'Unprecedented' rise in infant mortality in England linked to poverty Welfare cuts in the last decade have taken their toll on certain communities, new research has found. AN “UNPRECEDENTED” RISE in infant mortality in England is linked to poverty, according to new research.
An additional 570 infant deaths, compared to what would have been expected based on historical trends, were recorded in the country from 2014-2017.
About one-third of those deaths, which related to children under the age of one, were linked to rising poverty.
Rising infant mortality is unusual in high income countries, and international statistics show that infant mortality has continued to decline in most rich countries in recent years.
Corbyn: I think we should make broadband free. Media: Madman, utter insanity, it could never work.
Johnson: I want to build a 30-mile bridge across a 1000-foot-deep stretch of water that has a load of explosives dumped somewhere at the bottom. Media: Jolly good old chap! When?
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm probably not a great person to represent The Left but
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
Would you say the implementation of universal credit has resulted in more, fewer or about the same amount of people 'falling between the cracks'?
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
That makes sense, but if that's the goal I think the corollary is that if there's a need that's being filled slightly patchily by charity, and the state could reasonably either do it or help fund them to do it, then it should step in and do that, to free up charity capacity to fill other gaps that volunteers can identify and fill before the government can. I don't know much about the operation of food banks but it sounds like it has a fairly simple formula (give cheap, nourishing food to whoever shows up, focussed where there are a lot of needy people, they'll probably have to queue) that the government could easily turn into a rule.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
Morgan does try the patience, TBF, but I think I broadly agree. I personally like to hear a good polemic about deep rooted white male privilege - since it accords with my view of society and I think my view is one of the best on offer regarding this - but I do sense that it is counterproductive with many, perhaps most, of the ordinary punters. So, yes, a less strident language needed unless one is dealing with a Deplorable. Bit of a change for me here. Six months ago I would probably have said it's a war and screw the Geneva convention, take no prisoners. It's less stimulating, being cooler on all this, but so what if it's more effective. It should be about influencing not having a good time. Course, this is me speaking from a cossetted position of white male privilege.
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
That makes sense, but if that's the goal I think the corollary is that if there's a need that's being filled slightly patchily by charity, and the state could reasonably either do it or help fund them to do it, then it should step in and do that, to free up charity capacity to fill other gaps that volunteers can identify and fill before the government can. I don't know much about the operation of food banks but it sounds like it has a fairly simple formula (give cheap, nourishing food to whoever shows up, focussed where there are a lot of needy people, they'll probably have to queue) that the government could easily turn into a rule.
I think one thing that used to occur prior to universal credit was that the DWP tried to identify cracks and do what they could do to fill them. And since Universal credit they no longer do that and in fact often the strict rules make them worse.
Whether it's intentionally sexist or not, it's a really stupid phrase to use in the context of a party that's never elected a female leader. That is, unless your goal is to rile the sort of person that gets triggered by this (which I suspect is often the case).
Still, like many times I see someone making such points, this tweeter has invited accusations of hypocrisy with "fed up of men". In my experience, more women that men have been willing to make this kind of comment about RLB, probably because they are more likely to think they can get away with it.
It seems so obvious that, if you're going to call out prejudice, you should be careful not to betray your own prejudice while doing so. Otherwise you just harm your own cause. Yet it's normal to try to make a virtue of doing the exact opposite, and then get angry when this distracts attention from the original point.
I am woke - no inverted commas - and proud to be so, however I would like Labour to dial down a bit on the Identity politics. For 2 reasons really. Firstly, not to be complacent, but I think that time will continue to work its progressive magic in this area without an enormous amount of kicking up the backside needed. Secondly, if you get too in-your-face with this stuff it just riles those you most want to influence - i.e. the large numbers of people who are a bit reactionary but in no way Hardcore Deplorables - either that or it gifts opportunities for them to make tedious jokes of the "PC gorn mad" type which if they are in response to a case of PC actually gorning mad, you then have to nod and smile at with your teeth gritted.
Apparently Xi is saying their response has gone too far and is damaging the economy too much.
China is probably the only country in the world to have both the resource and will power to take such action. If they can't keep it up for a couple of months no-one can.
The fun and games will come when China orders everyone back to work, but there are still cases breaking out all over their industries. That is the point where honest reporting of case numbers risks breaking down.
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
Yeah, "white privilege" and "male privilege" are both important concepts, but they have become toxic in public discourse, especially when lazily stuck together without regard to whether intersectionality really plays a role in the discussion topic.
Even when used appropriately, which is a minority of cases, "white male privilege" pushes the same button that it pushes when used simply to silence someone with an opposing view, which is the majority of cases.
There are other phrases that are worse, like "pale, male and stale". The vast majority of people on the left don't use them, but nor do we object to their use, partly out of fear that doing so looks reactionary (which is utter nonsense). That leads to the perception that we endorse them.
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm probably not a great person to represent The Left but
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
Would you say the implementation of universal credit has resulted in more, fewer or about the same amount of people 'falling between the cracks'?
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I suspect there very, very few still to the extent of not actually being able to buy food if they have to. There are people out there (not saying everyone) who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling then go to a food bank. There's been a few programs on TV that have shown people who always have a cigarette in their mouth going to food banks.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.
I doubt most people would use food banks if they could avoid it. There will always be some bad un's that abuse the system but will be in a minority. Hard to say how you would do if you had next to no cash and were depressed etc, especially when you have plenty. I have had odd spell when not well off which was not great but given I don't have to worry about price of anything it is hard to chastise people who have next to nothing on how they spend their pittance. Must be better ways than having food banks.
I'd be curious to know what better solutions you have since all countries tend to have food banks. Simply giving people more money isn't a solution when that money can likely go straight up their nose or on drugs, alcohol or gambling rather than food. At least with food banks we know they are getting food - and what can be better than that?
I have no solutions but just cannot see food banks being the answer. Perhaps if we had systems like the Nordic countries etc , they at least make sure people at the bottom can live a reasonable life.
Would you say the implementation of universal credit has resulted in more, fewer or about the same amount of people 'falling between the cracks'?
Difficult to say. The previous system was so complex, and the incentives so perverse, that it seems to have forced people into unemployment. Universal Credit is definitely a better-structured system, but it does seem to need one urgent change, which is to reduce the waiting time for the first payment.
Corona is definitely one of the better lagers, it's a summer drink mind. One for supping outside with a lemon slice.
Though the traditional purpose of the lime/lemon slice means it has no reason to actually be drank with it in this country. Its as nonsensical as a waiter offering for you to try a screwcapped wine before you drink it - it can't possibly be corked.
But I still prefer Corona with lime. Traditions are fun even if they're not necessary.
It is only good in hot weather etc , too light for UK most of the time, tastes watery unless it is a hot day and it is really chilled.
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I suspect there very, very few still to the extent of not actually being able to buy food if they have to. There are people out there (not saying everyone) who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling then go to a food bank. There's been a few programs on TV that have shown people who always have a cigarette in their mouth going to food banks.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.
I doubt most people would use food banks if they could avoid it. There will always be some bad un's that abuse the system but will be in a minority. Hard to say how you would do if you had next to no cash and were depressed etc, especially when you have plenty. I have had odd spell when not well off which was not great but given I don't have to worry about price of anything it is hard to chastise people who have next to nothing on how they spend their pittance. Must be better ways than having food banks.
I'd be curious to know what better solutions you have since all countries tend to have food banks. Simply giving people more money isn't a solution when that money can likely go straight up their nose or on drugs, alcohol or gambling rather than food. At least with food banks we know they are getting food - and what can be better than that?
I have no solutions but just cannot see food banks being the answer. Perhaps if we had systems like the Nordic countries etc , they at least make sure people at the bottom can live a reasonable life.
We do have systems like the Nordic countries etc, the differences between us and them are greatly exaggerated.
Corona is definitely one of the better lagers, it's a summer drink mind. One for supping outside with a lemon slice.
Though the traditional purpose of the lime/lemon slice means it has no reason to actually be drank with it in this country. Its as nonsensical as a waiter offering for you to try a screwcapped wine before you drink it - it can't possibly be corked.
But I still prefer Corona with lime. Traditions are fun even if they're not necessary.
It is only good in hot weather etc , too light for UK most of the time, tastes watery unless it is a hot day and it is really chilled.
Stop the clocks....I agree with Malky on something.
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
That makes sense, but if that's the goal I think the corollary is that if there's a need that's being filled slightly patchily by charity, and the state could reasonably either do it or help fund them to do it, then it should step in and do that, to free up charity capacity to fill other gaps that volunteers can identify and fill before the government can. I don't know much about the operation of food banks but it sounds like it has a fairly simple formula (give cheap, nourishing food to whoever shows up, focussed where there are a lot of needy people, they'll probably have to queue) that the government could easily turn into a rule.
I don't think that can be a rule, because it would end up with free-loaders turning up expecting to exercise their 'right' to free food provided by the taxpayer. Of course that can happen with a charity too, but the differences are that the charity can exercise discretion, and it doesn't matter so much if they get it wrong because they are spending money or supplying food which has been freely donated rather than compulsorily taken from taxpayers.
Corona tastes nothing like Becks or Peroni, assume you are not a beer drinker.
Actually, I will take that back. Corona does have a distinctive flavour. But lots of lagers DO taste the same, don't they? Becks and Peroni, for example. Bet you couldn't separate them in a blind tasting. As for me, I do bitter Oct to Mar, and lager Apr to Sep. It's a rite of passage. Come the first warm day of Spring it's goodbye to quite a few things, not just bitter, and hello to many others. Lager is not even the half of it. Then the reverse when the cold comes back 6 months later. Probably a bit different in Scotland with the different weather up there.
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I suspect there very, very few still to the extent of not actually being able to buy food if they have to. There are people out there (not saying everyone) who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling then go to a food bank. There's been a few programs on TV that have shown people who always have a cigarette in their mouth going to food banks.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.
I doubt most people would use food banks if they could avoid it. There will always be some bad un's that abuse the system but will be in a minority. Hard to say how you would do if you had next to no cash and were depressed etc, especially when you have plenty. I have had odd spell when not well off which was not great but given I don't have to worry about price of anything it is hard to chastise people who have next to nothing on how they spend their pittance. Must be better ways than having food banks.
I'd be curious to know what better solutions you have since all countries tend to have food banks. Simply giving people more money isn't a solution when that money can likely go straight up their nose or on drugs, alcohol or gambling rather than food. At least with food banks we know they are getting food - and what can be better than that?
I have no solutions but just cannot see food banks being the answer. Perhaps if we had systems like the Nordic countries etc , they at least make sure people at the bottom can live a reasonable life.
We do have systems like the Nordic countries etc, the differences between us and them are greatly exaggerated.
The difference between their pensions and benefits and what UK has is enormous and not exaggerated
I couldn't agree more. The main reason I say this to outspoken woke people is because I want them to succeed in their goal. Of course, quite often the response I get is that I'm just another reactionary (though not typically put so politely), and that makes me empathise with the "PC gorn mad" crowd. If that's what they do to someone who is very firmly on the liberal left, they've probably turned a good few moderate conservatives into raving Trump supporters.
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
Yeah, "white privilege" and "male privilege" are both important concepts, but they have become toxic in public discourse, especially when lazily stuck together without regard to whether intersectionality really plays a role in the discussion topic.
Even when used appropriately, which is a minority of cases, "white male privilege" pushes the same button that it pushes when used simply to silence someone with an opposing view, which is the majority of cases.
There are other phrases that are worse, like "pale, male and stale". The vast majority of people on the left don't use them, but nor do we object to their use, partly out of fear that doing so looks reactionary (which is utter nonsense). That leads to the perception that we endorse them.
And as a result huge voting demographics are getting the message every day that the left - and Labour in particular - is politically opposed to immutable characteristics of their being.
Paradoxically, the left's obsession with identity politics achieves precisely the opposite goal they intend: in the past, white people in Western democracies have generally not cohered into a single ideological or party voting bloc as other groups tend to do (largely because those groups are smaller). But when the message gets rammed into them enough, a lot of them tend to realize 'Hey, we're an identity voting bloc too, and these ideologues are against us for who we are'. And then you get Brexit and Trump and Boris...
Mr. Royale, it's ironic that if Wellington (as was common practice at the time) hadn't been able to buy his promotions he wouldn't've risen so quickly and Napoleon might very well have ended up victorious.
Another interesting hypothetical is what if George Washington's mother hadn't talked him out of taking up his commission in the Royal Navy at the last minute...
If we are talking hypothetical, I believe it's traditional to mention Special Order 191...
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm probably not a great person to represent The Left but
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
Would you say the implementation of universal credit has resulted in more, fewer or about the same amount of people 'falling between the cracks'?
Fewer.
Hmm.
My brother has been seriously mentally ill for 20+ years, worked for about 3 months in that period (he was a site engineer with a degree, so it wasn't like there a shortage of work if he'd been up to it), on benefits almost all of that time. Between Christmas and New Year in 2018 (after he had become part of the UC system) he had all his benefits stopped, mainly due to some unwise and unbalanced claims he'd been making due to his illness. That was the first time that the so called safety net had been totally removed in those 20+ years, and involved lots of stress, foodbanks and input from me (all other family & friends either being dead or long departed his life). If it wasn't for a switched on case worker who managed to get his benefits restored after 5 months I suspect we might still be on that merry go round, though as my brother was threatening to top himself by the end of that hellish period, who knows?
Regarding the empirical evidence as experienced by me, I'd be interested in your evidence for 'fewer'?
And as a result huge voting demographics are getting the message every day that the left - and Labour in particular - is politically opposed to immutable characteristics of their being.
Paradoxically, the left's obsession with identity politics achieves precisely the opposite goal they intend: in the past, white people in Western democracies have generally not cohered into a single ideological or party voting bloc as other groups tend to do (largely because those groups are smaller). But when the message gets rammed into them enough, a lot of them tend to realize 'Hey, we're an identity voting bloc too, and these ideologues are against us for who we are'. And then you get Brexit and Trump and Boris...
This is a problem. Common sense will tell you that lack of diversity is a big risk for any group, just as it is for bananas. Different, even opposing, perspectives lead to better decision-making. It is, however, uncomfortable.
It also requires those who are presently dominant in a non-diverse group to recognise that their voice needs to be heard less. If such people are determined to be given privilege over others, they can sabotage the process quite effectively.
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I suspect there very, very few still to the extent of not actually being able to buy food if they have to. There are people out there (not saying everyone) who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling then go to a food bank. There's been a few programs on TV that have shown people who always have a cigarette in their mouth going to food banks.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.
I doubt most people would use food banks if they could avoid it. There will always be some bad un's that abuse the system but will be in a minority. Hard to say how you would do if you had next to no cash and were depressed etc, especially when you have plenty. I have had odd spell when not well off which was not great but given I don't have to worry about price of anything it is hard to chastise people who have next to nothing on how they spend their pittance. Must be better ways than having food banks.
I'd be curious to know what better solutions you have since all countries tend to have food banks. Simply giving people more money isn't a solution when that money can likely go straight up their nose or on drugs, alcohol or gambling rather than food. At least with food banks we know they are getting food - and what can be better than that?
I have no solutions but just cannot see food banks being the answer. Perhaps if we had systems like the Nordic countries etc , they at least make sure people at the bottom can live a reasonable life.
Most of the Nordic countries have a more contributions based benefits system, so if you have worked and paid in more through their national insurance system you get more benefits out beyond a basic level
The criticism of Jezza idea wasn't that it was impossible or un-deliverable, it was the fact he was going to put 200 profitable companies out of business to provide an inferior service. That was why it was rightly called out. The fibre backbone network stuff wasn't in itself bad, is a perfectly reasonable and needs doing, although best practice seems to be like South Korea, public / private partnership.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
Well that was the serious and sober "FT type" objection - and I shared it to some extent - but I recall much along "Pie in the Sky from Magic Grandpa" lines.
It was pie in the sky because it was yet another (on top of countless others) unfunded proposal with broken circular logic that would break a part of the economy that was working well.
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
Free broadband was a ridiculous thing to put in the manifesto. Nevertheless, this logic isn't right.
If you buy a house and own that asset, it doesn't reduce your net wealth. If you rent the house out for free ("giving the asset away"), that doesn't reduce your net wealth.
There are real costs, of course: maintenance of the house, interest on the mortgage, council tax and bills (if the residents aren't paying these). In the case of the house, these will typically be offset by rising house prices, whereas depreciation of the broadband infrastructure would be an additional cost. But the costs are not the same as the cost of the asset.
I note Labour were on the side of serious criminals facing deportation this morning (Well that is certainly what it sounded like). Best of luck winning an election with that pitch.
Mr. Endillion, why does the Left think help provided by the charity is inferior to the same help supplied by the state?
I'm probably not a great person to represent The Left but
1) Charity tends to be a bit random: You can totally rely on people to pay for cute and/or awesome things like guide dogs or large red boats, but when it comes to helping un-photogenic people the help may be there or may not, depending on the personal situations of a small number of heroically helpful people
2) It's not fair on the small number of altruistic people who are doing most of the work and/or putting in most of the money for everyone else just to sit on our arses arguing about politics on the internet and leave it all to them
3) Basic necessities should be a right, not a privilege that depends on the kindness of strangers. (This is a "left" point-of-view that I don't exactly share, I'd be cool relying on charity more if we could fix [1] and [2], as I also dislike coercion and taxation is coercive.)
The fact that charity is a 'bit random' is precisely its strength. State-provided welfare of necessity has to follow a very rigid set of rules, and can't therefore avoid leaving some people for some reason falling between the cracks. That is why charities can provide a safety net which state provision can't or won't.
Would you say the implementation of universal credit has resulted in more, fewer or about the same amount of people 'falling between the cracks'?
Fewer.
1.01 shot gets beat!
I’d have been certain that answer was a correction to someone saying ‘less’
Apparently Xi is saying their response has gone too far and is damaging the economy too much.
China is probably the only country in the world to have both the resource and will power to take such action. If they can't keep it up for a couple of months no-one can.
It’s likely cost them around 2 - 3% of GDP this year already, so that is understandable. The party might have an iron grip on power, but that depends very much on continued economic prosperity.
The Hong Kong guy is an authority on coronavirus, and it’s interesting that he says the unknowns (precise method if transfer, for instance) will remain unknown unless there is a full scale ‘raging’ outbreak. The figures that he says are quite possible imply around half a million deaths in the UK in the event of an uncontrolled pandemic.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
Morgan does try the patience, TBF, but I think I broadly agree. I personally like to hear a good polemic about deep rooted white male privilege - since it accords with my view of society and I think my view is one of the best on offer regarding this - but I do sense that it is counterproductive with many, perhaps most, of the ordinary punters. So, yes, a less strident language needed unless one is dealing with a Deplorable. Bit of a change for me here. Six months ago I would probably have said it's a war and screw the Geneva convention, take no prisoners. It's less stimulating, being cooler on all this, but so what if it's more effective. It should be about influencing not having a good time. Course, this is me speaking from a cossetted position of white male privilege.
I hate the term white male privilege as it suggests the experience of white men is some unfair special status rather than what we all deserve. It isn't "privilege" to be treated decently by the police, or listened to by everyone in a meeting, or given a fair shake at a job interview. It is what everyone should get as a basic level of respect. It suggests white men should be levelled down rather than everyone else being levelled up.
Amazing that in the weakest year for the British economy growth was still faster than the majority of competitors in the EU.
A.) Would that statement still be true if you removed the phrase "majority of" and used "total" or "average per capita" instead?
B.) It would be interesting to work out whether the growth between the UK now and Uk since 2016 is bigger or smaller than it would have been had we stayed. It's the important statistic but is bloody difficult to work out...
I note Labour were on the side of serious criminals facing deportation this morning (Well that is certainly what it sounded like). Best of luck winning an election with that pitch.
This is why having a shiny new leader with a visible jaw isn't going to be the cure-all for Labour's ills. Their politicians and activists are instinctively and indissolubly wedded to positions that the public consider to be hostile to their interests.
And as a result huge voting demographics are getting the message every day that the left - and Labour in particular - is politically opposed to immutable characteristics of their being.
Paradoxically, the left's obsession with identity politics achieves precisely the opposite goal they intend: in the past, white people in Western democracies have generally not cohered into a single ideological or party voting bloc as other groups tend to do (largely because those groups are smaller). But when the message gets rammed into them enough, a lot of them tend to realize 'Hey, we're an identity voting bloc too, and these ideologues are against us for who we are'. And then you get Brexit and Trump and Boris...
This is a problem. Common sense will tell you that lack of diversity is a big risk for any group, just as it is for bananas. Different, even opposing, perspectives lead to better decision-making. It is, however, uncomfortable.
It also requires those who are presently dominant in a non-diverse group to recognise that their voice needs to be heard less. If such people are determined to be given privilege over others, they can sabotage the process quite effectively.
The problem is that people, who claim to champion diversity, often just want a diversity of skin colour and religion conforming to a rigid mindset
I went to a talk by Matthew Syed about this, promoting his new book ‘Rebel Ideas’. The word diversity has become little more than a corporate smokescreen
I note Labour were on the side of serious criminals facing deportation this morning (Well that is certainly what it sounded like). Best of luck winning an election with that pitch.
This is why having a shiny new leader with a visible jaw isn't going to be the cure-all for Labour's ills. Their politicians and activists are instinctively and indissolubly wedded to positions that the public consider to be hostile to their interests.
That depends, the public back Labour's plans for rail and utilities nationalisation and higher taxes on the rich for example
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
Modern capitalism in a nutshell. A single conglomerate making several different lagers that (apart from Corona) all taste broadly the same. There must be a better way. There must be.
And as a result huge voting demographics are getting the message every day that the left - and Labour in particular - is politically opposed to immutable characteristics of their being.
Paradoxically, the left's obsession with identity politics achieves precisely the opposite goal they intend: in the past, white people in Western democracies have generally not cohered into a single ideological or party voting bloc as other groups tend to do (largely because those groups are smaller). But when the message gets rammed into them enough, a lot of them tend to realize 'Hey, we're an identity voting bloc too, and these ideologues are against us for who we are'. And then you get Brexit and Trump and Boris...
This is a problem. Common sense will tell you that lack of diversity is a big risk for any group, just as it is for bananas. Different, even opposing, perspectives lead to better decision-making. It is, however, uncomfortable.
It also requires those who are presently dominant in a non-diverse group to recognise that their voice needs to be heard less. If such people are determined to be given privilege over others, they can sabotage the process quite effectively.
The problem is that people, who claim to champion diversity, often just want a diversity of skin colour and religion conforming to a rigid mindset
Exactly. The overwhelming impression the 'it's all the fault of the old white men' crowd give is not of an principled desire to end oppression, just a selfish wish to be the ones doing the oppressing...
I note Labour were on the side of serious criminals facing deportation this morning (Well that is certainly what it sounded like). Best of luck winning an election with that pitch.
This is why having a shiny new leader with a visible jaw isn't going to be the cure-all for Labour's ills. Their politicians and activists are instinctively and indissolubly wedded to positions that the public consider to be hostile to their interests.
That depends, the public back Labour's plans for rail and utilities nationalisation and higher taxes on the rich for example
Johnson's ministry will shamelessly nick (With a small bit of repackaging) all of Labour's vaguely popular ideas though. We're not in Osborne's economic conservative times any more.
The criticism of Jezza idea wasn't that it was impossible or un-deliverable, it was the fact he was going to put 200 profitable companies out of business to provide an inferior service. That was why it was rightly called out. The fibre backbone network stuff wasn't in itself bad, is a perfectly reasonable and needs doing, although best practice seems to be like South Korea, public / private partnership.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
Well that was the serious and sober "FT type" objection - and I shared it to some extent - but I recall much along "Pie in the Sky from Magic Grandpa" lines.
It was pie in the sky because it was yet another (on top of countless others) unfunded proposal with broken circular logic that would break a part of the economy that was working well.
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
Free broadband was a ridiculous thing to put in the manifesto. Nevertheless, this logic isn't right.
If you buy a house and own that asset, it doesn't reduce your net wealth. If you rent the house out for free ("giving the asset away"), that doesn't reduce your net wealth.
There are real costs, of course: maintenance of the house, interest on the mortgage, council tax and bills (if the residents aren't paying these). In the case of the house, these will typically be offset by rising house prices, whereas depreciation of the broadband infrastructure would be an additional cost. But the costs are not the same as the cost of the asset.
Of course it does reduce your net wealth.
If you buy a house you have to pay for that. If you lack the capital to do so you need to pay interest on your borrowing. If you are giving the house away for free you are not making any money to cover the cost of the house.
Furthermore the asset is only worth anything if you are able to sell it. If your government is acting in such an arbitrary manner then the odds are it will not be worth very much.
Apparently Xi is saying their response has gone too far and is damaging the economy too much.
China is probably the only country in the world to have both the resource and will power to take such action. If they can't keep it up for a couple of months no-one can.
The fun and games will come when China orders everyone back to work, but there are still cases breaking out all over their industries. That is the point where honest reporting of case numbers risks breaking down.
Which is probably what's going to happen next week, as they realise that quarantining millions of people has a negative effect on the GDP numbers. With now a possible 20-30 day incubation period for the Coronavirus, we could see an explosion in cases in March to pandemic levels - already each day brings more deaths than the day before, the quarantine needs to keep going until cases drop significantly.
I note Labour were on the side of serious criminals facing deportation this morning (Well that is certainly what it sounded like). Best of luck winning an election with that pitch.
This is why having a shiny new leader with a visible jaw isn't going to be the cure-all for Labour's ills. Their politicians and activists are instinctively and indissolubly wedded to positions that the public consider to be hostile to their interests.
That is the problem with the view that the only reason Labour lost was Jeremy Corbyn. See, for instance, Lord Ashcroft's report and this thread.
And as a result huge voting demographics are getting the message every day that the left - and Labour in particular - is politically opposed to immutable characteristics of their being.
Paradoxically, the left's obsession with identity politics achieves precisely the opposite goal they intend: in the past, white people in Western democracies have generally not cohered into a single ideological or party voting bloc as other groups tend to do (largely because those groups are smaller). But when the message gets rammed into them enough, a lot of them tend to realize 'Hey, we're an identity voting bloc too, and these ideologues are against us for who we are'. And then you get Brexit and Trump and Boris...
This is a problem. Common sense will tell you that lack of diversity is a big risk for any group, just as it is for bananas. Different, even opposing, perspectives lead to better decision-making. It is, however, uncomfortable.
It also requires those who are presently dominant in a non-diverse group to recognise that their voice needs to be heard less. If such people are determined to be given privilege over others, they can sabotage the process quite effectively.
The problem is that people, who claim to champion diversity, often just want a diversity of skin colour and religion conforming to a rigid mindset
I went to a talk by Matthew Syed about this, promoting his new book ‘Rebel Ideas’. The word diversity has become little more than a corporate smokescreen
Dan Hannan has a good line in what he calls "BBC Diverity", that is a group of people who look different but all think exactly the same.
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
Modern capitalism in a nutshell. A single conglomerate making several different lagers that (apart from Corona) all taste broadly the same. There must be a better way. There must be.
I can taste the difference between those lagers. Very different strengths too.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
Morgan does try the patience, TBF, but I think I broadly agree. I personally like to hear a good polemic about deep rooted white male privilege - since it accords with my view of society and I think my view is one of the best on offer regarding this - but I do sense that it is counterproductive with many, perhaps most, of the ordinary punters. So, yes, a less strident language needed unless one is dealing with a Deplorable. Bit of a change for me here. Six months ago I would probably have said it's a war and screw the Geneva convention, take no prisoners. It's less stimulating, being cooler on all this, but so what if it's more effective. It should be about influencing not having a good time. Course, this is me speaking from a cossetted position of white male privilege.
I hate the term white male privilege as it suggests the experience of white men is some unfair special status rather than what we all deserve. It isn't "privilege" to be treated decently by the police, or listened to by everyone in a meeting, or given a fair shake at a job interview. It is what everyone should get as a basic level of respect. It suggests white men should be levelled down rather than everyone else being levelled up.
It certainly doesn’t apply at the primary school level. On average, white boys significantly underperform just about everyone else.
The criticism of Jezza idea wasn't that it was impossible or un-deliverable, it was the fact he was going to put 200 profitable companies out of business to provide an inferior service. That was why it was rightly called out. The fibre backbone network stuff wasn't in itself bad, is a perfectly reasonable and needs doing, although best practice seems to be like South Korea, public / private partnership.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
Well that was the serious and sober "FT type" objection - and I shared it to some extent - but I recall much along "Pie in the Sky from Magic Grandpa" lines.
It was pie in the sky because it was yet another (on top of countless others) unfunded proposal with broken circular logic that would break a part of the economy that was working well.
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
Free broadband was a ridiculous thing to put in the manifesto. Nevertheless, this logic isn't right.
If you buy a house and own that asset, it doesn't reduce your net wealth. If you rent the house out for free ("giving the asset away"), that doesn't reduce your net wealth.
There are real costs, of course: maintenance of the house, interest on the mortgage, council tax and bills (if the residents aren't paying these). In the case of the house, these will typically be offset by rising house prices, whereas depreciation of the broadband infrastructure would be an additional cost. But the costs are not the same as the cost of the asset.
Of course it does reduce your net wealth.
If you buy a house you have to pay for that. If you lack the capital to do so you need to pay interest on your borrowing. If you are giving the house away for free you are not making any money to cover the cost of the house.
Furthermore the asset is only worth anything if you are able to sell it. If your government is acting in such an arbitrary manner then the odds are it will not be worth very much.
I assume you didn't make it as far as the third paragraph of my comment? I dealt with the cost of borrowing and depreciation of the asset there.
I note Labour were on the side of serious criminals facing deportation this morning (Well that is certainly what it sounded like). Best of luck winning an election with that pitch.
This is why having a shiny new leader with a visible jaw isn't going to be the cure-all for Labour's ills. Their politicians and activists are instinctively and indissolubly wedded to positions that the public consider to be hostile to their interests.
That depends, the public back Labour's plans for rail and utilities nationalisation and higher taxes on the rich for example
Johnson's ministry will shamelessly nick (With a small bit of repackaging) all of Labour's vaguely popular ideas though. We're not in Osborne's economic conservative times any more.
Boris will not raise taxes on the rich and nationalise utilities and rail without losing his core vote, increasing spending is different
The criticism of Jezza idea wasn't that it was impossible or un-deliverable, it was the fact he was going to put 200 profitable companies out of business to provide an inferior service. That was why it was rightly called out. The fibre backbone network stuff wasn't in itself bad, is a perfectly reasonable and needs doing, although best practice seems to be like South Korea, public / private partnership.
This bridge idea doesn't seem very cost effective, but it is doing what government do all the time i.e. fund massive infrastructure building that no private company offers.
Well that was the serious and sober "FT type" objection - and I shared it to some extent - but I recall much along "Pie in the Sky from Magic Grandpa" lines.
It was pie in the sky because it was yet another (on top of countless others) unfunded proposal with broken circular logic that would break a part of the economy that was working well.
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
Free broadband was a ridiculous thing to put in the manifesto. Nevertheless, this logic isn't right.
If you buy a house and own that asset, it doesn't reduce your net wealth. If you rent the house out for free ("giving the asset away"), that doesn't reduce your net wealth.
There are real costs, of course: maintenance of the house, interest on the mortgage, council tax and bills (if the residents aren't paying these). In the case of the house, these will typically be offset by rising house prices, whereas depreciation of the broadband infrastructure would be an additional cost. But the costs are not the same as the cost of the asset.
Of course it does reduce your net wealth.
If you buy a house you have to pay for that. If you lack the capital to do so you need to pay interest on your borrowing. If you are giving the house away for free you are not making any money to cover the cost of the house.
Furthermore the asset is only worth anything if you are able to sell it. If your government is acting in such an arbitrary manner then the odds are it will not be worth very much.
I assume you didn't make it as far as the third paragraph of my comment? I dealt with the cost of borrowing and depreciation of the asset there.
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
Modern capitalism in a nutshell. A single conglomerate making several different lagers that (apart from Corona) all taste broadly the same. There must be a better way. There must be.
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
Leaving this Broadband one aside (I can't remember how they costed it) you CAN buy an asset and save money at the same time. The important thing is the relationship between the cost of servicing and repaying the debt you took on to finance the purchase - or the opportunity cost of the income lost on the cash you used - between that and the return you make on the asset acquired, and the delta in value of the asset (these latter things being correlated). Nationalization is not inherently positive or negative on the public finances. It depends case by case, thus should be considered case by case.
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
Modern capitalism in a nutshell. A single conglomerate making several different lagers that (apart from Corona) all taste broadly the same. There must be a better way. There must be.
Blimey, I can taste a difference between all of those lagers and I dislike them all pretty equally!
The absolute insanity of saying you can borrow billions to "buy an asset" and it will cost nothing because you "own that asset" then can give that asset away for free because you "own it" is madness. If you can't see the problem in that logic do you really need it breaking down for you?
Leaving this Broadband one aside (I can't remember how they costed it) you CAN buy an asset and save money at the same time. The important thing is the relationship between the cost of servicing and repaying the debt you took on to finance the purchase - or the opportunity cost of the income lost on the cash you used - between that and the return you make on the asset acquired, and the delta in value of the asset (these latter things being correlated). Nationalization is not inherently positive or negative on the public finances. It depends case by case, thus should be considered case by case.
Only if you're going to make a return on the asset you acquired. How are you making a return on the asset when you're giving it away for free?
HS2 AND Northern Powerhouse Rail approved. HS2 north of Birmingham to be considered as integral as the south of Birmingham route.
That deals with my concerns. Well done. Ludicrous for the Northern parts of HS2 to be decades in the future.
They still are twenty years away. Quite what is meant by Northern Powerhouse Rail going ahead as well isn’t entirely clear.
(Though I don’t disagree that the headline is encouraging. I simply don’t trust politicians sufficiently to believe them without details being confirmed.)
Exactly. Find the ground between pandering and badgering. It's surely wide enough.
Nandy seems to me to be good on this. Tomorrow is our CLP Nomination meeting and I'll be caucusing for her.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
Yeah, "white privilege" and "male privilege" are both important concepts, but they have become toxic in public discourse, especially when lazily stuck together without regard to whether intersectionality really plays a role in the discussion topic.
Even when used appropriately, which is a minority of cases, "white male privilege" pushes the same button that it pushes when used simply to silence someone with an opposing view, which is the majority of cases.
There are other phrases that are worse, like "pale, male and stale". The vast majority of people on the left don't use them, but nor do we object to their use, partly out of fear that doing so looks reactionary (which is utter nonsense). That leads to the perception that we endorse them.
And as a result huge voting demographics are getting the message every day that the left - and Labour in particular - is politically opposed to immutable characteristics of their being.
Paradoxically, the left's obsession with identity politics achieves precisely the opposite goal they intend: in the past, white people in Western democracies have generally not cohered into a single ideological or party voting bloc as other groups tend to do (largely because those groups are smaller). But when the message gets rammed into them enough, a lot of them tend to realize 'Hey, we're an identity voting bloc too, and these ideologues are against us for who we are'. And then you get Brexit and Trump and Boris...
It's slowly dawning on the identitarians, that the white working classes, who form by far the largest group in UK and US society, also have a vote - and can vote along these lines if the politicians push them down that route.
I note Labour were on the side of serious criminals facing deportation this morning (Well that is certainly what it sounded like). Best of luck winning an election with that pitch.
This is why having a shiny new leader with a visible jaw isn't going to be the cure-all for Labour's ills. Their politicians and activists are instinctively and indissolubly wedded to positions that the public consider to be hostile to their interests.
That depends, the public back Labour's plans for rail and utilities nationalisation and higher taxes on the rich for example
Johnson's ministry will shamelessly nick (With a small bit of repackaging) all of Labour's vaguely popular ideas though. We're not in Osborne's economic conservative times any more.
Boris will not raise taxes on the rich and nationalise utilities and rail without losing his core vote, increasing spending is different
OK It's not publicly owned - but go ahead now for Northern Powerhouse rail & Northern rail nationalised (For now, oh and all of HS2 ). It ain't the free market dipping into it's pockets on rail, big gov't spend on it hypothecated now.
So what do we know about HS2? 1. The problematic / expensive Old Oak Common - Euston tunnel is going ahead but won't delay the project. 2. The absurd costings of phase 1 will be dropped before they complete costings on Phase 2 thus making it affordable (I expect they will "save" tens of billions on phase 1 by dropping the contractor 30 year risk on the physical infrastructure) 3. NPR Rail / Crossrail for the North / HS3 will be pulled forward. As HS2b north of Crewe and HS3 are one and the same that isn't a surprise.
People will complain. White elephant etc. But the utter lack of capacity on the network today never mind going forward forces the decision, and if you're building a new route may as well join the late 20th century and build high speed. And politically? Johnson needs to spend gazillions on infrastructure and have a lot of projects at least under construction before the summer 2024 general election. Albeit they won't build the bridge cos its impossible.
Question - as we're definitely having border checks at the end of the year has anyone considered the impact on the above? The Boris bridge would require customs / passport checks at one end or the other. And "why can't they connect HS2 and HS1 together to run direct from Manchester to Paris" has the same answer - we're choosing to impose piles of customs and standards checks on ourselves, so any through train will need UK Border staff at EVERY station it stops at.
On Brexit, now that its clear the government are choosing to impose checks on everything, at which point will the people who voted for more freedom start complaining about all the restrictions they will now be suffering?
Only if you're going to make a return on the asset you acquired. How are you making a return on the asset when you're giving it away for free?
Philip, the 1st line of my post was "Leaving the Broadband one aside".
I was addressing the economic generalities of Nationalization.
Indeed but the point stands.
Labour types claim that we should nationalise industries to stop companies making a profit and thus reduce costs or pay unions more or . . . insert reasons here . . . but if you do any of that you remove the return, which in turn removes the ability to fund the nationalisation in the first place.
Nationalised industries tend to not be well run or profitable for all sorts of reasons so no its hard to fund a nationalisation that way, especially if your purpose of nationalising was to change things in the first place.
On Brexit, now that its clear the government are choosing to impose checks on everything, at which point will the people who voted for more freedom start complaining about all the restrictions they will now be suffering?
We’ll see. Most people voted for less freedom though, so I doubt the volume of the complaints will be deafening
I agree with you 100% it should be. Lets the Scots own their own local taxes.
Since it's entirely within the remit of Westminster and its governing party, do you honestly see it happening?
In all honesty I don't know.
If the SNP in the last few years hadn't been banging on about Brexit/independence and being "taken our of the EU against our will" and instead been saying "when Brexit occurs Scotland should get [this]" with [this] being a list of potential Scottish Brexit bonuses like VAT or fisheries control etc then I think you'd have had more chance of getting it.
If the SNP pushes hard on VAT I think its entirely possible they'll get it. I don't see that yet though. I don't think its something the central government will unilaterally do without a strong call for it from Holyrood.
On Brexit, now that its clear the government are choosing to impose checks on everything, at which point will the people who voted for more freedom start complaining about all the restrictions they will now be suffering?
We’ll see. Most people voted for less freedom though, so I doubt the volume of complaints will be deafening
They did? I thought the whole idea was freedom from Brussels and from red tape and from being told what to do? The government are making a choice to diverge fully from everything, which even they admit creates a vast array of new restrictions and red tape.
Once Joe Public notices that their favourite band have skipped the UK from their world tour (way too much faff to do the paperwork), that they can't take their dog on holiday, that the price of what remaining food is in the supermarket has gone up, that it now takes 2 hours to clear customs on holiday etc etc, they aren't going to be happy.
They wanted to stop foreigners coming to the UK to simultaneously take their jobs and claim benefits. No-one said anything about not being able to go abroad easily. I can draft the Daily Mail front pages now if you like...
I can taste the difference between those lagers. Very different strengths too.
I don't see an issue.
You and @isam are clearly unusual in this respect. Or, OK, perhaps it's me with my smoking habit that can't taste properly.
But if they are all very different that is (in a sense) even less defensible. Because where's the genuine competition there? Better, surely, for each to be the pride and joy of a smaller bespoke business.
On Brexit, now that its clear the government are choosing to impose checks on everything, at which point will the people who voted for more freedom start complaining about all the restrictions they will now be suffering?
We’ll see. Most people voted for less freedom though, so I doubt the volume of complaints will be deafening
They did? I thought the whole idea was freedom from Brussels and from red tape and from being told what to do? The government are making a choice to diverge fully from everything, which even they admit creates a vast array of new restrictions and red tape.
Once Joe Public notices that their favourite band have skipped the UK from their world tour (way too much faff to do the paperwork), that they can't take their dog on holiday, that the price of what remaining food is in the supermarket has gone up, that it now takes 2 hours to clear customs on holiday etc etc, they aren't going to be happy.
They wanted to stop foreigners coming to the UK to simultaneously take their jobs and claim benefits. No-one said anything about not being able to go abroad easily. I can draft the Daily Mail front pages now if you like...
If you think any of that is going to happen then I have a Boris Bridge to sell you.
On Brexit, now that its clear the government are choosing to impose checks on everything, at which point will the people who voted for more freedom start complaining about all the restrictions they will now be suffering?
We’ll see. Most people voted for less freedom though, so I doubt the volume of complaints will be deafening
They did? I thought the whole idea was freedom from Brussels and from red tape and from being told what to do? The government are making a choice to diverge fully from everything, which even they admit creates a vast array of new restrictions and red tape.
Once Joe Public notices that their favourite band have skipped the UK from their world tour (way too much faff to do the paperwork), that they can't take their dog on holiday, that the price of what remaining food is in the supermarket has gone up, that it now takes 2 hours to clear customs on holiday etc etc, they aren't going to be happy.
They wanted to stop foreigners coming to the UK to simultaneously take their jobs and claim benefits. No-one said anything about not being able to go abroad easily. I can draft the Daily Mail front pages now if you like...
Yes, they did.
What politicians choose to do now we have left shouldn’t be confused with what the majority of people were voting for, which was to put an end to the freedom to go and work anywhere in the EU in exchange for anyone in the EU to compete for their job. Low paid workers getting protection from the free market for their labour.
I can taste the difference between those lagers. Very different strengths too.
I don't see an issue.
You and @isam are clearly unusual in this respect. Or, OK, perhaps it's me with my smoking habit that can't taste properly.
But if they are all very different that is (in a sense) even less defensible. Because where's the genuine competition there? Better, surely, for each to be the pride and joy of a smaller bespoke business.
I don't see what the problem is. Large breweries like Heineken, AB InBev etc own a whole host of brands which they can then market and sell using their integrated channels. Plus it balances the business from risk - if people go off one brand then they might switch to another within the same portfolio. Having a portfolio reduces seasonality risks too, people might switch to brands like Corona or Ciders etc in the summer, then back to other brands in the winter.
Small breweries are alive and well though. I'm sure all sorts of smaller names could get mentioned if people want to do so.
DO the Scottish government intend to increase or decrease the VAT rate?
They need money so given another tax with which they could raise money have a guess...
My guess is refuse to make a change after finally getting the right while bitching and moaning about Westminster being the cause of all their problems.
DO the Scottish government intend to increase or decrease the VAT rate?
Haven't a clue, but I'd guess we'd have a better idea once we know whether the Make The Union Great Again party intends devolving control of VAT to Holyrood? Over to you.
'Unprecedented' rise in infant mortality in England linked to poverty Welfare cuts in the last decade have taken their toll on certain communities, new research has found. AN “UNPRECEDENTED” RISE in infant mortality in England is linked to poverty, according to new research.
An additional 570 infant deaths, compared to what would have been expected based on historical trends, were recorded in the country from 2014-2017.
About one-third of those deaths, which related to children under the age of one, were linked to rising poverty.
Rising infant mortality is unusual in high income countries, and international statistics show that infant mortality has continued to decline in most rich countries in recent years.
Mind you, not as bad as the 1,187 drugs deaths in Scotland - in a country with less than a tenth the population of England. Drug deaths in England were 3,756. If Scotland had the same drug death rate as England there would have been 800 fewer deaths in Scotland.
DO the Scottish government intend to increase or decrease the VAT rate?
They need money so given another tax with which they could raise money have a guess...
The Scottish Government could vary the rate, or items, or could collect it more or less efficiently or could simply spend all the money in Scotland. I doubt they've given it much thought tbh but there is more to life than up and down.
That does solve the issue, yes. A fascinating world too, whisky is. Here I CAN tell one brand from another, or at least I can tell Scotch from Bourbon and I can tell a single malt from a "Grouse" or a "Waitrose Own".
As an aside one of my earliest and most personal experiences of class conflict was to do with Whisky. I was working closely with a posh bloke and I happened to tell him, we were talking about booze for some reason, that my dad liked Glenfiddich. "Haw haw, the poor man's single malt," he sniggered.
It was a small thing but it really hit home. I felt angry (on behalf of my dad) and at the same time quite sad and depressed. We became friends actually, me and this bloke, but I have never forgotten that.
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
Modern capitalism in a nutshell. A single conglomerate making several different lagers that (apart from Corona) all taste broadly the same. There must be a better way. There must be.
I can taste the difference between those lagers. Very different strengths too.
I don't see an issue.
Very many people say they can tell the difference between products in the same category. But, when put to a double-blind test, it turns out that they can't.
The phenomenon applies to cosmetics too – women routinely justify high levels of expenditure of higher price lipsticks, shampoos, face creams etc. Yet, when they are subjected to a double-blind test, they often prefer a cheaper version.
On the other hand, financing is not, yet, a problem... LONDON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Britain sold 2.25 billion pounds ($2.91 billion) of its longest-dated government bond at a sale via syndication on Tuesday, having attracted orders worth more than 10 times that amount.
The 1.625% 2071 conventional gilt was priced with a spread that was equivalent to 2.25 basis points below the 50-year benchmark 3.5% 2068 gilt that was used as reference for the sale, a bookrunner said.
At 1300 GMT the 2071 gilt was trading at a yield of 0.936%, flat on the day, in line with the 50-year benchmark and slightly outperforming the 10-year benchmark gilt, which yielded 0.57%.
The sale attracted orders worth more than 25.2 billion pounds from investors....
So what do we know about HS2? 1. The problematic / expensive Old Oak Common - Euston tunnel is going ahead but won't delay the project. 2. The absurd costings of phase 1 will be dropped before they complete costings on Phase 2 thus making it affordable (I expect they will "save" tens of billions on phase 1 by dropping the contractor 30 year risk on the physical infrastructure) 3. NPR Rail / Crossrail for the North / HS3 will be pulled forward. As HS2b north of Crewe and HS3 are one and the same that isn't a surprise.
People will complain. White elephant etc. But the utter lack of capacity on the network today never mind going forward forces the decision, and if you're building a new route may as well join the late 20th century and build high speed. And politically? Johnson needs to spend gazillions on infrastructure and have a lot of projects at least under construction before the summer 2024 general election. Albeit they won't build the bridge cos its impossible.
Question - as we're definitely having border checks at the end of the year has anyone considered the impact on the above? The Boris bridge would require customs / passport checks at one end or the other. And "why can't they connect HS2 and HS1 together to run direct from Manchester to Paris" has the same answer - we're choosing to impose piles of customs and standards checks on ourselves, so any through train will need UK Border staff at EVERY station it stops at.
No.
You just run direct international services from the major cities (Manchester, Brum, Newcastle etc) and build customs facilities there. Local services can either shunt back to a hub or go through customs in London.
Forcing all northerners to change at St Pancras is a failure of imagination and ambition – and the hassle means that it won't kill the market for flying, which has to be a major goal, if we are serious about bringing down greenhouse emissions.
We seem perfectly capable of building customs stacks at regional airports. Why the reticence to do so at major railway stations?
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
Modern capitalism in a nutshell. A single conglomerate making several different lagers that (apart from Corona) all taste broadly the same. There must be a better way. There must be.
I can taste the difference between those lagers. Very different strengths too.
I don't see an issue.
Very many people say they can tell the difference between products in the same category. But, when put to a double-blind test, it turns out that they can't.
The phenomenon applies to cosmetics too – women routinely justify high levels of expenditure of higher price lipsticks, shampoos, face creams etc. Yet, when they are subjected to a double-blind test, they often prefer a cheaper version.
There used to be a brewery (I forget which) which was exposed as selling the SAME beer under four different brands at different prices - each had followers who swore the rivals were cats' piss.
Personally I always buy cheap own-brand goods unless there is a reason to think that the better-known brand is actually better. Often it is indeed the same, produced on a "white label" basis for the supermarket to add its spin.
I was just about to post about the reaction Nandy got when she challenged Piers Morgan over Meghan Markle.
The woman on Question Time was making the same point, but using the phrase "white, male privilege" is a very alienating way of going about it. It makes sense in academic conversations, but it won't change anyone's views.
Most people, on all sides of the political spectrum, have a sense of fairness - and things will change by tapping into that.
Morgan does try the patience, TBF, but I think I broadly agree. I personally like to hear a good polemic about deep rooted white male privilege - since it accords with my view of society and I think my view is one of the best on offer regarding this - but I do sense that it is counterproductive with many, perhaps most, of the ordinary punters. So, yes, a less strident language needed unless one is dealing with a Deplorable. Bit of a change for me here. Six months ago I would probably have said it's a war and screw the Geneva convention, take no prisoners. It's less stimulating, being cooler on all this, but so what if it's more effective. It should be about influencing not having a good time. Course, this is me speaking from a cossetted position of white male privilege.
I hate the term white male privilege as it suggests the experience of white men is some unfair special status rather than what we all deserve. It isn't "privilege" to be treated decently by the police, or listened to by everyone in a meeting, or given a fair shake at a job interview. It is what everyone should get as a basic level of respect. It suggests white men should be levelled down rather than everyone else being levelled up.
The other thing it does is it takes a statistical tendency and applies it to individuals.
On average, white men face far less difficulty being heard in the work place than other demographic groups. On average, black men are treated far worse by police than white men. (White women are not, and men typically receive harsher treatment than women for the same offence, which is an example of why it's wrong to conflate the two types of privilege.) That's why the concepts are useful. But when they are used to delegitimise the experiences of individuals based on their demographic group, they are harmful. If you're someone who has been treated badly by police or been consistently ignored at a meeting, being told that these things don't happen to you because you're white and/or male is alienating, and counterproductive to achieving equality.
That does solve the issue, yes. A fascinating world too, whisky is. Here I CAN tell one brand from another, or at least I can tell Scotch from Bourbon and I can tell a single malt from a "Grouse" or a "Waitrose Own".
As an aside one of my earliest and most personal experiences of class conflict was to do with Whisky. I was working closely with a posh bloke and I happened to tell him, we were talking about booze for some reason, that my dad liked Glenfiddich. "Haw haw, the poor man's single malt," he sniggered.
It was a small thing but it really hit home. I felt angry (on behalf of my dad) and at the same time quite sad and depressed. We became friends actually, me and this bloke, but I have never forgotten that.
Hey, I like Glenfiddich. In a pinch. (And that's a pretty crass thing to have said, even if no offence intended.)
The great think about malts is that there's no danger of serious alcoholism unless you're quite wealthy.
Corona tastes nothing like Becks or Peroni, assume you are not a beer drinker.
Actually, I will take that back. Corona does have a distinctive flavour. But lots of lagers DO taste the same, don't they? Becks and Peroni, for example. Bet you couldn't separate them in a blind tasting. As for me, I do bitter Oct to Mar, and lager Apr to Sep. It's a rite of passage. Come the first warm day of Spring it's goodbye to quite a few things, not just bitter, and hello to many others. Lager is not even the half of it. Then the reverse when the cold comes back 6 months later. Probably a bit different in Scotland with the different weather up there.
I like a nice IPA as well as real ales. I could tell some lagers, ordinary cooking ones not so much but likes of Becks and Peroni have distinctive tastes. End of the day all beer is good, some just better than others, for lager I like it to be 5% , real ales can be same or lower and still be excellent.
I think AB InBev can cope with a drop in Corona sales in the unlikely event it occurs. If you switch from Corona to Becks (like you named earlier) or Stella Artois, or Budweiser or many other brands you're still drinking an AB InBev product.
Modern capitalism in a nutshell. A single conglomerate making several different lagers that (apart from Corona) all taste broadly the same. There must be a better way. There must be.
I can taste the difference between those lagers. Very different strengths too.
I don't see an issue.
Very many people say they can tell the difference between products in the same category. But, when put to a double-blind test, it turns out that they can't.
The phenomenon applies to cosmetics too – women routinely justify high levels of expenditure of higher price lipsticks, shampoos, face creams etc. Yet, when they are subjected to a double-blind test, they often prefer a cheaper version.
Certain amount of snob value attached to cosmetics. Related to price.
Comments
'Unprecedented' rise in infant mortality in England linked to poverty
Welfare cuts in the last decade have taken their toll on certain communities, new research has found.
AN “UNPRECEDENTED” RISE in infant mortality in England is linked to poverty, according to new research.
An additional 570 infant deaths, compared to what would have been expected based on historical trends, were recorded in the country from 2014-2017.
About one-third of those deaths, which related to children under the age of one, were linked to rising poverty.
Rising infant mortality is unusual in high income countries, and international statistics show that infant mortality has continued to decline in most rich countries in recent years.
Even when used appropriately, which is a minority of cases, "white male privilege" pushes the same button that it pushes when used simply to silence someone with an opposing view, which is the majority of cases.
There are other phrases that are worse, like "pale, male and stale". The vast majority of people on the left don't use them, but nor do we object to their use, partly out of fear that doing so looks reactionary (which is utter nonsense). That leads to the perception that we endorse them.
Perhaps if we had systems like the Nordic countries etc , they at least make sure people at the bottom can live a reasonable life.
Paradoxically, the left's obsession with identity politics achieves precisely the opposite goal they intend: in the past, white people in Western democracies have generally not cohered into a single ideological or party voting bloc as other groups tend to do (largely because those groups are smaller). But when the message gets rammed into them enough, a lot of them tend to realize 'Hey, we're an identity voting bloc too, and these ideologues are against us for who we are'. And then you get Brexit and Trump and Boris...
My brother has been seriously mentally ill for 20+ years, worked for about 3 months in that period (he was a site engineer with a degree, so it wasn't like there a shortage of work if he'd been up to it), on benefits almost all of that time. Between Christmas and New Year in 2018 (after he had become part of the UC system) he had all his benefits stopped, mainly due to some unwise and unbalanced claims he'd been making due to his illness. That was the first time that the so called safety net had been totally removed in those 20+ years, and involved lots of stress, foodbanks and input from me (all other family & friends either being dead or long departed his life). If it wasn't for a switched on case worker who managed to get his benefits restored after 5 months I suspect we might still be on that merry go round, though as my brother was threatening to top himself by the end of that hellish period, who knows?
Regarding the empirical evidence as experienced by me, I'd be interested in your evidence for 'fewer'?
It also requires those who are presently dominant in a non-diverse group to recognise that their voice needs to be heard less. If such people are determined to be given privilege over others, they can sabotage the process quite effectively.
If you buy a house and own that asset, it doesn't reduce your net wealth. If you rent the house out for free ("giving the asset away"), that doesn't reduce your net wealth.
There are real costs, of course: maintenance of the house, interest on the mortgage, council tax and bills (if the residents aren't paying these). In the case of the house, these will typically be offset by rising house prices, whereas depreciation of the broadband infrastructure would be an additional cost. But the costs are not the same as the cost of the asset.
I’d have been certain that answer was a correction to someone saying ‘less’
The Hong Kong guy is an authority on coronavirus, and it’s interesting that he says the unknowns (precise method if transfer, for instance) will remain unknown unless there is a full scale ‘raging’ outbreak.
The figures that he says are quite possible imply around half a million deaths in the UK in the event of an uncontrolled pandemic.
B.) It would be interesting to work out whether the growth between the UK now and Uk since 2016 is bigger or smaller than it would have been had we stayed. It's the important statistic but is bloody difficult to work out...
I went to a talk by Matthew Syed about this, promoting his new book ‘Rebel Ideas’. The word diversity has become little more than a corporate smokescreen
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1227165803247816705?s=20
We're not in Osborne's economic conservative times any more.
If you buy a house you have to pay for that. If you lack the capital to do so you need to pay interest on your borrowing. If you are giving the house away for free you are not making any money to cover the cost of the house.
Furthermore the asset is only worth anything if you are able to sell it. If your government is acting in such an arbitrary manner then the odds are it will not be worth very much.
That deals with my concerns. Well done. Ludicrous for the Northern parts of HS2 to be decades in the future.
https://twitter.com/akmaciver/status/1227177016702701568?s=20
I don't see an issue.
On average, white boys significantly underperform just about everyone else.
Still, HS2, good to see that going ahead.
Quite what is meant by Northern Powerhouse Rail going ahead as well isn’t entirely clear.
(Though I don’t disagree that the headline is encouraging. I simply don’t trust politicians sufficiently to believe them without details being confirmed.)
I was addressing the economic generalities of Nationalization.
1. The problematic / expensive Old Oak Common - Euston tunnel is going ahead but won't delay the project.
2. The absurd costings of phase 1 will be dropped before they complete costings on Phase 2 thus making it affordable (I expect they will "save" tens of billions on phase 1 by dropping the contractor 30 year risk on the physical infrastructure)
3. NPR Rail / Crossrail for the North / HS3 will be pulled forward. As HS2b north of Crewe and HS3 are one and the same that isn't a surprise.
People will complain. White elephant etc. But the utter lack of capacity on the network today never mind going forward forces the decision, and if you're building a new route may as well join the late 20th century and build high speed. And politically? Johnson needs to spend gazillions on infrastructure and have a lot of projects at least under construction before the summer 2024 general election. Albeit they won't build the bridge cos its impossible.
Question - as we're definitely having border checks at the end of the year has anyone considered the impact on the above? The Boris bridge would require customs / passport checks at one end or the other. And "why can't they connect HS2 and HS1 together to run direct from Manchester to Paris" has the same answer - we're choosing to impose piles of customs and standards checks on ourselves, so any through train will need UK Border staff at EVERY station it stops at.
OK, and I believe you too. So on this, just on this, you can count yourself a Cognoscenti.
Badge in post.
Labour types claim that we should nationalise industries to stop companies making a profit and thus reduce costs or pay unions more or . . . insert reasons here . . . but if you do any of that you remove the return, which in turn removes the ability to fund the nationalisation in the first place.
Nationalised industries tend to not be well run or profitable for all sorts of reasons so no its hard to fund a nationalisation that way, especially if your purpose of nationalising was to change things in the first place.
In fact, the new ones will be 09L and 27R, which exist already - so why even bother?
If the SNP in the last few years hadn't been banging on about Brexit/independence and being "taken our of the EU against our will" and instead been saying "when Brexit occurs Scotland should get [this]" with [this] being a list of potential Scottish Brexit bonuses like VAT or fisheries control etc then I think you'd have had more chance of getting it.
If the SNP pushes hard on VAT I think its entirely possible they'll get it. I don't see that yet though. I don't think its something the central government will unilaterally do without a strong call for it from Holyrood.
Once Joe Public notices that their favourite band have skipped the UK from their world tour (way too much faff to do the paperwork), that they can't take their dog on holiday, that the price of what remaining food is in the supermarket has gone up, that it now takes 2 hours to clear customs on holiday etc etc, they aren't going to be happy.
They wanted to stop foreigners coming to the UK to simultaneously take their jobs and claim benefits. No-one said anything about not being able to go abroad easily. I can draft the Daily Mail front pages now if you like...
But if they are all very different that is (in a sense) even less defensible. Because where's the genuine competition there? Better, surely, for each to be the pride and joy of a smaller bespoke business.
What politicians choose to do now we have left shouldn’t be confused with what the majority of people were voting for, which was to put an end to the freedom to go and work anywhere in the EU in exchange for anyone in the EU to compete for their job. Low paid workers getting protection from the free market for their labour.
Small breweries are alive and well though. I'm sure all sorts of smaller names could get mentioned if people want to do so.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2019/10/03/an-unprecedented-rise-in-infant-mortality-in-england-linked-to-poverty/
Mind you, not as bad as the 1,187 drugs deaths in Scotland - in a country with less than a tenth the population of England. Drug deaths in England were 3,756. If Scotland had the same drug death rate as England there would have been 800 fewer deaths in Scotland.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-48938509
Such are place of supply rules.
As an aside one of my earliest and most personal experiences of class conflict was to do with Whisky. I was working closely with a posh bloke and I happened to tell him, we were talking about booze for some reason, that my dad liked Glenfiddich. "Haw haw, the poor man's single malt," he sniggered.
It was a small thing but it really hit home. I felt angry (on behalf of my dad) and at the same time quite sad and depressed. We became friends actually, me and this bloke, but I have never forgotten that.
The phenomenon applies to cosmetics too – women routinely justify high levels of expenditure of higher price lipsticks, shampoos, face creams etc. Yet, when they are subjected to a double-blind test, they often prefer a cheaper version.
https://theengineer-testing-prod.azurewebsites.net/johnson-bridge-scotland-northern-ireland/
LONDON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Britain sold 2.25 billion pounds ($2.91 billion) of its longest-dated government bond at a sale via syndication on Tuesday, having attracted orders worth more than 10 times that amount.
The 1.625% 2071 conventional gilt was priced with a spread that was equivalent to 2.25 basis points below the 50-year benchmark 3.5% 2068 gilt that was used as reference for the sale, a bookrunner said.
At 1300 GMT the 2071 gilt was trading at a yield of 0.936%, flat on the day, in line with the 50-year benchmark and slightly outperforming the 10-year benchmark gilt, which yielded 0.57%.
The sale attracted orders worth more than 25.2 billion pounds from investors....
You just run direct international services from the major cities (Manchester, Brum, Newcastle etc) and build customs facilities there. Local services can either shunt back to a hub or go through customs in London.
Forcing all northerners to change at St Pancras is a failure of imagination and ambition – and the hassle means that it won't kill the market for flying, which has to be a major goal, if we are serious about bringing down greenhouse emissions.
We seem perfectly capable of building customs stacks at regional airports. Why the reticence to do so at major railway stations?
Personally I always buy cheap own-brand goods unless there is a reason to think that the better-known brand is actually better. Often it is indeed the same, produced on a "white label" basis for the supermarket to add its spin.
On average, white men face far less difficulty being heard in the work place than other demographic groups. On average, black men are treated far worse by police than white men. (White women are not, and men typically receive harsher treatment than women for the same offence, which is an example of why it's wrong to conflate the two types of privilege.) That's why the concepts are useful. But when they are used to delegitimise the experiences of individuals based on their demographic group, they are harmful. If you're someone who has been treated badly by police or been consistently ignored at a meeting, being told that these things don't happen to you because you're white and/or male is alienating, and counterproductive to achieving equality.
(And that's a pretty crass thing to have said, even if no offence intended.)
The great think about malts is that there's no danger of serious alcoholism unless you're quite wealthy.
In some women anyway.