This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
Goodwin's response to a similar comment:
Massive expansion of state, huge spending increases, biggest increase in tax as gdp since Attlee was building welfare state?
Because of Covid, most of it firefighting rather than ideological conversion to big state. And the personality of this NI hike is decidedly NOT leaning left.
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
BBC staff have been offered an “allyship” test which identifies whether they are more privileged than their colleagues, as part of diversity training.
The resource, called The Ally Track, begins with an online game where 10 players line up on a race track and answer 20 questions. The first to reach the finish line enjoys the most “advantages” in life.
Staff are asked questions such as “Is your player a man?”, “Does your player identify as white?” and “Has your player ever been the only person of their race in a room at work?”
Another question is “Does your player identify with the gender they were born with?”
The manual also sets out seven types of allies that staff can become in the workplace.
----
One of them, the “upstander”, is someone who “shuts down, reports and pushes back on offensive jokes and inappropriate comments, even if no one’s hurt by them”. This type of ally should “check in privately with anyone who’s been offended” by the joke and “don’t just be a bystander”.
Another ally is a “confidant”, described as someone who “gives your colleague a safe space to share their experiences” and “not to jump in with your own narrative”.
A third ally type is a “champion”, who “voluntarily defers to colleagues from underrepresented groups in meetings, events and conferences”.
"Hell, how can it compete with YouTube? At the low-budget end of content production, YouTube has an entire eco-system of creators who are laser focused on niche audiences, who can use new technology to produce near-broadcast quality content for them."
The thing is, this is becoming false too. Its not near-broadcast quality, its superior.
The big Youtube creators are far from "low budget" these days and many exceed the broadcast quality of the likes of the BBC e.g. Linus Tech Tips has built a whole house inside a warehouse, everything is filmed in 4k using the equipment that costs $100ks, he has a team of many people to produce videos that are just superior to any nonsense the BBC put out with the likes of Click.
Or MKBHD, its super slick production of tech videos.
Big YouTube money has rapidly moved away from idiots in their bedrooms screaming at nonsense they find on the internet.
e.g. Veritasium channel again explains science, all in 4k, with high quality graphics, animations, footage form exciting locations etc etc etc.
The important thing is to distinguish between essential and inessential. the thought of having not a single news outlet in the UK that was well funded, fairly impartial, with world wide coverage is pretty terrible.
And a world without Radio 4, Radio 3 (and 5 for when stuff actually is happening live) is not a great prospect.
Herein lies the problem though. I firmly agree with you about the radio. (I'd switch 3 for 6 mind). Everyone likes the bits they like. They think the bits they don't like are an inessential waste of money.
Yes. However, the need, especially in a world where funding newspapers is problematic and the internet full of fascists, lies, loony lefties and Trumpists, for a decently funded worldwide, fairly impartial, western, English speaking news organisation can be argued to be an objective good, whereas the Proms or Strictly or even Gardener's World (don't tell the other half) are lesser good things.
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
My question is also for the benefit of the group.
Allow me to answer.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
This is an awful policy. Where is the Opposition? Where is the alternative? 🤦♂️🤬
Boris just shot down Starmer by quoting this was exactly the policy they put forward themselves
Its not helping Boris though is it? This is a decisive moment in the fall of the Tories, and the narrative of Johnson dishonesty is sticking fast. The Tory heartlands, including many who directly benefit from this decision, do not take kindly to being bribed with their children´s money.
No evidence of TB in Geronimo. This may be the big political scandal.
From what I understand, Geronimo came from New Zealand and had exposure to Tuberculin, which has a similar effect to BcG in humans, providing immunity at the price of creating positive tests to some TB tests.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
David Haye: Donald Trump and his son will provide guest commentary on Evander Holyfield and Brit's fights "I love great fighters and great fights," said Donald Trump who will commentate on the comebacks of David Haye, aged 40, and Evander Holyfield, 58; Haye comes out of retirement to face Joe Fournier, Holyfield takes on former UFC fighter Vitor Belfort
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
'Has Gavin Williamson ever met Marcus Rashford? “We met over Zoom and he seemed incredibly engaged, compassionate and charming". Later Williamson’s team tell me he actually met the rugby player Maro Itoje, not Rashford.'
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
BBC staff have been offered an “allyship” test which identifies whether they are more privileged than their colleagues, as part of diversity training.
The resource, called The Ally Track, begins with an online game where 10 players line up on a race track and answer 20 questions. The first to reach the finish line enjoys the most “advantages” in life.
Staff are asked questions such as “Is your player a man?”, “Does your player identify as white?” and “Has your player ever been the only person of their race in a room at work?”
Another question is “Does your player identify with the gender they were born with?”
The manual also sets out seven types of allies that staff can become in the workplace.
----
One of them, the “upstander”, is someone who “shuts down, reports and pushes back on offensive jokes and inappropriate comments, even if no one’s hurt by them”. This type of ally should “check in privately with anyone who’s been offended” by the joke and “don’t just be a bystander”.
Another ally is a “confidant”, described as someone who “gives your colleague a safe space to share their experiences” and “not to jump in with your own narrative”.
A third ally type is a “champion”, who “voluntarily defers to colleagues from underrepresented groups in meetings, events and conferences”.
"Hell, how can it compete with YouTube? At the low-budget end of content production, YouTube has an entire eco-system of creators who are laser focused on niche audiences, who can use new technology to produce near-broadcast quality content for them."
The thing is, this is becoming false too. Its not near-broadcast quality, its superior.
The big Youtube creators are far from "low budget" these days and many exceed the broadcast quality of the likes of the BBC e.g. Linus Tech Tips has built a whole house inside a warehouse, everything is filmed in 4k using the equipment that costs $100ks, he has a team of many people to produce videos that are just superior to any nonsense the BBC put out with the likes of Click.
Or MKBHD, its super slick production of tech videos.
Big YouTube money has rapidly moved away from idiots in their bedrooms screaming at nonsense they find on the internet.
e.g. Veritasium channel again explains science, all in 4k, with high quality graphics, animations, footage form exciting locations etc etc etc.
The important thing is to distinguish between essential and inessential. the thought of having not a single news outlet in the UK that was well funded, fairly impartial, with world wide coverage is pretty terrible.
And a world without Radio 4, Radio 3 (and 5 for when stuff actually is happening live) is not a great prospect.
Herein lies the problem though. I firmly agree with you about the radio. (I'd switch 3 for 6 mind). Everyone likes the bits they like. They think the bits they don't like are an inessential waste of money.
Yes. However, the need, especially in a world where funding newspapers is problematic and the internet full of fascists, lies, loony lefties and Trumpists, for a decently funded worldwide, fairly impartial, western, English speaking news organisation can be argued to be an objective good, whereas the Proms or Strictly or even Gardener's World (don't tell the other half) are lesser good things.
Yes. The cuts in funding to World Service were a short-sighted own goal. Benefitting only the bean counters.
No evidence of TB in Geronimo. This may be the big political scandal.
From what I understand, Geronimo came from New Zealand and had exposure to Tuberculin, which has a similar effect to BcG in humans, providing immunity at the price of creating positive tests to some TB tests.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
This is a disgrace really. It was obvious that Geronimo was a pet not livestock. There should be different rules for these animals, like being kept securely away from livestock. I'm sure the unfortunate owner was willing to do that, and I am also sure it's not that difficult to do.
No evidence of TB in Geronimo. This may be the big political scandal.
From what I understand, Geronimo came from New Zealand and had exposure to Tuberculin, which has a similar effect to BcG in humans, providing immunity at the price of creating positive tests to some TB tests.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
That is my experience. Not the fasting - I've never - but the general point. If I eat a big breakfast I tend to want an even bigger lunch. And if I have a big lunch I want a massive dinner. You do the math.
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
Goodwin's response to a similar comment:
Massive expansion of state, huge spending increases, biggest increase in tax as gdp since Attlee was building welfare state?
Because of Covid, most of it firefighting rather than ideological conversion to big state. And the personality of this NI hike is decidedly NOT leaning left.
Broken record mode=on. Boris won in 2019 by pinching the popular bits of Labour 2017. This was when the pandemic was just a twinkle in a Wuhan bat's eye.
BBC staff have been offered an “allyship” test which identifies whether they are more privileged than their colleagues, as part of diversity training.
The resource, called The Ally Track, begins with an online game where 10 players line up on a race track and answer 20 questions. The first to reach the finish line enjoys the most “advantages” in life.
Staff are asked questions such as “Is your player a man?”, “Does your player identify as white?” and “Has your player ever been the only person of their race in a room at work?”
Another question is “Does your player identify with the gender they were born with?”
The manual also sets out seven types of allies that staff can become in the workplace.
----
One of them, the “upstander”, is someone who “shuts down, reports and pushes back on offensive jokes and inappropriate comments, even if no one’s hurt by them”. This type of ally should “check in privately with anyone who’s been offended” by the joke and “don’t just be a bystander”.
Another ally is a “confidant”, described as someone who “gives your colleague a safe space to share their experiences” and “not to jump in with your own narrative”.
A third ally type is a “champion”, who “voluntarily defers to colleagues from underrepresented groups in meetings, events and conferences”.
"Hell, how can it compete with YouTube? At the low-budget end of content production, YouTube has an entire eco-system of creators who are laser focused on niche audiences, who can use new technology to produce near-broadcast quality content for them."
The thing is, this is becoming false too. Its not near-broadcast quality, its superior.
The big Youtube creators are far from "low budget" these days and many exceed the broadcast quality of the likes of the BBC e.g. Linus Tech Tips has built a whole house inside a warehouse, everything is filmed in 4k using the equipment that costs $100ks, he has a team of many people to produce videos that are just superior to any nonsense the BBC put out with the likes of Click.
Or MKBHD, its super slick production of tech videos.
Big YouTube money has rapidly moved away from idiots in their bedrooms screaming at nonsense they find on the internet.
e.g. Veritasium channel again explains science, all in 4k, with high quality graphics, animations, footage form exciting locations etc etc etc.
I watch a fair bit of YouTube, cookery, the planets, old TV and other stuff I’m interested in as well as pop music.
The standard is excellent on YouTube and I also use it when I have problems at home. I had condensation in my loft over the winter. My wife sees the loft as a stores and doesn’t appreciate airflow. Got the solution from YouTube. Lap vents solved the issue.
I don’t like the politics around defund the BBC but I don’t see the license fee as tenable and the BBC should move to a subscription model.
Reform of the BBC funding model is a bit like social care.....its been put off and off and off.
Except we need social care.
I recall a debate a couple of years back over if you had to choose one - the BBC or Youtube - which would you choose. Is there anyone here who would still choose the BBC?
To be clear, there are some bits of BBC output that I value - TMS, Only Connect, Radio 6 after 2pm or before 10am on weekends - and would be prepared to pay for. I resent having to pay for all of it though.
Well some would argue we need a BBC to at very least provide things like impartial news coverage. If you need 4 tv channels, 6 national radio channels, etc, that's a different matter.
The problem is the current model is a) outdated, b) totally unenforceable, c) BBC not being watched by the next generation, all while the BBC blob treat it as their god given right to exist and not to reform in anyway.
This would be a reasonable argument if providing impartial news coverage was something the BBC did. As the example in the embedded quotes shows, it's so firmly wedded to one particular agenda that it finds it very difficult to do this.
I agree but, on the whole, no-one does it better in terms of world wide coverage, in English, with reasonable accuracy and limiting sensationalism, and available on media including radio.
(For a few weeks a year my only media access of any sort is to Radio 4 on longwave. No telly, no internet, no mobile phone signal, no FM, no AM. You get to value things like the Today prog.)
No evidence of TB in Geronimo. This may be the big political scandal.
From what I understand, Geronimo came from New Zealand and had exposure to Tuberculin, which has a similar effect to BcG in humans, providing immunity at the price of creating positive tests to some TB tests.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
This is a disgrace really. It was obvious that Geronimo was a pet not livestock. There should be different rules for these animals, like being kept securely away from livestock. I'm sure the unfortunate owner was willing to do that, and I am also sure it's not that difficult to do.
Indeed, he had been isolated already from all livestock for the last 4 years, even other camelids.
This is an awful policy. Where is the Opposition? Where is the alternative? 🤦♂️🤬
Boris just shot down Starmer by quoting this was exactly the policy they put forward themselves
Its not helping Boris though is it? This is a decisive moment in the fall of the Tories, and the narrative of Johnson dishonesty is sticking fast. The Tory heartlands, including many who directly benefit from this decision, do not take kindly to being bribed with their children´s money.
This is Johnson´s poll tax.
The Poll Tax put Thatcher 20 points behind. It's a bold prediction...
I see Geronimo IS the big story. Re breakfast. I don't feel the need to snack at all. Just something light for lunch. Meal in the evening. After that nowt for18 hours or so. Suits me fine.
No evidence of TB in Geronimo. This may be the big political scandal.
From what I understand, Geronimo came from New Zealand and had exposure to Tuberculin, which has a similar effect to BcG in humans, providing immunity at the price of creating positive tests to some TB tests.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
This is a disgrace really. It was obvious that Geronimo was a pet not livestock. There should be different rules for these animals, like being kept securely away from livestock. I'm sure the unfortunate owner was willing to do that, and I am also sure it's not that difficult to do.
Indeed, he had been isolated already from all livestock for the last 4 years, even other camelids.
I wonder how many dog or cat owners would be willing to hand over their healthy pet for a SUSPICION that it MIGHT have some microbe inside which COULD be infectious to any livestock, though not harmful or detrimental in any way. Moreover, a simple course of injection could deal with it in the livestock herds.
I see Geronimo IS the big story. Re breakfast. I don't feel the need to snack at all. Just something light for lunch. Meal in the evening. After that nowt for18 hours or so. Suits me fine.
So you're advising to not eat alpaca for breakfast?
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
My question is also for the benefit of the group.
Allow me to answer.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
(Whom I know but it sounds odd.)
Ok, but it's a mug's game for Labour to get into loads of detail.
"This is a terrible way to raise funds. It targets the low paid rather than the wealthy. We'd make the opposite choice."
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
That is my experience. Not the fasting - I've never - but the general point. If I eat a big breakfast I tend to want an even bigger lunch. And if I have a big lunch I want a massive dinner.
Labour front bench MPs in masks. ALL the tories not wearing them.
Shades of the Last Days of Donald Trump. The Conservatives really are a disgusting and immoral bunch.
Anyway, in terms of substance, Starmer's point that care workers will receive tax hikes but no pay rise is the one to really hammer home time and time again. Does he have the 'pounce' to do it? I don't know, but he should because it will be a killer blow if he gets it across to voters.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
As I said, typical NHS consultant. Turns to Marie Claire magazine for his medical opinions.
I have read the book cited in the article, while you celebrate your ignorance of science and food.
Do you have any idea how many fucking diet books there are on the planet?
And you have read that one.
Dear lord help me.
There is a whole crappy diet book industry, but the book cited is in keeping with modern nutritional science. Periodic fasting is good for the body, improving insulin sensitivity. Prof Taylor in Newcastle has published extensively on his severe calorie restriction diet, which has astonishing results in terms of remission of type 2 diabetes.
The "little and often" diet paradoxically works in a similar way, by reducing post prandial spikes of insulin secretion associated with larger carb based meals.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
That is my experience. Not the fasting - I've never - but the general point. If I eat a big breakfast I tend to want an even bigger lunch. And if I have a big lunch I want a massive dinner.
No you don't.
I do. It's counter-intuitive, hence why I've noticed it.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
'Has Gavin Williamson ever met Marcus Rashford? “We met over Zoom and he seemed incredibly engaged, compassionate and charming". Later Williamson’s team tell me he actually met the rugby player Maro Itoje, not Rashford.'
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
Goodwin's response to a similar comment:
Massive expansion of state, huge spending increases, biggest increase in tax as gdp since Attlee was building welfare state?
Because of Covid, most of it firefighting rather than ideological conversion to big state. And the personality of this NI hike is decidedly NOT leaning left.
Broken record mode=on. Boris won in 2019 by pinching the popular bits of Labour 2017. This was when the pandemic was just a twinkle in a Wuhan bat's eye.
But the "massive expansion of the state" - as in government tax & spend - has been due to the pandemic.
I have a question. I know nothing about investments, dividends etc. so it may be a stupid one. Excuse my ignorance.
I have a bit of money invested in the stock market - transferred from NS&I ISAs a while back because interest rates were so low. It's managed for me. All of it is wrapped up in stocks and shares ISAs as far as I am aware. So my understanding is I don't pay any tax on the income, and this new 1.25% tax on dividends won't apply to ISA-wrapped stocks and shares. Have I got this right? And if so, won't this apply to most 'ordinary' people - the only people who will be hit by the 1.25% tax hike on dividends are those who have invested more money than can be wrapped up in the annual ISA allowance?
Not stupid in the least. I'd like to know too.
Edit: goody. Foxy has come up with the answer (and the rationale, which makes entire sense), thanks!
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
As I said, typical NHS consultant. Turns to Marie Claire magazine for his medical opinions.
I have read the book cited in the article, while you celebrate your ignorance of science and food.
Do you have any idea how many fucking diet books there are on the planet?
And you have read that one.
Dear lord help me.
There is a whole crappy diet book industry, but the book cited is in keeping with modern nutritional science. Periodic fasting is good for the body, improving insulin sensitivity. Prof Taylor in Newcastle has published extensively on his severe calorie restriction diet, which has astonishing results in terms of remission of type 2 diabetes.
The "little and often" diet paradoxically works in a similar way, by reducing post prandial spikes of insulin secretion associated with larger carb based meals.
There is also a whole crappy modern nutritional science book industry.
A perfect example of jumping to the conclusions you want. It may take a few weeks for the pathology to come back and it may not be conclusive as as to the infectivity. But it's the perfect gifts for journalists. Let's milk the story now.
If the animal can definitely be shown not to be infected and infective, dig him up.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
I have a question. I know nothing about investments, dividends etc. so it may be a stupid one. Excuse my ignorance.
I have a bit of money invested in the stock market - transferred from NS&I ISAs a while back because interest rates were so low. It's managed for me. All of it is wrapped up in stocks and shares ISAs as far as I am aware. So my understanding is I don't pay any tax on the income, and this new 1.25% tax on dividends won't apply to ISA-wrapped stocks and shares. Have I got this right? And if so, won't this apply to most 'ordinary' people - the only people who will be hit by the 1.25% tax hike on dividends are those who have invested more money than can be wrapped up in the annual ISA allowance?
Not stupid in the least. I'd like to know too.
Answer is yes you are right, it only hits stocks held outside isas and sipps. According to a bloke on r4 this morning.
In case I dreamt that: not advice, dyor, consult your solicitor oopa.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
As I said, typical NHS consultant. Turns to Marie Claire magazine for his medical opinions.
I have read the book cited in the article, while you celebrate your ignorance of science and food.
Do you have any idea how many fucking diet books there are on the planet?
And you have read that one.
Dear lord help me.
There is a whole crappy diet book industry, but the book cited is in keeping with modern nutritional science. Periodic fasting is good for the body, improving insulin sensitivity. Prof Taylor in Newcastle has published extensively on his severe calorie restriction diet, which has astonishing results in terms of remission of type 2 diabetes.
The "little and often" diet paradoxically works in a similar way, by reducing post prandial spikes of insulin secretion associated with larger carb based meals.
There is also a whole crappy modern nutritional science book industry.
You takes your pick.
As I believe Dr Foxy is a diabetes specialist, his views might be worth listening to.
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
Goodwin's response to a similar comment:
Massive expansion of state, huge spending increases, biggest increase in tax as gdp since Attlee was building welfare state?
Because of Covid, most of it firefighting rather than ideological conversion to big state. And the personality of this NI hike is decidedly NOT leaning left.
Broken record mode=on. Boris won in 2019 by pinching the popular bits of Labour 2017. This was when the pandemic was just a twinkle in a Wuhan bat's eye.
But the "massive expansion of the state" - as in government tax & spend - has been due to the pandemic.
Boris advocated this before the pandemic. Remember the Cabinet chanting about all the new hospitals they were going to build? DARPA-lite? Free broadband (for ISPs)? Of course, furlough payments, test and trace and so on cost a small fortune but even before the pandemic, Boris had run against Cameron's austerity.
I have a question. I know nothing about investments, dividends etc. so it may be a stupid one. Excuse my ignorance.
I have a bit of money invested in the stock market - transferred from NS&I ISAs a while back because interest rates were so low. It's managed for me. All of it is wrapped up in stocks and shares ISAs as far as I am aware. So my understanding is I don't pay any tax on the income, and this new 1.25% tax on dividends won't apply to ISA-wrapped stocks and shares. Have I got this right? And if so, won't this apply to most 'ordinary' people - the only people who will be hit by the 1.25% tax hike on dividends are those who have invested more money than can be wrapped up in the annual ISA allowance?
Not stupid in the least. I'd like to know too.
Answer is yes you are right, it only hits stocks held outside isas and sipps. According to a bloke on r4 this morning.
In case I dreamt that: not advice, dyor, consult your solicitor oopa.
I assume SIPPs are also the case.
There's also the dividend allowance, unless we're scrapping that (I do recall it being on the chopping block).
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
My question is also for the benefit of the group.
Allow me to answer.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
(Whom I know but it sounds odd.)
Ok, but it's a mug's game for Labour to get into loads of detail.
"This is a terrible way to raise funds. It targets the low paid rather than the wealthy. We'd make the opposite choice."
That's enough for now imo.
Today would have been a really good time to declare for a wealth tax on the elite and say they support jobs, businesses and labour.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
That is my experience. Not the fasting - I've never - but the general point. If I eat a big breakfast I tend to want an even bigger lunch. And if I have a big lunch I want a massive dinner.
No you don't.
I do. It's counter-intuitive, hence why I've noticed it.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Total nonsense but then if you're resorting to Marie Claire for your scientific backing all hope in an academic discussion is lost.
I've lost three stone in 8 months and I eat a hearty but healthy breakfast. Most important meal of the day.
Breakfast like a king, lunch like a Queen, dinner like a prince (or princess).
Eat a good brekkie and it's a proven path to weight loss.
But of course you need to combine exercise with healthy eating. End of the day, it all comes down to calories in versus calories out.
The Marie Claire article is a book review. The book itself is heavily referenced with multiple scientific papers. The nutritional science supports it.
Meanwhile we live in a country in the grip of an obesity crisis, committing slow suicide by food.
I can't win, if I am on the upper limit of my permitted bmi everyone says I look drawn and haggard and unwell, put on a stone and they all say how well I look. I have decided to embrace my inner fat man, but it is going to require extensive retrousering if it goes any further.
Fair enough. We can say that to anti-vaxxers but it would only encourage them. There has always been a tendency to equate anecdote with data. Some sources are not equal. Science advances in small steps and data can be over-interpreted. Foods science can lack rigour as double-blind experiments are difficult. It's usually retrospective - backwards in more than one way. And as for controlling confounding factors ....
No evidence of TB in Geronimo. This may be the big political scandal.
From what I understand, Geronimo came from New Zealand and had exposure to Tuberculin, which has a similar effect to BcG in humans, providing immunity at the price of creating positive tests to some TB tests.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
This is a disgrace really. It was obvious that Geronimo was a pet not livestock. There should be different rules for these animals, like being kept securely away from livestock. I'm sure the unfortunate owner was willing to do that, and I am also sure it's not that difficult to do.
Indeed, he had been isolated already from all livestock for the last 4 years, even other camelids.
I wonder how many dog or cat owners would be willing to hand over their healthy pet for a SUSPICION that it MIGHT have some microbe inside which COULD be infectious to any livestock, though not harmful or detrimental in any way. Moreover, a simple course of injection could deal with it in the livestock herds.
I couldn't, without a fight.
It's also remarkable the insouciance with which the UK's denizens regard the risk of protozoan and worm parasites in their cats and dogs and the implications for other humans and farm animals.
As one example from, I assume, 2017, here is the Welsh Gmt being commendably concerned -
'Has Gavin Williamson ever met Marcus Rashford? “We met over Zoom and he seemed incredibly engaged, compassionate and charming". Later Williamson’s team tell me he actually met the rugby player Maro Itoje, not Rashford.'
'Has Gavin Williamson ever met Marcus Rashford? “We met over Zoom and he seemed incredibly engaged, compassionate and charming". Later Williamson’s team tell me he actually met the rugby player Maro Itoje, not Rashford.'
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
OT Dominic Cummings is doing an AMA (ask me anything) for subscribers on Friday but does not want to talk about the LKY book. I've no idea what that is! Anyway, I mention it for his fans, and expect some of its content will be tweeted in due course.
No evidence of TB in Geronimo. This may be the big political scandal.
From what I understand, Geronimo came from New Zealand and had exposure to Tuberculin, which has a similar effect to BcG in humans, providing immunity at the price of creating positive tests to some TB tests.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
This is a disgrace really. It was obvious that Geronimo was a pet not livestock. There should be different rules for these animals, like being kept securely away from livestock. I'm sure the unfortunate owner was willing to do that, and I am also sure it's not that difficult to do.
Indeed, he had been isolated already from all livestock for the last 4 years, even other camelids.
I wonder how many dog or cat owners would be willing to hand over their healthy pet for a SUSPICION that it MIGHT have some microbe inside which COULD be infectious to any livestock, though not harmful or detrimental in any way. Moreover, a simple course of injection could deal with it in the livestock herds.
I couldn't, without a fight.
It's also remarkable the insouciance with which the UK's denizens regard the risk of protozoan and worm parasites in their cats and dogs and the implications for other humans and farm animals.
As one example from, I assume, 2017, here is the Welsh Gmt being commendably concerned -
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
'Has Gavin Williamson ever met Marcus Rashford? “We met over Zoom and he seemed incredibly engaged, compassionate and charming". Later Williamson’s team tell me he actually met the rugby player Maro Itoje, not Rashford.'
"Some might call it extreme to destroy an animal or pet on suspicion only."
Is that not the precautionary principle? Often used when the science is not 100%. It seldom is 100%. Global warming is based on that. If you can't test its fallibility or predict with it, it's never going to be 100% scientific, even if it is true.
I always regretted the phlogiston theory was ever dismissed. I quite liked it. At least you could predict and test it.
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
You have claimed to be a "libertarian" conservative, which is very very different to a liberal Conservative. Libertarian Conservatism used to be a very small grouping in the conservative party and it is very much on the furthest right wing of the party, it is now more powerful. Your views often seem very confused, and perhaps the politest view is that you are "on a journey". As I have said before, someone who is anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, and in favour of the breakup of the UK is not a conservative. You are a right wing populist, not a Conservative, and definitely not liberal.
Very good article though and agreed with much of it.
On nutrition there seems to be an instinct to assume that there is one right approach that works for everyone and is clearly better than the alternatives.
That seems a strange starting point given how differently we all react to something like covid.
Perhaps it should be a more a case of finding horses for courses rather than an argument over what is optimal for all.
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
Goodwin's response to a similar comment:
Massive expansion of state, huge spending increases, biggest increase in tax as gdp since Attlee was building welfare state?
Because of Covid, most of it firefighting rather than ideological conversion to big state. And the personality of this NI hike is decidedly NOT leaning left.
Broken record mode=on. Boris won in 2019 by pinching the popular bits of Labour 2017. This was when the pandemic was just a twinkle in a Wuhan bat's eye.
But the "massive expansion of the state" - as in government tax & spend - has been due to the pandemic.
Boris advocated this before the pandemic. Remember the Cabinet chanting about all the new hospitals they were going to build? DARPA-lite? Free broadband (for ISPs)? Of course, furlough payments, test and trace and so on cost a small fortune but even before the pandemic, Boris had run against Cameron's austerity.
Ah ok, austerity had been ditched, yes I'll give you that. But I'm not convinced Johnson nicked a load of Jeremy's 17 platform policies. Eg the "new" hospitals are something of a sleight of hand.
OT Dominic Cummings is doing an AMA (ask me anything) for subscribers on Friday but does not want to talk about the LKY book. I've no idea what that is! Anyway, I mention it for his fans, and expect some of its content will be tweeted in due course.
Instead of mentioning it for his fans, couldnt you have just messaged his mum and Govey directly?
Fairly even knockabout PMQ - but a noisy chamber means Starmer has to deliver at a louder pitch and against a background of Tory abuse. I suspect this will make him seem a lot more engaged and passionate. That could be very helpful.
I'm not sure. It might be unfair/petty, but I think one of Starmer's bigger problems is the high pitch of his voice. Just doesn't sound prime ministerial, as Thatcher noted.
I don't imagine Thatcher noted anything about Starmer's voice, given she died even before he was an MP.
Very good. I imagine her voice coach is no longer available, either.
I don't think it's the pitch of his voice. Tony was quite tenor alto. His problem imo is that he doesn't make much of an emotional connection with the public. That's more the public's fault than his but it's he who has to make the change if he's serious about becoming PM, which he clearly is, I can smell the desire and ambition.
PS:I cannot abide Johnson's voice. The combination of that and his manner makes me cringe. I'm not just saying that, it truly does. I find it hard to listen to him.
I can't really abide listening to either. Try mimicking Starmer, though; gives you an ideal of how nasal his voice is.
"Some might call it extreme to destroy an animal or pet on suspicion only."
Is that not the precautionary principle? Often used when the science is not 100%. It seldom is 100%. Global warming is based on that. If you can't test its fallibility or predict with it, it's never going to be 100% scientific, even if it is true.
I always regretted the phlogiston theory was ever dismissed. I quite liked it. At least you could predict and test it.
I suppose that is a view. A rather callous and brutal view when the life of a pet is concerned. There are other precautions available. I don't know how those Defra vets can live with themselves to be honest.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Total nonsense but then if you're resorting to Marie Claire for your scientific backing all hope in an academic discussion is lost.
I've lost three stone in 8 months and I eat a hearty but healthy breakfast. Most important meal of the day.
Breakfast like a king, lunch like a Queen, dinner like a prince (or princess).
Eat a good brekkie and it's a proven path to weight loss.
But of course you need to combine exercise with healthy eating. End of the day, it all comes down to calories in versus calories out.
The Marie Claire article is a book review. The book itself is heavily referenced with multiple scientific papers. The nutritional science supports it.
Meanwhile we live in a country in the grip of an obesity crisis, committing slow suicide by food.
I can't win, if I am on the upper limit of my permitted bmi everyone says I look drawn and haggard and unwell, put on a stone and they all say how well I look. I have decided to embrace my inner fat man, but it is going to require extensive retrousering if it goes any further.
You are, my dear sir, Not Alone!
And, until recently, when I've succumbed (temporarily I hope) to osteoarthritis in my leg, I was not only eschewing cakes and such, but going to the gym two or three times a week. Weight and it's control, is more complex than diet alone
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Total nonsense but then if you're resorting to Marie Claire for your scientific backing all hope in an academic discussion is lost.
I've lost three stone in 8 months and I eat a hearty but healthy breakfast. Most important meal of the day.
Breakfast like a king, lunch like a Queen, dinner like a prince (or princess).
Eat a good brekkie and it's a proven path to weight loss.
But of course you need to combine exercise with healthy eating. End of the day, it all comes down to calories in versus calories out.
The Marie Claire article is a book review. The book itself is heavily referenced with multiple scientific papers. The nutritional science supports it.
Meanwhile we live in a country in the grip of an obesity crisis, committing slow suicide by food.
I can't win, if I am on the upper limit of my permitted bmi everyone says I look drawn and haggard and unwell, put on a stone and they all say how well I look. I have decided to embrace my inner fat man, but it is going to require extensive retrousering if it goes any further.
BMI is a b/s measure for many people. Trying to target a BMI that is designed for a cohort, rather than an individual, leads to a heck of a lot of heartache and misery. I do sometimes wonder if it causes more harm (crash dieting, mental anguish) than good.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Total nonsense but then if you're resorting to Marie Claire for your scientific backing all hope in an academic discussion is lost.
I've lost three stone in 8 months and I eat a hearty but healthy breakfast. Most important meal of the day.
Breakfast like a king, lunch like a Queen, dinner like a prince (or princess).
Eat a good brekkie and it's a proven path to weight loss.
But of course you need to combine exercise with healthy eating. End of the day, it all comes down to calories in versus calories out.
The Marie Claire article is a book review. The book itself is heavily referenced with multiple scientific papers. The nutritional science supports it.
Meanwhile we live in a country in the grip of an obesity crisis, committing slow suicide by food.
I can't win, if I am on the upper limit of my permitted bmi everyone says I look drawn and haggard and unwell, put on a stone and they all say how well I look. I have decided to embrace my inner fat man, but it is going to require extensive retrousering if it goes any further.
I think there's still a tendency for people of the old school to equate a decent covering of flesh with good health and cheer, and skinniness as meaning you're not eating properly, either through neglect or due to being rather precious and body obsessed.
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
You have claimed to be a "libertarian" conservative, which is very very different to a liberal Conservative. Libertarian Conservatism used to be a very small grouping in the conservative party and it is very much on the furthest right wing of the party, it is now more powerful. Your views often seem very confused, and perhaps the politest view is that you are "on a journey". As I have said before, someone who is anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, and in favour of the breakup of the UK is not a conservative. You are a right wing populist, not a Conservative, and definitely not liberal.
Very good article though and agreed with much of it.
There are far more ways of looking at the world than there are labels. Being a Conservative - or even voting Conservative - does not mean you approve of everything the Conservative Party does. Voting Labour doesn't mean you disapprove of everything the Conservative Party does.
I agree with Philip on some things (e.g. taxation, Brexit, the monarchy) and disagree on others (public transport, the countryside). That doesn't mean that his views - or mine - are confused. Just that having a set of views on thing 1 doesn't imply an easily identified set of views on thing 2.
Fairly even knockabout PMQ - but a noisy chamber means Starmer has to deliver at a louder pitch and against a background of Tory abuse. I suspect this will make him seem a lot more engaged and passionate. That could be very helpful.
I'm not sure. It might be unfair/petty, but I think one of Starmer's bigger problems is the high pitch of his voice. Just doesn't sound prime ministerial, as Thatcher noted.
I don't imagine Thatcher noted anything about Starmer's voice, given she died even before he was an MP.
Very good. I imagine her voice coach is no longer available, either.
I don't think it's the pitch of his voice. Tony was quite tenor alto. His problem imo is that he doesn't make much of an emotional connection with the public. That's more the public's fault than his but it's he who has to make the change if he's serious about becoming PM, which he clearly is, I can smell the desire and ambition.
PS:I cannot abide Johnson's voice. The combination of that and his manner makes me cringe. I'm not just saying that, it truly does. I find it hard to listen to him.
I can't really abide listening to either. Try mimicking Starmer, though; gives you an ideal of how nasal his voice is.
He's an educated South Londoner. They sound like that.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
As I said, typical NHS consultant. Turns to Marie Claire magazine for his medical opinions.
I have read the book cited in the article, while you celebrate your ignorance of science and food.
Do you have any idea how many fucking diet books there are on the planet?
And you have read that one.
Dear lord help me.
There is a whole crappy diet book industry, but the book cited is in keeping with modern nutritional science. Periodic fasting is good for the body, improving insulin sensitivity. Prof Taylor in Newcastle has published extensively on his severe calorie restriction diet, which has astonishing results in terms of remission of type 2 diabetes.
The "little and often" diet paradoxically works in a similar way, by reducing post prandial spikes of insulin secretion associated with larger carb based meals.
There is also a whole crappy modern nutritional science book industry.
You takes your pick.
As I believe Dr Foxy is a diabetes specialist, his views might be worth listening to.
It is my humble opinion that Prof Taylor in Newcastle should receive the Nobel prize for medicine for his work on restricted diet and diabetes reversal. It is absolutely game changing.
Almost no one in medicine was prepared to believe him when he started early work on his theory that dramatically reducing food intake was the key to the sudden diabetes reversal in the few patients who had stomach surgery to reduce the size of their stomach. He hypothesised that the same low food intake could work on anyone with diabetes if they could stick to the diet. Other medics had all sorts of weird theories about hormones and god knows what.
His book of the story is fascinating.
I have followed his advice and recipes for weight loss in the past, when I was warned my own blood sugar was a bit on the high side.
Fairly even knockabout PMQ - but a noisy chamber means Starmer has to deliver at a louder pitch and against a background of Tory abuse. I suspect this will make him seem a lot more engaged and passionate. That could be very helpful.
I'm not sure. It might be unfair/petty, but I think one of Starmer's bigger problems is the high pitch of his voice. Just doesn't sound prime ministerial, as Thatcher noted.
I don't imagine Thatcher noted anything about Starmer's voice, given she died even before he was an MP.
Very good. I imagine her voice coach is no longer available, either.
I don't think it's the pitch of his voice. Tony was quite tenor alto. His problem imo is that he doesn't make much of an emotional connection with the public. That's more the public's fault than his but it's he who has to make the change if he's serious about becoming PM, which he clearly is, I can smell the desire and ambition.
PS:I cannot abide Johnson's voice. The combination of that and his manner makes me cringe. I'm not just saying that, it truly does. I find it hard to listen to him.
I can't really abide listening to either. Try mimicking Starmer, though; gives you an ideal of how nasal his voice is.
Johnson is easier to mimic. You just need to think of High Lawrie's Bertie Wooster mixed with Prince Charles and inject "er er er" every few words and throw in a few odd and inexplicable emphasis.
OT Dominic Cummings is doing an AMA (ask me anything) for subscribers on Friday but does not want to talk about the LKY book. I've no idea what that is! Anyway, I mention it for his fans, and expect some of its content will be tweeted in due course.
Sounds like another periodic reminder that this nation owes its profound gratitude to Carrie.
Because the general public are wise enough to realise that there's naff all chance of this solving the problem. Last couple of nights I've been out, and there is quite a lot of anger about it, especially among young fiscally and socially liberal people
On a side note - making this it's own separate tax from 2023 is stupid - because every time people look at their payslip they will see how much more the Govt is taking from them, for no increase in services.
As an aside on Cummings, and I don't think i have seen any commentator make this point. But if Cummings was still senior aide and advisor then yesterday's social care and NHS announcement would not have happened.
The llama (an animal, lest we forget) was "strangled"?
Are we absolutely sure about this? A bit big for someone to wring its neck.
A lot of bollocks talked about the whole thing.
Called in the SAS to garrotte it, perhaps ?
I'd have thought strangling was a big no-no: real RSPCA and PETA stuff.
OMG, it's getting worse. This is a far cry from an injection of pentabarbitol in your pet's paw. Eustace is a reverse Midas. Everything he does turns to s**t.
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
You have claimed to be a "libertarian" conservative, which is very very different to a liberal Conservative. Libertarian Conservatism used to be a very small grouping in the conservative party and it is very much on the furthest right wing of the party, it is now more powerful. Your views often seem very confused, and perhaps the politest view is that you are "on a journey". As I have said before, someone who is anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, and in favour of the breakup of the UK is not a conservative. You are a right wing populist, not a Conservative, and definitely not liberal.
Very good article though and agreed with much of it.
I've never claimed to be a small-c conservative. As I've said before, if the centre-right party in the UK had the same name as its sister party down-under I'd be much happier with that.
I'm glad you liked my article and agreed with much of it - though I'd point out this was a "populist" tax rise to lift a tax that was polling popularly to give money to the NHS; if I was such a populist then how come I'd object to it on principle?
My final remark is that my objection to May's backstop deal was always based upon a belief in liberal democracy: that people must be able to vote on the laws that apply to them. That was possible in the EU which is why I was not vehemently against the EU and could have backed Remain (and long did, I was only convinced to switch my vote for reasons quite similar to williamglenn recently just before the vote). Being in the EU would be fine with me had the vote gone the other way, and I also said I'd prefer that over May's backstop because in the EU we did get a say on laws passed (via the European Parliament, European Commission, European Council etc) but in the backstop we wouldn't have.
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 3h Nightclubs have been operating as normal for almost 2 months… they haven’t caused an issue. To impose vaccine passports on them in 3 weeks time is ludicrous, considering double jabbed are testing positive all over the show.
Comments
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
It’s worked for us.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
(Whom I know but it sounds odd.)
This is Johnson´s poll tax.
It wouldn't surprise me at all that he was perfectly healthy when killed.
David Haye: Donald Trump and his son will provide guest commentary on Evander Holyfield and Brit's fights
"I love great fighters and great fights," said Donald Trump who will commentate on the comebacks of David Haye, aged 40, and Evander Holyfield, 58; Haye comes out of retirement to face Joe Fournier, Holyfield takes on former UFC fighter Vitor Belfort
Bit weird.
And you have read that one.
Dear lord help me.
A government post-mortem examination on Geronimo the alpaca has found evidence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB), but supporters are disputing the results.
Authorities took Geronimo from its farm near Bristol on 31 August and killed it after twice testing positive for the disease.
Vets working with its owner have said there were no visible lesions of bTB.
The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said TB-like lesions were found.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-58490510
They didn't take Geronimo.
They kidnapped him.
Then again, if people like Helen McDonald show how bonkers extreme animal "lovers" are then that is a service she has performed for the world.
(For a few weeks a year my only media access of any sort is to Radio 4 on longwave. No telly, no internet, no mobile phone signal, no FM, no AM. You get to value things like the Today prog.)
Even funnier that one of his predecessors have an even better porn term sounding name. General Andrew Goodpaster.
Yes I'm such a child and I have a mind like a Welsh railway, one track and filthy.
Re breakfast. I don't feel the need to snack at all. Just something light for lunch. Meal in the evening. After that nowt for18 hours or so. Suits me fine.
I couldn't, without a fight.
"This is a terrible way to raise funds. It targets the low paid rather than the wealthy. We'd make the opposite choice."
That's enough for now imo.
It needs to be less than half. Before anyone else goes there...
Shades of the Last Days of Donald Trump. The Conservatives really are a disgusting and immoral bunch.
Anyway, in terms of substance, Starmer's point that care workers will receive tax hikes but no pay rise is the one to really hammer home time and time again. Does he have the 'pounce' to do it? I don't know, but he should because it will be a killer blow if he gets it across to voters.
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal/#publicinformation
This is not faddiness, it is lifesaving advice.
The "little and often" diet paradoxically works in a similar way, by reducing post prandial spikes of insulin secretion associated with larger carb based meals.
I've lost three stone in 8 months and I eat a hearty but healthy breakfast. Most important meal of the day.
Breakfast like a king, lunch like a Queen, dinner like a prince (or princess).
Eat a good brekkie and it's a proven path to weight loss.
But of course you need to combine exercise with healthy eating. End of the day, it all comes down to calories in versus calories out.
Edit: goody. Foxy has come up with the answer (and the rationale, which makes entire sense), thanks!
You takes your pick.
A perfect example of jumping to the conclusions you want. It may take a few weeks for the pathology to come back and it may not be conclusive as as to the infectivity. But it's the perfect gifts for journalists. Let's milk the story now.
If the animal can definitely be shown not to be infected and infective, dig him up.
Job sorted.
Meanwhile we live in a country in the grip of an obesity crisis, committing slow suicide by food.
In case I dreamt that: not advice, dyor, consult your solicitor oopa.
There's also the dividend allowance, unless we're scrapping that (I do recall it being on the chopping block).
"You takes your pick."
Fair enough. We can say that to anti-vaxxers but it would only encourage them. There has always been a tendency to equate anecdote with data. Some sources are not equal. Science advances in small steps and data can be over-interpreted. Foods science can lack rigour as double-blind experiments are difficult. It's usually retrospective - backwards in more than one way. And as for controlling confounding factors ....
As one example from, I assume, 2017, here is the Welsh Gmt being commendably concerned -
https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2017-12/hydatid-disease-frequently-asked-questions.pdf
So rather hard on Geronimo, by comparison.
I used to really love "some mothers...etc"
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
(I had to look up insouciance btw...it's been a while)
Hamlet: W Shakespeare (we think)
"Some might call it extreme to destroy an animal or pet on suspicion only."
Is that not the precautionary principle? Often used when the science is not 100%. It seldom is 100%. Global warming is based on that. If you can't test its fallibility or predict with it, it's never going to be 100% scientific, even if it is true.
I always regretted the phlogiston theory was ever dismissed. I quite liked it. At least you could predict and test it.
Very good article though and agreed with much of it.
That seems a strange starting point given how differently we all react to something like covid.
Perhaps it should be a more a case of finding horses for courses rather than an argument over what is optimal for all.
Try mimicking Starmer, though; gives you an ideal of how nasal his voice is.
So why has it unraveled?
It seems like Labour's attack of broken promises + tax on workers does seem to have resonated with the public
And, until recently, when I've succumbed (temporarily I hope) to osteoarthritis in my leg, I was not only eschewing cakes and such, but going to the gym two or three times a week. Weight and it's control, is more complex than diet alone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
There are far more ways of looking at the world than there are labels. Being a Conservative - or even voting Conservative - does not mean you approve of everything the Conservative Party does. Voting Labour doesn't mean you disapprove of everything the Conservative Party does.
I agree with Philip on some things (e.g. taxation, Brexit, the monarchy) and disagree on others (public transport, the countryside). That doesn't mean that his views - or mine - are confused. Just that having a set of views on thing 1 doesn't imply an easily identified set of views on thing 2.
They did not poll a wealth tax.
But it looks like Labour has found an opening if they wish to take it.
Poll crossover soon IMHO
Almost no one in medicine was prepared to believe him when he started early work on his theory that dramatically reducing food intake was the key to the sudden diabetes reversal in the few patients who had stomach surgery to reduce the size of their stomach. He hypothesised that the same low food intake could work on anyone with diabetes if they could stick to the diet. Other medics had all sorts of weird theories about hormones and god knows what.
His book of the story is fascinating.
I have followed his advice and recipes for weight loss in the past, when I was warned my own blood sugar was a bit on the high side.
NEW THREAD
On a side note - making this it's own separate tax from 2023 is stupid - because every time people look at their payslip they will see how much more the Govt is taking from them, for no increase in services.
We would still be in dither mode.
I'm glad you liked my article and agreed with much of it - though I'd point out this was a "populist" tax rise to lift a tax that was polling popularly to give money to the NHS; if I was such a populist then how come I'd object to it on principle?
My final remark is that my objection to May's backstop deal was always based upon a belief in liberal democracy: that people must be able to vote on the laws that apply to them. That was possible in the EU which is why I was not vehemently against the EU and could have backed Remain (and long did, I was only convinced to switch my vote for reasons quite similar to williamglenn recently just before the vote). Being in the EU would be fine with me had the vote gone the other way, and I also said I'd prefer that over May's backstop because in the EU we did get a say on laws passed (via the European Parliament, European Commission, European Council etc) but in the backstop we wouldn't have.
Adam Brooks
@EssexPR
·
3h
Nightclubs have been operating as normal for almost 2 months… they haven’t caused an issue.
To impose vaccine passports on them in 3 weeks time is ludicrous, considering double jabbed are testing positive all over the show.
This policy could cost tens of thousands of jobs.