I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
They aimed at the 48% and their main policy is ... we'll have another referendum because we didn't like the result last time, which begs the question ... what then? In 18 months time, and if they succeed, we'll go back on bended knees and accept any deal that Barmier and Juncker want. Is that what the 48% want?
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
The problem the third party always faces is that on most big issues there are two distinctive stances at the extremes, and usually the main parties have positions on (or as close to as is generally acceptable) those sewn up. In the real world of course it is often more sensible to fashion a middle course between the extremes
This seems to be saying that the LibDems should a priori decide to exist, then identify policy positions they can take that justify their existence. Isn't that exactly 180 degrees backwards? If they have no distinctive views arrived at rationally, they should just disband.
No, because liberalism is clearly a distinctive philosophy, as is socialism and conservatism. But modern day politics, unlike that of two hundred years ago, revolves exclusively around policy; people aren't interested in philosophical debate. As sandypit says below, liberalism does direct towards some distinctive policy areas such as civil liberties, but on the mainstream issues it struggles to be distinctive as I said in my earlier post.
So it's an archaic pressure group kind of thing?
I think that if Lib Dems started taking their intellectual inheritance more seriously then the party would end up with lots of distinctive positions. There is no reason why a liberal party should be moderate (other than to simultaneously appeal to socialist and conservative voters).
If the party is to build a core vote of its own then it needs to be a bit more radical and distinctive. For example, the Liberal Party's old distributist Ownership For All agenda - opposition to state ownership and private monopoly combined with the maximum diffusion of private property - is ripe for renewal.
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
Who is Matthew Green and why should I care what he's Tweeting on a Saturday motning?
LibDem MP for Ludlow between 2001 and 2005. (How the Tories managed to lose that seat is a bit of a mystery).
I came across his name by accident a few months back, and had to look him up on WP to find that he was one of our former MPs, which for me as an active LibDem is telling. Unlike most of our MPs, he appears to have made very little impact even within the party.
I think he was one of the youngest MPs elected in 2001.
The LibDems have held both Hereford and Ludlow in the past and are the only effective opposition in this area to the Tories ... and that only in some elections. Labour doesn't campaign or leaflet.
The Liberal tradition in Wales and the borders dates back a very long time. Leominster should have gone Liberal in 1974 but the constituency boundary was gerrymandered to include parts of Wyre Forest. So they lost by 600. However, the new Tory MP Peter Temple-Morris was so 'wet' he crossed the floor and now sits as a Labour peer.
As far as I know the boundary changes that take place every few years are done in a completely non-partisan way.
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
Who is Matthew Green and why should I care what he's Tweeting on a Saturday motning?
LibDem MP for Ludlow between 2001 and 2005. (How the Tories managed to lose that seat is a bit of a mystery).
I came across his name by accident a few months back, and had to look him up on WP to find that he was one of our former MPs, which for me as an active LibDem is telling. Unlike most of our MPs, he appears to have made very little impact even within the party.
I think he was one of the youngest MPs elected in 2001.
The LibDems have held both Hereford and Ludlow in the past and are the only effective opposition in this area to the Tories ... and that only in some elections. Labour doesn't campaign or leaflet.
The Liberal tradition in Wales and the borders dates back a very long time. Leominster should have gone Liberal in 1974 but the constituency boundary was gerrymandered to include parts of Wyre Forest. So they lost by 600. However, the new Tory MP Peter Temple-Morris was so 'wet' he crossed the floor and now sits as a Labour peer.
By 'gerrymandered' I assume you mean the local government reorganisation and its creation of the county of Hereford & Worcester ?
Although Wikipedia doesn't suggest there was much of a change:
' 1950-1974: The Municipal Borough of Leominster, the Urban Districts of Bromyard, Kington, and Ledbury, the Rural Districts of Bromyard, Kington, Ledbury, Leominster, and Weobley and Wigmore, and part of the Rural District of Hereford.
1974-1983: The Municipal Borough of Leominster, the Urban District of Kington, the Rural Districts of Bromyard, Kington, Ledbury, Leominster, and Weobley and Wigmore, and part of the Rural District of Hereford. '
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Actually, a more considered response is, it depends on how far to the left the Tories move. 40 years ago the Cons embracing gay rights would have been unthinkable, for example.
Equally unthinkable that they would have embraced Brexit, but public opinion can shift radically.
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
The opportunities for the LibDems tend to come along when both main parties adopt a similar position on an issue, leaving the other side unchampioned (Iraq being the obvious example), or where an issue is emerging or growing in importance and being more nimble they can stake out the ground first (for many years environmentalism was a good example). Brexit looked like an example of the former, that has so far not paid any divided, and should sensibly be broadened into internationalism as someone suggests downthread. Drugs policy is an example of the latter. The trouble with the latter is that adopting positions early rarely appeals to more than a small minority. And, by the time you are proved right, either everyone has forgotten that you were first, or cares more about something else.
I think a great opportunity for the LDs will be on civil liberties, as Mrs May tries to propose banning encryption because terrorism. Someone needs to stand up to such proposals and sadly too many Conservatives will go along with it.
A good use of a private members' bill might be to propose the decriminalisation of certain drugs, a la Portugal where a few years on it's shown to work well. I've always said that the current middle way drugs policy in the UK and US doesn't work, what works is either the Portugal/Netherlands approach or the Thailand/Singapore/UAE approach.
They do need to get off trying to overturn Brexit though, engage positively with the process instead of fighting the last battle. I'm not too sure that Vince Cable is the man for that though.
My concern, too. The positive scenario is that he gets us some airtime on the economy and Brexit whilst working closely with Swinson, building her prominence and experience ready for her to take over in 2019.
The risk to this strategy is that Vince's ego drives him to see himself as more than an interim leader. On the other hand, even very egoistical people can become good mentors and developers late in their career, once they accept that their personal achievements are mostly done. We can only hope.
Surely the best way to get LDs on the TV over the summer would have been to have a contested leadership election? Would also have the effect of allowing the candidates to develop policy positions, we could have spent the summer talking about drugs law reform and civil liberties, rather than the endless briefing and spinning and counter-briefing and counter-spinning on the EU exit negotiations that's what we are gonna get!
Vince is obviously a known quantity to the party, but it would have been good for some of the other MPs to get their faces on TV and their ideas in the minds of the general public. Coronations rarely work out well in the long term.
We're living less long because we're unhealthy. Diseases like cancer are hitting us sooner than ever before. This seems to have overtaken the opposing trend of medical advances helping us dodge death for longer.
I think that's utterly and totally wrong. IMO (and I don't have data to back this up, but I doubt you have to data to back up your assertions) medical advances are allowing us to diagnose conditions earlier. In fact, when routine personalised lifetime biometrics come in (which I expect them to do within a decade) many conditions will be picked up almost instantaneously.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
People weren't just wandering around with big tumours they hadn't noticed were they?
What an odd question. Are you saying people who die of cancer without treatment always have big, visible lumps? Or is it more likely that they just feel increasingly ill and die as (for example) their lungs give in.
Personally I've moved back to the left as I get older - got impatient with centrism.
Entertaining example of how the private sector can be just as idiot-bureaucratic as the public monopoly of caricature. I have a contract with BT with a year to run. I've moved out of my (rented) flat and am staying in lodgings while I look round. Since the flat is being taken over, I have to give up the line there.
So I tell BT, and say of course I realise I need to keep paying the monthly bill, but the address will change, I'll let you know. OK?
No. Unless I can give them another address within 2 weeks, they'll charge me a year's rental for premature termination, £350. So I say OK, I can give you the termporary lodgings but I don't actually want a new line there, it's just for the record, will let you know when I settle. No need for BT to do anything except collect my montlhy cash. OK?
No. I must arrange for an engineer to call and install a new line. They won't charge anything significant (£9 for the equipment) but I MUST make an appointment, or they'll charge that £300.
Can I book it, and then delay it repeatedly? No, that will be treated as termination.
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
American university politics has gone completely nuts. Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and what is going to happen to all these snowflakes when they get to the real world and have to work with people who disagree with them?
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
American university politics has gone completely nuts. Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and what is going to happen to all these snowflakes when they get to the real world and have to work with people who disagree with them?
It's worse even than that. Reading the blog post it seems the whole thing was based on fake news. Dawkins hasn't said anything about Islam. He has had a go at religion in general.
Personally I've moved back to the left as I get older - got impatient with centrism.
Entertaining example of how the private sector can be just as idiot-bureaucratic as the public monopoly of caricature. I have a contract with BT with a year to run. I've moved out of my (rented) flat and am staying in lodgings while I look round. Since the flat is being taken over, I have to give up the line there.
So I tell BT, and say of course I realise I need to keep paying the monthly bill, but the address will change, I'll let you know. OK?
No. Unless I can give them another address within 2 weeks, they'll charge me a year's rental for premature termination, £350. So I say OK, I can give you the termporary lodgings but I don't actually want a new line there, it's just for the record, will let you know when I settle. No need for BT to do anything except collect my montlhy cash. OK?
No. I must arrange for an engineer to call and install a new line. They won't charge anything significant (£9 for the equipment) but I MUST make an appointment, or they'll charge that £300.
Can I book it, and then delay it repeatedly? No, that will be treated as termination.
Sheesh!
You're now free to return to your youthful posing as a radical leftist. When it counted you followed Blair's war for money agenda. You must feel deep shame.
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
American university politics has gone completely nuts. Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and what is going to happen to all these snowflakes when they get to the real world and have to work with people who disagree with them?
It's worse even than that. Reading the blog post it seems the whole thing was based on fake news. Dawkins hasn't said anything about Islam. He has had a go at religion in general.
Dawkins had a go at religion, really...?
Next they'll be commenting on the defecation habits of ursine mammals in arborous areas.
But seriously, it's completely bonkers. University used to be a place where the mind got challenged and people who disagreed with each other would do it in the debating society and all go for a beer afterwards. One of the highlights of the university year used to be a "take the other side" debate, usually on something really contentious. Watching the Women's Society vs the Christian Union debate the motion that abortion should be available on demand - with each taking the opposite side of the argument - was very good indeed.
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
American university politics has gone completely nuts. Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and what is going to happen to all these snowflakes when they get to the real world and have to work with people who disagree with them?
It's worse even than that. Reading the blog post it seems the whole thing was based on fake news. Dawkins hasn't said anything about Islam. He has had a go at religion in general.
Dawkins had a go at religion, really...?
Next they'll be commenting on the defecation habits of ursine mammals in arborous areas.
Some religions get more tetchy and offended at reasoned criticism than others!
Personally I've moved back to the left as I get older - got impatient with centrism.
Entertaining example of how the private sector can be just as idiot-bureaucratic as the public monopoly of caricature. I have a contract with BT with a year to run. I've moved out of my (rented) flat and am staying in lodgings while I look round. Since the flat is being taken over, I have to give up the line there.
So I tell BT, and say of course I realise I need to keep paying the monthly bill, but the address will change, I'll let you know. OK?
No. Unless I can give them another address within 2 weeks, they'll charge me a year's rental for premature termination, £350. So I say OK, I can give you the termporary lodgings but I don't actually want a new line there, it's just for the record, will let you know when I settle. No need for BT to do anything except collect my montlhy cash. OK?
No. I must arrange for an engineer to call and install a new line. They won't charge anything significant (£9 for the equipment) but I MUST make an appointment, or they'll charge that £300.
Can I book it, and then delay it repeatedly? No, that will be treated as termination.
We're living less long because we're unhealthy. Diseases like cancer are hitting us sooner than ever before. This seems to have overtaken the opposing trend of medical advances helping us dodge death for longer.
I think that's utterly and totally wrong. IMO (and I don't have data to back this up, but I doubt you have to data to back up your assertions) medical advances are allowing us to diagnose conditions earlier. In fact, when routine personalised lifetime biometrics come in (which I expect them to do within a decade) many conditions will be picked up almost instantaneously.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
People weren't just wandering around with big tumours they hadn't noticed were they?
What an odd question. Are you saying people who die of cancer without treatment always have big, visible lumps? Or is it more likely that they just feel increasingly ill and die as (for example) their lungs give in.
I hope rather than believe that's your last word. I didn't say it's a man made modern disease, I am suggesting that its burgeoning success stems from our lifestyles - which is surely such a ridiculously obvious statement of fact it should need no defence.
That being the case, one can't help but wonder why we aren't doing more to address the causes of cancer, rather than the frankly sinister new mindset that we will all get it and that we need to pump money into finding a 'cure', which is essentially like banging your head against a brick wall and looking for better headache pills.
A cynic might suggest that this is because a lot of money and careers depend on continuing to find expensive therapies for cancer, and on the flip side, a great deal of money is made from selling the public cheap fake foods, cosmetic items etc.
'Many people voted for Brexit because they were fooled into a fear of “80m Turks coming to live in their village”, Vince Cable has said.'
Many, Vince? Most of the 52% ? And have you thought about what motivated the others? It's an extraordinarily complacent and conceited comment.
What it suggests is that Vince Cable isn't willing to learn from the fact that 52% didn't want what was on offer. Which makes him look a bit old and moth-eaten, to me.
it's the remainer problem, they cant accept a majority of the people said the EU doesnt work for us.
instead we have just a long whinge about how we're all going to die and the world will stop
they have learnt nothing from the experience and havent the courage to question what went wrong for them or put forward an alternative
Well Vince Cable is dead right. Immigration, fuelled by campaigns that pandered to xenophobia, was what won it for Leave. Oddly it's now Leavers who try to evade the democratic responsibility of implementing Brexit in accordance with the way in which the victory was secured. It's pretty obvious that they're ashamed of what they colluded with.
I'd vote leave tomorrow,what's there to be ashamed of ?
If remainers couldnt put a positive case for immigration - and there is one if it is controlled - then that simply says your front men arent very good.
Intellectually outplayed by Nigel Farage - that;s you that is.
However you took a comfort blanket of calling everyone a xenophobe and ignored the consequences of uncontrolled immigrtion on housing, wages, public services and social cohesion. And as we have seen at the more recent setpieces of polling voters are more concerned with the hardships of life than name calling from the self righteous.
Bang on - +1
The xenophobes and their fellow travellers are queuing up to soothe their consciences, I see.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge etc.
In decades to come, voting Leave will be about as reputable as choosing to fight for the Confederacy.
NURSE!
Aligning yourself with xenophobia, no matter what your motivation, is a moral calamity.
You can't do anything about the people who choose to agree with you either.
We're living less long because we're unhealthy. Diseases like cancer are hitting us sooner than ever before. This seems to have overtaken the opposing trend of medical advances helping us dodge death for longer.
I think that's utterly and totally wrong. IMO (and I don't have data to back this up, but I doubt you have to data to back up your assertions) medical advances are allowing us to diagnose conditions earlier. In fact, when routine personalised lifetime biometrics come in (which I expect them to do within a decade) many conditions will be picked up almost instantaneously.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
People weren't just wandering around with big tumours they hadn't noticed were they?
What an odd question. Are you saying people who die of cancer without treatment always have big, visible lumps? Or is it more likely that they just feel increasingly ill and die as (for example) their lungs give in.
I hope rather than believe that's your last word. I didn't say it's a man made modern disease, I am suggesting that its burgeoning success stems from our lifestyles - which is surely such a ridiculously obvious statement of fact it should need no defence.
That being the case, one can't help but wonder why we aren't doing more to address the causes of cancer, rather than the frankly sinister new mindset that we will all get it and that we need to pump money into finding a 'cure', which is essentially like banging your head against a brick wall and looking for better headache pills.
A cynic might suggest that this is because a lot of money and careers depend on continuing to find expensive therapies for cancer, and on the flip side, a great deal of money is made from selling the public cheap fake foods, cosmetic items etc.
The main reason that more of us are getting cancer is that we are not dying of other things first, notably infectious disease, but also the halving of mortality in cardiovascular disease and stroke. Same goes for dementia. JJ is also right in that earlier diagnosis does give extended time with disease, even if prognosis is not affected.
Lifestyle factors are important risks for cancer though, with diet beginning to replace smoking.
We're living less long because we're unhealthy. Diseases like cancer are hitting us sooner than ever before. This seems to have overtaken the opposing trend of medical advances helping us dodge death for longer.
I think that's utterly and totally wrong. IMO (and I up almost instantaneously.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
People weren't just wandering around with big tumours they hadn't noticed were they?
What an odd question. Are you saying people who die of cancer without treatment always have big, visible lumps? Or is it more likely that they just feel increasingly ill and die as (for example) their lungs give in.
I hope rather than believe that's your last word. I didn't say it's a man made modern disease, I am suggesting that its burgeoning success stems from our lifestyles - which is surely such a ridiculously obvious statement of fact it should need no defence.
That being the case, one can't help but wonder why we aren't doing more to address the causes of cancer, rather than the frankly sinister new mindset that we will all get it and that we need to pump money into finding a 'cure', which is essentially like banging your head against a brick wall and looking for better headache pills.
A cynic might suggest that this is because a lot of money and careers depend on continuing to find expensive therapies for cancer, and on the flip side, a great deal of money is made from selling the public cheap fake foods, cosmetic items etc.
The main reason that more of us are getting cancer is that we are not dying of other things first, notably infectious disease, but also the halving of mortality in cardiovascular disease and stroke. Same goes for dementia. JJ is also right in that earlier diagnosis does give extended time with disease, even if prognosis is not affected.
Lifestyle factors are important risks for cancer though, with diet beginning to replace smoking.
I'm off out before the rain starts but before I go riddle me this:
How many of the kids shouting " **** the Tories " with Jon Snow at Glasto this year will be voting for the Tories (or whatever Party the Tories have evolved into) in 2057?
I'll riddle you one better, at what age does Southam Observer start voting blue ? :-)
Dream on - you guys are a dying breed!
Nah
weve seen it , done it, got the T shirt and see life in a wider perspective
the rebels of my youth live in big houses and do TV ads
one day that will be you - it starts with having your own kids
Haha well I am 56, happily married, no kids yet (or ever) and I think I have actually moved to the left in recent years (blame Cameron/Osborne). But never say never eh?
lol
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
Maybe. According to YouGov 50% of the 50-59 cohort who voted, voted Con or UKIP, 50% voted Lab/LD/Green/SNP/PC so our age group is evenly split progressive / non-progressive.
I think your " progressive " coalition might have a problem;
American university politics has gone completely nuts. Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and what is going to happen to all these snowflakes when they get to the real world and have to work with people who disagree with them?
The intolerance spreading across us college campus is quite scary. There is the case of the liberal arts professor who objected to a non-white only on campus day as you know a bit racialist and now the student body are demanding he is sacked for simply giving his opinion and turning up to work as normal.
Atgein the occasions he has tried to explain his position to them (why he should have to is already a step too far for me) , they just scream at him whenever he tries to speak.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. The idea that everyone would have got cancer if they hadn't already been carried off by cholera is baloney. Cancer is affecting people younger and younger, ad are other lifestyle diseases.You are a doctor, and you see everything in terms of medicine - if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
We're living less long because we're unhealthy. Diseases like cancer are hitting us sooner than ever before. This seems to have overtaken the opposing trend of medical advances helping us dodge death for longer.
I think that's utterly and totally wrong. IMO (and I up almost instantaneously.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
People weren't just wandering around with big tumours they hadn't noticed were they?
What an odd question. Are you saying people who die of cancer without treatment always have big, visible lumps? Or is it more likely that they just feel increasingly ill and die as (for example) their lungs give in.
I hope rather than believe that's your last word. I didn't say it's a man made modern disease, I am suggesting that its burgeoning success stems from our lifestyles - which is surely such a ridiculously obvious statement of fact it should need no defence.
That being the case, one can't help but wonder why we aren't doing more to address the causes of cancer, rather than the frankly sinister new mindset that we will all get it and that we need to pump money into finding a 'cure', which is essentially like banging your head against a brick wall and looking for better headache pills.
A cynic might suggest that this is because a lot of money and careers depend on continuing to find expensive therapies for cancer, and on the flip side, a great deal of money is made from selling the public cheap fake foods, cosmetic items etc.
The main reason that more of us are getting cancer is that we are not dying of other things first, notably infectious disease, but also the halving of mortality in cardiovascular disease and stroke. Same goes for dementia. JJ is also right in that earlier diagnosis does give extended time with disease, even if prognosis is not affected.
Lifestyle factors are important risks for cancer though, with diet beginning to replace smoking.
Brexit obviously
Amongst other effects including a rise in dementia rates!
Mostly due to changing demographics in the UK, as we shift from to an older population.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. The idea that everyone would have got cancer if they hadn't already been carried off by cholera is baloney. Cancer is affecting people younger and younger, ad are other lifestyle diseases.You are a doctor, and you see everything in terms of medicine - if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
You have the wrong doctor in your sights! I am always banging on about how our obesogenic, lazy, junkfood lifestyle is killing us young. I would include cancer along with diabetes in this frame.
The effect of surviving infectious disease, stroke etc is to allow people to age enough to get cancer or dementia, both of which have steeply rising incidence by age.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. The idea that everyone would have got cancer if they hadn't already been carried off by cholera is baloney. Cancer is affecting people younger and younger, ad are other lifestyle diseases.You are a doctor, and you see everything in terms of medicine - if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
You have the wrong doctor in your sights! I am always banging on about how our obesogenic, lazy, junkfood lifestyle is killing us young. I would include cancer along with diabetes in this frame.
The effect of surviving infectious disease, stroke etc is to allow people to age enough to get cancer or dementia, both of which have steeply rising incidence by age.
And I applaud you for doing so. But I would go further and say that even a lifetime of what is currently called a balanced diet cannot sustain good health, healthy babies, and long life. There are many reasons for this, often where commercial interests have influenced public health policies, partcularly in the USA.
Incidence of cancer and dementia of course rises with age, but that's surely due to a cumulation of these liefstyle factors. Unless you believe we are programmed to get cancer or dementia.
"Pro-Brexit allegory"? I described it as a parable for Brexit. A completely shambolic exit from Europe dreamed up by people without a clue. More than a smattering of xenophobia when the ignorant squaddies tried to lighten the boat by attacking the foreigner and the only military heroes being the French who manned the barricades when the British were in abject retreat.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
So an even better parable than I thought though I imagine the brave involvement of the Scots had to be left out through time constraints. An interesting story and sounds like an interesting play. If I'd been in Glasgow I'd have gone to see it (and La Cage Aux folles which I see is also on).
I don't know how accurate the film was. It was pleasantly free of heroics (though one or two on here seem to have found something in the soundtrack to get them on their feet) The film made no points just the story of a completely shambolic retreat from France by some very frightened foot soldiers short of equiptment back up or anything else for that matter. It was the realism and lack of sentimentaity that made it exceptional
Kenneth Brannagh part was all sentimentality and stiff upper lip , but that was the only part of the film that was.
I had the slight feeling that it was Brannagh's interpretation but that's just a guess. It's rare to make such a big film that isn't American written and directed but Nolan had earned the right to tell it as he wanted which is why it's so short on American shmaltz.
Comments
If the party is to build a core vote of its own then it needs to be a bit more radical and distinctive. For example, the Liberal Party's old distributist Ownership For All agenda - opposition to state ownership and private monopoly combined with the maximum diffusion of private property - is ripe for renewal.
so youre a rebel living in a big house ? :-)
im also 56
It's the long slow march to wards a more inclusive progressive world that gives me hope, no matter how dark the current times seem.
Although Wikipedia doesn't suggest there was much of a change:
' 1950-1974: The Municipal Borough of Leominster, the Urban Districts of Bromyard, Kington, and Ledbury, the Rural Districts of Bromyard, Kington, Ledbury, Leominster, and Weobley and Wigmore, and part of the Rural District of Hereford.
1974-1983: The Municipal Borough of Leominster, the Urban District of Kington, the Rural Districts of Bromyard, Kington, Ledbury, Leominster, and Weobley and Wigmore, and part of the Rural District of Hereford. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leominster_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
Vince is obviously a known quantity to the party, but it would have been good for some of the other MPs to get their faces on TV and their ideas in the minds of the general public. Coronations rarely work out well in the long term.
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/888707051542777856
Anyway, I'll leave my last word to Cancer Research:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/14/claims-that-cancer-is-only-a-‘modern-man-made-disease’-are-false-and-misleading/
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/
Entertaining example of how the private sector can be just as idiot-bureaucratic as the public monopoly of caricature. I have a contract with BT with a year to run. I've moved out of my (rented) flat and am staying in lodgings while I look round. Since the flat is being taken over, I have to give up the line there.
So I tell BT, and say of course I realise I need to keep paying the monthly bill, but the address will change, I'll let you know. OK?
No. Unless I can give them another address within 2 weeks, they'll charge me a year's rental for premature termination, £350. So I say OK, I can give you the termporary lodgings but I don't actually want a new line there, it's just for the record, will let you know when I settle. No need for BT to do anything except collect my montlhy cash. OK?
No. I must arrange for an engineer to call and install a new line. They won't charge anything significant (£9 for the equipment) but I MUST make an appointment, or they'll charge that £300.
Can I book it, and then delay it repeatedly? No, that will be treated as termination.
Sheesh!
Next they'll be commenting on the defecation habits of ursine mammals in arborous areas.
But seriously, it's completely bonkers. University used to be a place where the mind got challenged and people who disagreed with each other would do it in the debating society and all go for a beer afterwards. One of the highlights of the university year used to be a "take the other side" debate, usually on something really contentious. Watching the Women's Society vs the Christian Union debate the motion that abortion should be available on demand - with each taking the opposite side of the argument - was very good indeed.
That being the case, one can't help but wonder why we aren't doing more to address the causes of cancer, rather than the frankly sinister new mindset that we will all get it and that we need to pump money into finding a 'cure', which is essentially like banging your head against a brick wall and looking for better headache pills.
A cynic might suggest that this is because a lot of money and careers depend on continuing to find expensive therapies for cancer, and on the flip side, a great deal of money is made from selling the public cheap fake foods, cosmetic items etc.
Lifestyle factors are important risks for cancer though, with diet beginning to replace smoking.
http://www.seattletimes.com/life/for-4-seattle-women-called-alexa-its-fun-frustrating-to-share-name-with-amazon-device/
Atgein the occasions he has tried to explain his position to them (why he should have to is already a step too far for me) , they just scream at him whenever he tries to speak.
Mostly due to changing demographics in the UK, as we shift from to an older population.
The effect of surviving infectious disease, stroke etc is to allow people to age enough to get cancer or dementia, both of which have steeply rising incidence by age.
Incidence of cancer and dementia of course rises with age, but that's surely due to a cumulation of these liefstyle factors. Unless you believe we are programmed to get cancer or dementia.