'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.
There is a puzzle here. If poverty is a cause of death then, since we are one of the richest large countries in the world, all the less rich countries would be showing a commensurate effect. Maybe they do. But if the number of deaths is linked to multiple factors including behavioural fecklessness and general uselessness then the word 'poverty' would not really capture it.
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.
Hard to avoid the obvious truth, Westminster dole out the pocket money ( most of which is ring fenced) and make all the big decisions on where our money goes.
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.
Which has merit as an idea but is undermined by the fact that it is enthusiastically promoted by people who look the same and all think exactly the same.
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.
But even if the nationalized product or service IS given away for free, a case can still very possibly be made. It will be negative for the public balance sheet (at least in the short to medium term) but will improve millions of private balance sheets (individual and corporate). Whether it is a net positive or negative for the country as a whole in the long term then depends on a whole host of factors - relative efficiencies, marginal consumption strategies, impact on savings rate, etc etc.
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.
Which has merit as an idea but is undermined by the fact that it is enthusiastically promoted by people who look the same and all think exactly the same.
Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips, Dan Hannan... don’t want to boast but I reckon I can tell them apart as well as I can Corona, Becks & Bud
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.
Yes, I suspect your former case study is more common than one might think!
Re: your second point. Plenty of own-brand options are very good these days, in the booze category particularly.
M&S gin is as good as the market leader; and Sainsbury's carried an English sparkling wine this summer (now sold out everywhere) that trumped everything in the same price band and many in the two bands above.
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.
Which has merit as an idea but is undermined by the fact that it is enthusiastically promoted by people who look the same and all think exactly the same.
Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips, Dan Hannan... don’t want to boast but I reckon I can tell them apart as well as I can Corona, Becks & Bud
You mean Becks is the different one? Because Matthew Syed and Daniel Hannan look like twins.
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.
In some women anyway.
My wife freely admits that the packaging sells the product, which is fair enough I suppose.
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.
One of my favourite whiskies is cheaper than Glenfiddich, I think.
Green Spot. It's a Single Pot Still, so in a way has greater snob-value than Single Malts, but somehow it's cheap.
That said, I forked out £20 more for a bottle of Yellow Spot for my dad at Christmas, and I was surprised at how clearly superior it was. Now I'm tempted to spend >£100 on a bottle of Red Spot, which definitely counts as stupid money to spend on alcohol, as far as I'm concerned.
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.
Which has merit as an idea but is undermined by the fact that it is enthusiastically promoted by people who look the same and all think exactly the same.
Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips, Dan Hannan... don’t want to boast but I reckon I can tell them apart as well as I can Corona, Becks & Bud
You mean Becks is the different one? Because Matthew Syed and Daniel Hannan look like twins.
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.
OK. I do sense that as an ideologue not a pragmatist (like me on a good day!) you would defend the private sector over the public in almost any circumstance - but I am going to concede this one. So in principle, yes, I can accept that it's reasonable for a large brewer to make more than one brand of beer. And also in practice, so long as they are transparent about what they are doing.
What about toothpaste though? There is a particular large monolith (Dutch, I think) that manufactures a bewildering array of these - and in this case there seems to be no good reason for it whatsoever.
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.
Which has merit as an idea but is undermined by the fact that it is enthusiastically promoted by people who look the same and all think exactly the same.
Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips, Dan Hannan... don’t want to boast but I reckon I can tell them apart as well as I can Corona, Becks & Bud
You mean Becks is the different one? Because Matthew Syed and Daniel Hannan look like twins.
All bald blokes don’t look the same you know! 😊
Well!
My other half (also bald) is thick set and stocky. His nephew is also thick set and stocky. A few years ago his great niece aged 3 rushed into the kitchen and grabbed him round the thigh to hug him. She jumped back as if scalded with the words “not my daddy!”.
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.
Criminals who have, mostly, all served their sentences?
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.
In some women anyway.
My wife freely admits that the packaging sells the product, which is fair enough I suppose.
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
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.
Which has merit as an idea but is undermined by the fact that it is enthusiastically promoted by people who look the same and all think exactly the same.
Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips, Dan Hannan... don’t want to boast but I reckon I can tell them apart as well as I can Corona, Becks & Bud
My comprehension of this point is somewhat compromised by the fact that I don't drink lager. So to me it sounds like you're comparing three identikit members of the metropolitan elite to Dandelion and Burdock pop, the husband of a Spice Girl, and Bud Flanagan.
This might not have been the meaning you meant to convey...
Thinking about the democratic Primary, and if it goes to a 'Contested Convention'
In past cycles every state had its own rules for who delegates could/must votes for if there candidate drops out, some had to vote form them anyway in the first round (but change in second round) some let the delegates decide, and some it would depend on who came next in that state.
This year the Democratic party have brought in a lot of standardization, i.e. all states use a from of PR with a 15% threshold. Have the rules on how delegates vote if there guy drops out also been standardized and if so to what?
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.
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.
One of my favourite whiskies is cheaper than Glenfiddich, I think.
Green Spot. It's a Single Pot Still, so in a way has greater snob-value than Single Malts, but somehow it's cheap.
That said, I forked out £20 more for a bottle of Yellow Spot for my dad at Christmas, and I was surprised at how clearly superior it was. Now I'm tempted to spend >£100 on a bottle of Red Spot, which definitely counts as stupid money to spend on alcohol, as far as I'm concerned.
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.
Vodka is quite nice.
And doesn’t taste of anything at all.
It tastes of whatever you put it in. If you put it in diet coke, it tastes of diet coke. If you put it in orange juice, it tastes of orange juice. If you put it in ice cream sundaes with strawberry sauce, it tastes of ice cream sundaes with strawberry sauce.
Comments
Re: your second point. Plenty of own-brand options are very good these days, in the booze category particularly.
M&S gin is as good as the market leader; and Sainsbury's carried an English sparkling wine this summer (now sold out everywhere) that trumped everything in the same price band and many in the two bands above.
My wife freely admits that the packaging sells the product, which is fair enough I suppose.
Green Spot. It's a Single Pot Still, so in a way has greater snob-value than Single Malts, but somehow it's cheap.
That said, I forked out £20 more for a bottle of Yellow Spot for my dad at Christmas, and I was surprised at how clearly superior it was. Now I'm tempted to spend >£100 on a bottle of Red Spot, which definitely counts as stupid money to spend on alcohol, as far as I'm concerned.
What about toothpaste though? There is a particular large monolith (Dutch, I think) that manufactures a bewildering array of these - and in this case there seems to be no good reason for it whatsoever.
My other half (also bald) is thick set and stocky. His nephew is also thick set and stocky. A few years ago his great niece aged 3 rushed into the kitchen and grabbed him round the thigh to hug him. She jumped back as if scalded with the words “not my daddy!”.
This might not have been the meaning you meant to convey...
In past cycles every state had its own rules for who delegates could/must votes for if there candidate drops out, some had to vote form them anyway in the first round (but change in second round) some let the delegates decide, and some it would depend on who came next in that state.
This year the Democratic party have brought in a lot of standardization, i.e. all states use a from of PR with a 15% threshold. Have the rules on how delegates vote if there guy drops out also been standardized and if so to what?
Allegedly.
(hides strawberry sauce bottle)