos are not legally binding - in that case you don’t need a manifesto commitment at all to rejoin
In my view the constitution has evolved so that power clearly comes from the people these days. For most issues they are content to leave it to representatives, but where there is a clear instruction from the people - that they don’t want to be a member of the EU - a representative can’t ignore that instruction
If you interested here is a good study on the cost of diabetes. You are right that the cost of complications dwarfs the primary care cost but most of the complications no longer lead to quick death. You can have a foot removed and still live on for many years. The average person lives for 5 years on dialysis and this number is increasing constantly.
Sure, but dialysis is only around 10% of total cost
CV co-morbidity (which is also the primary cause of excess inpatient days) is what blows the figures through the roof
I am not doubting that a lot of money is spent at the end of a patient's life but only that the allocation is changing over time towards the last 5 years of a patients life rather than the last 6 months. In many cases now the healthcare profession actually slow down treatment towards the end of life as they realise the efforts are becoming futile.
It may surprise you but there are only around 3,500 ICU beds in the UK. The amount of medical supplies that my company ships to them is not a big business.
On CV my brother as well as being dean of surgery at Oxford Uni hospital is also a CV surgeon. I asked him to check how many of his patients die within 6 months of surgery. He estimates it at around 10-20%.
Mr. Ace, alcohol duty has certainly led to the absence of drunkenness in the UK.
You can't regulate a lifestyle into people.
Of course governments can and do. Drink driving used to be common and socially acceptable.
If people are ashamed of their behaviour, then governments can regulate it. Smoking bans in public places can either be very successful (if smokers are ashamed of their behaviour) or completely ineffectual (if they aren't ).
The fox hunting ban is an example of an effort to change behaviour that failed, because hunters feel no shame about hunting.
Most paedophiles probably feel little shame and quite happily carry on with their behaviour- that is until they get caught and low and behold they start feeling very sorry for what they have done, surprise, surprise.
But to the vast majority of the population fox hunting is disgusting.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
If you interested here is a good study on the cost of diabetes. You are right that the cost of complications dwarfs the primary care cost but most of the complications no longer lead to quick death. You can have a foot removed and still live on for many years. The average person lives for 5 years on dialysis and this number is increasing constantly.
Sure, but dialysis is only around 10% of total cost
CV co-morbidity (which is also the primary cause of excess inpatient days) is what blows the figures through the roof
I am not doubting that a lot of money is spent at the end of a patient's life but only that the allocation is changing over time towards the last 5 years of a patients life rather than the last 6 months. In many cases now the healthcare profession actually slow down treatment towards the end of life as they realise the efforts are becoming futile.
It may surprise you but there are only around 3,500 ICU beds in the UK. The amount of medical supplies that my company ships to them is not a big business.
On CV my brother as well as being dean of surgery at Oxford Uni hospital is also a CV surgeon. I asked him to check how many of his patients die within 6 months of surgery. He estimates it at around 10-20%.
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
Mr. Ace, alcohol duty has certainly led to the absence of drunkenness in the UK.
You can't regulate a lifestyle into people.
Of course governments can and do. Drink driving used to be common and socially acceptable.
If people are ashamed of their behaviour, then governments can regulate it. Smoking bans in public places can either be very successful (if smokers are ashamed of their behaviour) or completely ineffectual (if they aren't ).
The fox hunting ban is an example of an effort to change behaviour that failed, because hunters feel no shame about hunting.
I don't remember the atmosphere at the time of the introduction of breathalysers, but I'm pretty sure large fines, driving bans & even jail were & still are at least as big an inducement to virtue as any efforts to make folk ashamed about the activity.
Slightly interestingly, between 2005-2015, convictions of male drivers for drink driving have more than halved, while for women only slightly decreased (the former figure is still much larger than the latter of course).
"The version i read attributed a rise in global temps to vulcanism and then the increase in temp increase caused a catastrophic clathrate release."
So many possible confounding factors. My curiosity was triggered by a recent BBC programme on ice. It briefly mentioned a correlation between air temperatures and carbon dioxide levels in ice cores as being good evidence for global warming.
Associations are interesting (in one sense of the word), but I wondered why more wasn't being made of it, so I looked into it. I discovered a relevant headline from the New Scientist (a proponent of AGW) which summarised it like this ...
"Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming. The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming."
I can't argue with that, but I see why it isn't a major argument. The carbon dioxide levels followed the temperature increases - they didn't precede them. The gas solubility in the oceans explains a little of this, but there's more going on. However, the AGW argument is now based on the speed at which temperature rise in now occurring this century.
That's the worst thing about confounding factors, you don't know when they'll make their presence felt and give your favourite theory an unexpected uppercut.
Svensmark's cosmic ray theory has been debunked by many, but shows interesting correlations nonetheless - especially with the next solar cycle expected to be a weak one.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago head to head against No Deal or Remain the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
That's a pretty impressive set of predictions from last year Alastair - well done!
I went back to re-read the original article just to check you hadn't done some 'selective editing' But no - it was all as you said.
I look forward to your 2019 predictions. (Can you include a view on the global stock markets please? I'd like to know whether, despite recent losses, we might get one more year out of this bull market before an almighty crash!)
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago head to head against No Deal or Remain the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
No Deal most likely leads to the break up of the UK, a deep economic recession and most probably the reversal of Brexit sooner or later or at least SM plus CU BINO.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p, while a bunch of healthy options remain basically unchanged in price, for example Tesco healthy choices mushroom risotto goes from £2.50 to £2.90, but a pepperoni pizza goes from £1.50 to £2.50 suddenly good choices become far more cost effective.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Absolutely agree, and I think I suggested something similar on here earlier in the year, although not as well thought through. Something like this just has to come.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
On the other hand you don't see many obese nonagenerians.
I was asked a question at lunch yesterday I haven’t figured out. Any thoughts?
Did man domesticate, or wheat domesticate man?
Read Sapiens for a discussion. The author concludes that wheat domesticated man from foragers to farmers.
That was what prompted the question. It seems simplistic as an answer. Strikes me as a symbiotic relationship - I’d be likely to go with “neither” as the answer
I was asked a question at lunch yesterday I haven’t figured out. Any thoughts?
Did man domesticate, or wheat domesticate man?
Read Sapiens for a discussion. The author concludes that wheat domesticated man from foragers to farmers.
I can see the argument (and have read Sapiens) but for my money 'to domesticate' implies intent, and only one of humans and wheat had the ability to intend.
I'm not saying that man's domestication of wheat (and other grains) didn't have unintended adverse consequences.
Here's a question though: would it have been possible for humans to develop modern technology without agriculture?
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
You should give up the chocolate cake - it is the sort of tasty, healthy and nutritious food that you can send my way
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago head to head against No Deal or Remain the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
No Deal most likely leads to the break up of the UK, a deep economic recession and most probably the reversal of Brexit sooner or later or at least SM plus CU BINO.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in any way shape or form. Only a fool would believe Project Fear forecasts they neither know the modelling assumptions to nor understand. The biggest benefit of Brexit was deregulation and making the UK a more attractive investment proposition. Spurning those voluntarily for no certainty or even likelihood of a trade is simply an senseless act of self harm. Giving up fishing which has more capacity to benefit our coastal communities is an act of stupidity that only makes sense to London centric Remainers.
Mr. Ace, alcohol duty has certainly led to the absence of drunkenness in the UK.
You can't regulate a lifestyle into people.
Of course governments can and do. Drink driving used to be common and socially acceptable.
If people are ashamed of their behaviour, then governments can regulate it. Smoking bans in public places can either be very successful (if smokers are ashamed of their behaviour) or completely ineffectual (if they aren't ).
The fox hunting ban is an example of an effort to change behaviour that failed, because hunters feel no shame about hunting.
Most paedophiles probably feel little shame and quite happily carry on with their behaviour- that is until they get caught and low and behold they start feeling very sorry for what they have done, surprise, surprise.
But to the vast majority of the population fox hunting is disgusting.
I think paedophilia is disgusting to more of the population than fox hunting.
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I do not think there will be an EURef2 - I think they will prat about trying to get May's Deal through and by the time they give up the only time left will be for a direct revocation.
Remember that an extension to A50 requires unanimous voting. If they try that first and it fails then we are are left with No Deal or Revoke and no time for an EU Ref. Revoke, OTOH requires a short session in Parliament with a free vote followed by one letter to Brussels. Twenty four hours could do it, but definitely a few days. They could manage it in the last week of March.
Javid and Hunt all but declaring themselves as candidates for the leadership today.
And both talking bollox whilst dog whistling at full throttle. Javid- I'm back in frontline children's social work; child sexual exploitation is rife and the vast majority of it is perpetrated by white men. And Hunt and his crusade for Christianity- I mean FFS. Look at the persecution faced by Muslims in Burma, China and India for instance. Why do we have to suffer these really excruciatingly manipulative and calculating fuckwits who are only interested in serving their own egos?
Talking bollocks again, Tyson. The vast majority of convictions from grooming gangs have been men from Muslim Pakistani backgrounds. The plight of non-Muslims in Muslim countries should be out primary concern when it comes to asylum and refugee intake. Let Muslim countries look after their own.
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I think there are more votes in the Commons for the Deal than either the Norway option or EUref2, on a forced choice between EUref2, No Deal or the Deal enough Labour MPs from Leave seats would reluctantly vote for the Deal.
Thanks to the passage of the Grieve amendment all options ie EUref2 and Norway+ are likely to be put forward as motions for Commons votes, not just the Deal
Javid and Hunt all but declaring themselves as candidates for the leadership today.
And both talking bollox whilst dog whistling at full throttle. Javid- I'm back in frontline children's social work; child sexual exploitation is rife and the vast majority of it is perpetrated by white men. And Hunt and his crusade for Christianity- I mean FFS. Look at the persecution faced by Muslims in Burma, China and India for instance. Why do we have to suffer these really excruciatingly manipulative and calculating fuckwits who are only interested in serving their own egos?
Talking bollocks again, Tyson. The vast majority of convictions from grooming gangs have been men from Muslim Pakistani backgrounds. The plight of non-Muslims in Muslim countries should be out primary concern when it comes to asylum and refugee intake. Let Muslim countries look after their own.
Couldn't you apply the same logic to say we should be concerned only with asylum-seeking women, not men?
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I do not think there will be an EURef2 - I think they will prat about trying to get May's Deal through and by the time they give up the only time left will be for a direct revocation.
Remember that an extension to A50 requires unanimous voting. If they try that first and it fails then we are are left with No Deal or Revoke and no time for an EU Ref. Revoke, OTOH requires a short session in Parliament with a free vote followed by one letter to Brussels. Twenty four hours could do it, but definitely a few days. They could manage it in the last week of March.
Yes, that makes sense as a possiblity; I could see that happeneing against a run on pound and a FTSE collapse.
However, I will wait it to appear in for Alastair's 2019 predictions before I am totally confident it's going to happen
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I do not think there will be an EURef2 - I think they will prat about trying to get May's Deal through and by the time they give up the only time left will be for a direct revocation.
Remember that an extension to A50 requires unanimous voting. If they try that first and it fails then we are are left with No Deal or Revoke and no time for an EU Ref. Revoke, OTOH requires a short session in Parliament with a free vote followed by one letter to Brussels. Twenty four hours could do it, but definitely a few days. They could manage it in the last week of March.
Direct revocation without EUref2 would lead us to near Civil War, Leavers would be incandescent with rage
Comments
Just buy a smaller size of your favourite Pizza or cut it in half and have it on consecutive days.
No need to go jogging and get a heart attack.
A bureaucrat passing a regulation didn't make the difference in behaviour. Condemnation from social groups/peer pressure did.
But we live in a world where pointing out weighing 400lbs is unhealthy is deemed by some as 'fat-shaming'. So instead of tackling the problem when it occurs in people, everybody gets affected by puritanical bullshit, which can, nevertheless, be easily sidestepped by the cunning measure of buying large quantities of smaller portions.
It's faintly hilarious. We've got puritanical rules on sugar and calories (incoming), yet the Beach Body Ready Ad was deemed unacceptable for having a healthy woman depicted*.
*There was a male version too, with a shirtless chap equipped with a ridiculous set of abs. Nobody gave a shit.
Ted Heath is the perpetrator of the original sin in that he said he wouldn’t take us in “without the whole hearted consent of the British people”. He never got it, he never tried to get it even, and we’ve essentially been where we are now, grumpily split ever since.
Of course if we are unlucky the Pacific wars will impact on us, the collapse of populous nation states in Africa will overwhelm our continent and our relative economic decline will threaten our security. But these things will largely be done to us. The days of Europe shaping the world are over.
As Yougov also showed while Remain leads No Deal and the Deal on first preferences it fails to get over 50%, put the Deal head to head against No Deal or Remain and 372 constituencies, a clear majority, prefer the Deal
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-
- people who drink too much
- people who smoke
- people who don't take the medication they are prescribed
- people who act like idiots
and with good reason. It is a massive distraction from the primary purpose of the NHS, to care for those in need.
In spite of life nearly being wiped out, it recovered well and quickly. Evolution is a powerful force
Essentially, the player commands forces attacking alien invaders. Through random mutations, the aliens change. If you find it harder, the evolutionary change sticks (so if you're flaming giant rats and they start hiding underground, that might improve their success). if it can work, it'd be a very interesting game dynamic.
We now have a sugar tax which is equivalent to tobacco and alcohol taxes.
Personally I think May's deal with embellishing non-binding statements will stagger over the line, maybe at second attempt. I predicted both May's survival and the ultimate agreement throughout last year, but didn't anticipate how grouchy everyone would feel about it all. That said, few bets on sitting party leaders leaving early work out, and I suspect we'll still be looking at May vs Corbyn in a year's time. Quite apart from their multiply-proven personal resilience, people underestimate how satisfying being a party leader is for a politician - they have reached the highest point in their careers and the hope that with one more policy announcement they can turn opinion in their favour lingers in the most hard-pressed leaders.
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
On a similar thought process, if there could be a resolution for poster to this site for next year, perhaps it could be that where a quote or grab from Twitter is posted, perhaps a history of the twitterers accuracy rate could be set alongside it? Honesty helps.
Even easier is to just insult fat people for being fat.
What's not to enjoy?
Mhhh long war in X Com 2.............
From Wikipedia
"From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are (in most country population is very low but based on growth) expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth."
Note that only the USA and Indonesia are on the Pacific. The reality is that Europe is at the centre of the mass population growth which is coming from Africa, Middle East and South Asia.
My partner is from Iran. In 1956 their population was 20 million. It is now 80 million and heading to over 100 million by 2050. Pakistan this year reached 200 million and will overtake the USA eventually. In comparison Japan is 120 million with no growth.
Until one day, they were dealing with a woman who had been anaesthatised for surgery. A very large women. Matron went up to her and with a well aimed shove, set this mound of unknowing flesh in motion, whilst singing "Jelly wobble, jelly wobble, jelly on a plate...."
Perk of the job.
Given we all die, this NHS cost is unavoidable.
My gaming is on the pc.
"The version i read attributed a rise in global temps to vulcanism and then the increase in temp increase caused a catastrophic clathrate release."
So many possible confounding factors. My curiosity was triggered by a recent BBC programme on ice. It briefly mentioned a correlation between air temperatures and carbon dioxide levels in ice cores as being good evidence for global warming.
Associations are interesting (in one sense of the word), but I wondered why more wasn't being made of it, so I looked into it. I discovered a relevant headline from the New Scientist (a proponent of AGW) which summarised it like this ...
"Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming. The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming."
I can't argue with that, but I see why it isn't a major argument. The carbon dioxide levels followed the temperature increases - they didn't precede them. The gas solubility in the oceans explains a little of this, but there's more going on. However, the AGW argument is now based on the speed at which temperature rise in now occurring this century.
That's the worst thing about confounding factors, you don't know when they'll make their presence felt and give your favourite theory an unexpected uppercut.
If you interested here is a good study on the cost of diabetes. You are right that the cost of complications dwarfs the primary care cost but most of the complications no longer lead to quick death. You can have a foot removed and still live on for many years. The average person lives for 5 years on dialysis and this number is increasing constantly.
CV co-morbidity (which is also the primary cause of excess inpatient days) is what blows the figures through the roof
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p, while a bunch of healthy options remain basically unchanged in price, for example Tesco healthy choices mushroom risotto goes from £2.50 to £2.90, but a pepperoni pizza goes from £1.50 to £2.50 suddenly good choices become far more cost effective.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/finlands-radical-heart-health-transformation/389766/
Generally obese people are fully aware of the fact that they are overweight, and the reasons for it. Mocking them is rarely helpful, but untangling the reasons that they are overweight and the best way to improve is not straight forward. People are mostly lazy and impulsive. Availiability of easy to eat calories is one factor and unwillingness to walk much are big factors.
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
Worth keeping an eye on in the 2019 prediction business is this: If all goes according to plan (!) we leave on 29 March. At that moment the mandate of the referendum has been absolutely, literally and constitutionally discharged. The referendum period is over. The scene then changes to the next act. For democratic constitutionalists on 30 March it becomes entirely proper to seek to be a member of the EU and to seek a mandate for it.
They'd called the poor kid Annette......
It wasn't the daughter they were mocking, dear.
I am partial to crisps and boiled sweets at the expense of fruit though- but your assessment that people eat the wrong stuff and don't move that much is spot on; combine those two and you become fat, and unless you change you will stay fat and develop heart disease, and spend many of your later years in poor health.
The fox hunting ban is an example of an effort to change behaviour that failed, because hunters feel no shame about hunting.
You end up in a debate on whether people were really voting for p17 of the manifesto or whether 12, 14 and 28 were more important
Moreover since MPs are elected as representatives manifestos are not legally binding - in that case you don’t need a manifesto commitment at all to rejoin
In my view the constitution has evolved so that power clearly comes from the people these days. For most issues they are content to leave it to representatives, but where there is a clear instruction from the people - that they don’t want to be a member of the EU - a representative can’t ignore that instruction
It may surprise you but there are only around 3,500 ICU beds in the UK. The amount of medical supplies that my company ships to them is not a big business.
On CV my brother as well as being dean of surgery at Oxford Uni hospital is also a CV surgeon. I asked him to check how many of his patients die within 6 months of surgery. He estimates it at around 10-20%.
But to the vast majority of the population fox hunting is disgusting.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative then to No Deal
Slightly interestingly, between 2005-2015, convictions of male drivers for drink driving have more than halved, while for women only slightly decreased (the former figure is still much larger than the latter of course).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
H/t Clement Freud
I went back to re-read the original article just to check you hadn't done some 'selective editing'
I look forward to your 2019 predictions. (Can you include a view on the global stock markets please? I'd like to know whether, despite recent losses, we might get one more year out of this bull market before an almighty crash!)
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
Did man domesticate, or wheat domesticate man?
I'm not saying that man's domestication of wheat (and other grains) didn't have unintended adverse consequences.
Here's a question though: would it have been possible for humans to develop modern technology without agriculture?
Remember that an extension to A50 requires unanimous voting. If they try that first and it fails then we are are left with No Deal or Revoke and no time for an EU Ref. Revoke, OTOH requires a short session in Parliament with a free vote followed by one letter to Brussels. Twenty four hours could do it, but definitely a few days. They could manage it in the last week of March.
Thanks to the passage of the Grieve amendment all options ie EUref2 and Norway+ are likely to be put forward as motions for Commons votes, not just the Deal
However, I will wait it to appear in for Alastair's 2019 predictions before I am totally confident it's going to happen