Is Sunak too rich to be an election winner? – politicalbetting.com

In other Kirklees local news.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/student-accomadation-migrant-housing/

They are not exact on location, but there is a residence custom built a few years ago that has had problems - cladding, owners in
administration, unauthorised dual use as Airbnb rooms - which fits the descriptions.

bondegezou said:

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.

The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.

https://www.ft.com/content/96a37654-f8ea-46e3-a5ab-ca1d69dc5ea0

Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.

Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?

If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.

1) What are we currently spending money on?
2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)?
3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?

Anything other than that is really just details.

Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.

What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?

Here’s a list of current spending by department:


Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-may-2022/public-spending-statistics-may-2022

The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.

In the current culture there is a problem. We are borrowing £100 bn per annum even now. So that needs to be found. But there isn't a single area of interest where there isn't pressure for government to spend more, usually much more. The media, especially the BBC give a perpetual free and unchallenged ride to all and everyone who are calling for higher expenditure on everything under the sun.

To see the size of the £100 bn deficit, if we abolished all state managed expenditure on education entirely, it still would not cover it. So bits of tinkering will make no real difference.

The philosophy that the solution is always cut, cut, cut has gotten us to where we are today.

We pay less in tax than many other developed countries that enjoy higher standards of living than us. Let’s be more like them. Well-funded public services are a worthwhile investment.

It's enlightened self interest. The biggest thing government can do for the economy is foster an educated and healthy population.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

kinabalu said:

bondegezou said:

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.

The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.

https://www.ft.com/content/96a37654-f8ea-46e3-a5ab-ca1d69dc5ea0

Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.

Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?

If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.

1) What are we currently spending money on?
2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)?
3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?

Anything other than that is really just details.

Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.

What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?

Here’s a list of current spending by department:


Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-may-2022/public-spending-statistics-may-2022

The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.

In the current culture there is a problem. We are borrowing £100 bn per annum even now. So that needs to be found. But there isn't a single area of interest where there isn't pressure for government to spend more, usually much more. The media, especially the BBC give a perpetual free and unchallenged ride to all and everyone who are calling for higher expenditure on everything under the sun.

To see the size of the £100 bn deficit, if we abolished all state managed expenditure on education entirely, it still would not cover it. So bits of tinkering will make no real difference.

The philosophy that the solution is always cut, cut, cut has gotten us to where we are today.

We pay less in tax than many other developed countries that enjoy higher standards of living than us. Let’s be more like them. Well-funded public services are a worthwhile investment.

It's enlightened self interest. The biggest thing government can do for the economy is foster an educated and healthy population.

But to do that would put cut the profits of Big Food. Educated, healthy people don't buy industrially manufactured edible products.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Penny Mordant wants the young of this country to do national service.

The Tories have given up. Get rid.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/apr/12/young-people-compulsory-voluntary-work-community-service

Every young person will have to do 50 hours' voluntary work by the age of 19 if Labour wins the next election. Gordon Brown said a plan for compulsory community service would be included in Labour's manifesto.

It was a crap idea then, and it's a crap idea now. It's supposed to instill some sort of mythical sense of community (Ms Mordaunt enthusiastically endorsed the blueprint in an article for the Telegraph, saying it would foster the 'goodwill and community spirit, energy and imagination' of teens.)
The best thing we could do for our young adults is give them some hope that they can get somewhere to live, get a job and that us oldies won't fuck everything up!

Giving young people opportunities to volunteer is a good thing. My two older children have both done voluntary work under the aegis of the brilliant DofE scheme and they've got a lot out of it as well as giving back to the community. Where I think it falls down is if young people are presented to an ageing electorate as a problem that needs fixing, and if some kind of poorly resourced mandatory scheme crowds out the excellent and worthwhile volunteering opportunities that already exist, while undermining the very concept of volunteering - that it should be voluntary. My view is that everyone of all ages should seek out volunteering opportunities, they can be very rewarding and a great way to connect with people.

Volunteering is great, but the Tory fascination wirh "National Service" has nowt to do with proper volunteering. They want it to bring discipline and a sense of patriotism. That isn't what modern young 'uns need.

I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).

Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.

...

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Penny Mordant wants the young of this country to do national service.

The Tories have given up. Get rid.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/apr/12/young-people-compulsory-voluntary-work-community-service

Every young person will have to do 50 hours' voluntary work by the age of 19 if Labour wins the next election. Gordon Brown said a plan for compulsory community service would be included in Labour's manifesto.

I would challenge the concept of compulsory voluntary work.

Actually to against the reflex people have had of rejecting this automatically, personally I had to do this while I was at school.

Instead of doing A Levels I studied the International Baccalaureate (as I was an ex pat living abroad intending to return to the UK).

To get a Baccalaureate as well as your six A Level equivalent subjects you study you have to do three further compulsory elements. An Extended Essay on any subject you choose, Theory of Knowledge (which is essentially Philosophy) and 150 hours of "CAS".

CAS is not graded unlike the other two elements and is a simple Boolean, if you haven't done it, you can't get your diploma. If you have, you can. It stands for Community, Action, Service. Over the two years of your Baccalaureate you need to do 50 hours of each.

How you choose to spend 50 hours in Action, or how you choose to do 50 hours of Service, or 50 hours for the Community is entirely up to you and entirely voluntary. But you must achieve all 50 in all 3 headings in order to graduate with your Baccalaureate.

A comparable thing many people do in this country is the Duke of Edinburgh award.

I don't think these things are bad ideas. Getting young people exposed to other things and not just pure academic studies is part of a well rounded education. And doing some of it voluntarily, like doing homework at home, helps too.

Almost all of my own CAS was stuff I wanted to do anyway, but structuring it such that my hours were registered and countersigned meant I had to think about it and be organised about it. And it did prompt some extra activities, which is not a bad thing.

rkrkrk said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Penny Mordant wants the young of this country to do national service.

The Tories have given up. Get rid.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/apr/12/young-people-compulsory-voluntary-work-community-service

Every young person will have to do 50 hours' voluntary work by the age of 19 if Labour wins the next election. Gordon Brown said a plan for compulsory community service would be included in Labour's manifesto.

It was a crap idea then, and it's a crap idea now. It's supposed to instill some sort of mythical sense of community (Ms Mordaunt enthusiastically endorsed the blueprint in an article for the Telegraph, saying it would foster the 'goodwill and community spirit, energy and imagination' of teens.)
The best thing we could do for our young adults is give them some hope that they can get somewhere to live, get a job and that us oldies won't fuck everything up!

Giving young people opportunities to volunteer is a good thing. My two older children have both done voluntary work under the aegis of the brilliant DofE scheme and they've got a lot out of it as well as giving back to the community. Where I think it falls down is if young people are presented to an ageing electorate as a problem that needs fixing, and if some kind of poorly resourced mandatory scheme crowds out the excellent and worthwhile volunteering opportunities that already exist, while undermining the very concept of volunteering - that it should be voluntary. My view is that everyone of all ages should seek out volunteering opportunities, they can be very rewarding and a great way to connect with people.

Volunteering is great, but the Tory fascination wirh "National Service" has nowt to do with proper volunteering. They want it to bring discipline and a sense of patriotism. That isn't what modern young 'uns need.

I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).

Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.

Indeed. It doesn’t need to be a left v right thing. People bemoan the lack of community in this country. Lack of social cohesion. Limited opportunities for young people to get involved in activities to aid in personal development and make them more invested their local areas.

Clearly politicians often try to fetishise this as a harking back to national service and duty and all the rest of it as a way to appeal to certain demographics. But strip away the branding and I can really get on board with these kinds of initiatives.

Scott_xP said:

rkrkrk said:

I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).

Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.

More by accident than design my Dad from Glasgow ended up in a squad with a bunch of lads from the South East of England.

Lifelong friends...

Better than being sexually harassed by a sergeant and eating pumpkins for the King in Malta, as my FiL did for a year in 1950.

Sir Lewis Hamilton and George Russell sign two year contract extensions at Mercedes.

CorrectHorseBat said:

David Lammy is an idiot then.

You've only just realised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

David Lammy is an idiot then.

You've only just realised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc

Anyone offering National Service is an absolute idiot and onto a vote loser. Young people don't want to be patronised any further, build some fucking houses.

algarkirk said:

bondegezou said:

algarkirk said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.

The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.

https://www.ft.com/content/96a37654-f8ea-46e3-a5ab-ca1d69dc5ea0

Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.

Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?

If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.

1) What are we currently spending money on?
2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)?
3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?

Anything other than that is really just details.

Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.

What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?

Here’s a list of current spending by department:


Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-may-2022/public-spending-statistics-may-2022

The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.

In the current culture there is a problem. We are borrowing £100 bn per annum even now. So that needs to be found. But there isn't a single area of interest where there isn't pressure for government to spend more, usually much more. The media, especially the BBC give a perpetual free and unchallenged ride to all and everyone who are calling for higher expenditure on everything under the sun.

To see the size of the £100 bn deficit, if we abolished all state managed expenditure on education entirely, it still would not cover it. So bits of tinkering will make no real difference.

The philosophy that the solution is always cut, cut, cut has gotten us to where we are today.

We pay less in tax than many other developed countries that enjoy higher standards of living than us. Let’s be more like them. Well-funded public services are a worthwhile investment.

The £100 billion gap (current borrowing) is £3,300 per year from 30 million tax payers. I am totally sympathetic to the tax rise solution but it needs turning into real figures for actual people and I don't have any politically workable suggestions.

Answers on a postcard.

And BTW in overall expenditure there have been no cuts, and never have been.

The problem is that we are now poor, and utterly in denial. 25 years of living beyond our means has run up a massive bill, and somehow it's going to have to be paid.
I'm not sure I can see how this is going to pan out, but the longer the issue is ignored, the worse it gets, and current all the major parties are doing bad impressions of ostriches...

CorrectHorseBat said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

David Lammy is an idiot then.

You've only just realised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc

Anyone offering National Service is an absolute idiot and onto a vote loser. Young people don't want to be patronised any further, build some fucking houses.

Don't think of it as National Service with any predetermined views on that. A different name for this should be used due to the horror of National Service in the past which is something completely different. And I'm 100% totally in favour of more house building, I've been pushing that for years.

Think of it as education, or opportunity. Is education a good thing? Is giving kids a well rounded education a good thing? Is giving kids opportunities a good thing.

For my own Communuty Action Service my school gave suggestions on things that could be done, and facilitated it for some things. Or I could pick entirely my own stuff.

Lots of kids do not get enough opportunities in life. Facilitating them having more opportunities is not a bad thing.

This should be something offered for young people, to help them, and to let them find their own path. Not something done to young people, like the abhorrent National Service of old

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

numbertwelve said:

Recently the number of changes have been absolutely atrocious and far dwarf anything Blair/Brown could be accused of

Richi's reshuffle problem is the pool of "talent" is sooooo shallow.

More a puddle.

And from that puddle, he only selects from those in the 'loyal to Rishi' section, which is more of a drip.

CorrectHorseBat said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

David Lammy is an idiot then.

You've only just realised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc

Anyone offering National Service is an absolute idiot and onto a vote loser. Young people don't want to be patronised any further, build some fucking houses.

Don't think of it as National Service with any predetermined views on that. A different name for this should be used due to the horror of National Service in the past which is something completely different. And I'm 100% totally in favour of more house building, I've been pushing that for years.

Think of it as education, or opportunity. Is education a good thing? Is giving kids a well rounded education a good thing? Is giving kids opportunities a good thing.

For my own Communuty Action Service my school gave suggestions on things that could be done, and facilitated it for some things. Or I could pick entirely my own stuff.

Lots of kids do not get enough opportunities in life. Facilitating them having more opportunities is not a bad thing.

This should be something offered for young people, to help them, and to let them find their own path. Not something done to young people, like the abhorrent National Service of old

If I had any confidence the Tories were not just doing this to distract I would consider it. But after 13 years of failure this is more not doing anything to actually help young people.

People like Lammy who have been pushing this for years are not doing so because of wanting to distract from Tory failure, or because they're Tories.

Take the Party Politics out of it. Is giving opportunities to young people a good thing? To me, it absolutely is. I'm grateful for the opportunities I had.

If it's done though, it should be done right. Not telling kids "you must do this".

The way the International Baccalaureate does it with Community Action Service is both remarkably simple and wonderful. It is something the UK can learn from.

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

Or do what I did and have a transitioned MTF surgeon. Not suggesting you should be copying her, that said.

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

As I keep pointing out, Government policy - actual policy - is to import between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people a year to increase growth and repress wages.

As migrants tend to be younger, the percentage of twentysomethings who are British nationals will decrease. If this cohort are conscripted, we will have a large group in the British armed forces who do not have British passports[1], and, when that group is discharged, their jobs will have been taken by the cohort of migrants that came in after them

In short this policy will create a large number of unemployed and poorer younger citizens with weapons training.

They didn't think this thru, did they...

[incidentally, has anybody noticed that we have just gotten used to incompetent and lying government like it was normal? Does anybody believe they will bring back national service or an analogue? Does anybody believe Grant Shapps will be competent? Does anybody believe they will stop the boats, or even try?]

Notes
[1] This is not necessarily weird, as Irish and Empire/Commonwealth citizens already do.

The Swiss experience seems to show that weapons training makes people more responsible with weapons, not less.

Oh, I'm sure they'll be responsible: good storage, trigger discipline, keep their guns clean and well-oiled etc. I'm just not sure what they'll use them for

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

As I keep pointing out, Government policy - actual policy - is to import between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people a year to increase growth and repress wages.

As migrants tend to be younger, the percentage of twentysomethings who are British nationals will decrease. If this cohort are conscripted, we will have a large group in the British armed forces who do not have British passports[1], and, when that group is discharged, their jobs will have been taken by the cohort of migrants that came in after them

In short this policy will create a large number of unemployed and poorer younger citizens with weapons training.

They didn't think this thru, did they...

[incidentally, has anybody noticed that we have just gotten used to incompetent and lying government like it was normal? Does anybody believe they will bring back national service or an analogue? Does anybody believe Grant Shapps will be competent? Does anybody believe they will stop the boats, or even try?]

Notes
[1] This is not necessarily weird, as Irish and Empire/Commonwealth citizens already do.

The Swiss experience seems to show that weapons training makes people more responsible with weapons, not less.

Oh, I'm sure they'll be responsible: good storage, trigger discipline, keep their guns clean and well-oiled etc. I'm just not sure what they'll use them for

The boys came back. Bands played and flags were flying,
And Yellow-Pressmen thronged the sunlit street
To cheer the soldiers who’d refrained from dying,
And hear the music of returning feet.
‘Of all the thrills and ardours War has brought,
This moment is the finest.’ (So they thought.)

Snapping their bayonets on to charge the mob,
Grim Fusiliers broke ranks with glint of steel,
At last the boys had found a cushy job.

I heard the Yellow-Pressmen grunt and squeal;
And with my trusty bombers turned and went
To clear those Junkers out of Parliament.

CorrectHorseBat said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

David Lammy is an idiot then.

You've only just realised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc

Anyone offering National Service is an absolute idiot and onto a vote loser. Young people don't want to be patronised any further, build some fucking houses.

Building some fucking houses may also help with the incel problem afflicting some of the youth.

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

The paper suggests lady sawbones are slower and more methodical, which is interesting as didn't we used to be told that faster surgery (shorter time under anaesthetic) was better? And possibly before that, that more painstaking surgeons were better?

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

As I keep pointing out, Government policy - actual policy - is to import between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people a year to increase growth and repress wages.

As migrants tend to be younger, the percentage of twentysomethings who are British nationals will decrease. If this cohort are conscripted, we will have a large group in the British armed forces who do not have British passports[1], and, when that group is discharged, their jobs will have been taken by the cohort of migrants that came in after them

In short this policy will create a large number of unemployed and poorer younger citizens with weapons training.

They didn't think this thru, did they...

[incidentally, has anybody noticed that we have just gotten used to incompetent and lying government like it was normal? Does anybody believe they will bring back national service or an analogue? Does anybody believe Grant Shapps will be competent? Does anybody believe they will stop the boats, or even try?]

Notes
[1] This is not necessarily weird, as Irish and Empire/Commonwealth citizens already do.

The Swiss experience seems to show that weapons training makes people more responsible with weapons, not less.

Oh, I'm sure they'll be responsible: good storage, trigger discipline, keep their guns clean and well-oiled etc. I'm just not sure what they'll use them for

Persimmon execs.

The idea of persuading young people to engage in community activities to make them more fully-rounded is hardly new. Indeed, there have been nearly as many such efforts over the last 40 years as there have been to improve the status of vocational education and training; and they have been similarly half-baked and unsuccessful.

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

David Lammy is an idiot then.

You've only just realised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc

Anyone offering National Service is an absolute idiot and onto a vote loser. Young people don't want to be patronised any further, build some fucking houses.

Don't think of it as National Service with any predetermined views on that. A different name for this should be used due to the horror of National Service in the past which is something completely different. And I'm 100% totally in favour of more house building, I've been pushing that for years.

Think of it as education, or opportunity. Is education a good thing? Is giving kids a well rounded education a good thing? Is giving kids opportunities a good thing.

For my own Communuty Action Service my school gave suggestions on things that could be done, and facilitated it for some things. Or I could pick entirely my own stuff.

Lots of kids do not get enough opportunities in life. Facilitating them having more opportunities is not a bad thing.

This should be something offered for young people, to help them, and to let them find their own path. Not something done to young people, like the abhorrent National Service of old

Schools should be doing that, as should parents.

But schools can't cope even with the core curriculum.

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

As I keep pointing out, Government policy - actual policy - is to import between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people a year to increase growth and repress wages.

As migrants tend to be younger, the percentage of twentysomethings who are British nationals will decrease. If this cohort are conscripted, we will have a large group in the British armed forces who do not have British passports[1], and, when that group is discharged, their jobs will have been taken by the cohort of migrants that came in after them

In short this policy will create a large number of unemployed and poorer younger citizens with weapons training.

They didn't think this thru, did they...

[incidentally, has anybody noticed that we have just gotten used to incompetent and lying government like it was normal? Does anybody believe they will bring back national service or an analogue? Does anybody believe Grant Shapps will be competent? Does anybody believe they will stop the boats, or even try?]

Notes
[1] This is not necessarily weird, as Irish and Empire/Commonwealth citizens already do.

The Swiss experience seems to show that weapons training makes people more responsible with weapons, not less.

Oh, I'm sure they'll be responsible: good storage, trigger discipline, keep their guns clean and well-oiled etc. I'm just not sure what they'll use them for

They'll use them for well-aimed, brief bursts, moving from firing spot to firing spot, and covering each other during moves.

National Service?

A suggestion which illustrates the failings of those who propose it.

Hugely expensive and probably not the best idea when the economy lacks labour in key areas.

Just another woeful showing by this undead Govt

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.

The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.

https://www.ft.com/content/96a37654-f8ea-46e3-a5ab-ca1d69dc5ea0

Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.

Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?

If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.

1) What are we currently spending money on?
2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)?
3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?

Anything other than that is really just details.

Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.

What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?

Here’s a list of current spending by department:


Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-may-2022/public-spending-statistics-may-2022

The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.

Extend NI to all income. Sorted.

Yes, I’d merge employee NI into income tax, which both simplifies the system and brings unearned income into scope. You could make it revenue-positive while cutting the ‘basic rate’ for most full-time employees and raising the basic rate threshold.

The legislation would be complex though, needing to calculate future entitlements from income tax rather than NI contributions, which is why it’s been in the ‘too-difficult’ box for so long.

I really don't get the difficulty with future entitlement calculation. E.g. qualifying years = qualifying NI years pre-2025 + qualifying ICT years post 2024. If you're paying any ICT in a year you're earning as much as the NI qualification.

We are already able to add in National Insurance credits for those who receive UC, JSA, ESA, Child Benefit or Carer’s Allowance.

The bigger challenge is the shock to those who have been used to preferential tax rates on unearned income (Malcom will burst a blood vessel). That shock* can be overcome by making the change gradually over several years - reduce employee's NI by 2% and increase ICT basic rate by 2% each year for 6 years.

(*Though I suspect nothing will mitigate Malc's apoplexy.)

Won't happen under Tory gerontophilia.

Look at the cutoff for *upper* levels of NI Class 1. Imagine the shock from smoothing out what would otherwise be a massive anomaly at roughly 50K pa annual income.

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Ah, I see, thank you. Serves me right for not reading past the Grauniad

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno

In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE

How hard is that?

Leon said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno

In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE

How hard is that?

Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.

The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.

https://www.ft.com/content/96a37654-f8ea-46e3-a5ab-ca1d69dc5ea0

Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.

Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?

If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.

1) What are we currently spending money on?
2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)?
3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?

Anything other than that is really just details.

Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.

What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?

Here’s a list of current spending by department:


Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-may-2022/public-spending-statistics-may-2022

The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.

Extend NI to all income. Sorted.

Yes, I’d merge employee NI into income tax, which both simplifies the system and brings unearned income into scope. You could make it revenue-positive while cutting the ‘basic rate’ for most full-time employees and raising the basic rate threshold.

The legislation would be complex though, needing to calculate future entitlements from income tax rather than NI contributions, which is why it’s been in the ‘too-difficult’ box for so long.

I really don't get the difficulty with future entitlement calculation. E.g. qualifying years = qualifying NI years pre-2025 + qualifying ICT years post 2024. If you're paying any ICT in a year you're earning as much as the NI qualification.

We are already able to add in National Insurance credits for those who receive UC, JSA, ESA, Child Benefit or Carer’s Allowance.

The bigger challenge is the shock to those who have been used to preferential tax rates on unearned income (Malcom will burst a blood vessel). That shock* can be overcome by making the change gradually over several years - reduce employee's NI by 2% and increase ICT basic rate by 2% each year for 6 years.

(*Though I suspect nothing will mitigate Malc's apoplexy.)

Won't happen under Tory gerontophilia.

Look at the cutoff for *upper* levels of NI Class 1. Imagine the shock from smoothing out what would otherwise be a massive anomaly at roughly 50K pa annual income.

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay

It is not Tory gerontophilia. The state pension is £200 a week and no-one is helicoptering to Loch Lomond on that. No, it is simpler than that. Conservatives favour the better-off, hence higher rate tax relief on pension contributions and child benefit up to £100,000.

Rugby - as we know it - is finished. This guy is right:

"Neuropathologist and former World Rugby adviser Prof Willie Stewart told the Associated Press: "I think this World Cup is the end of rugby as we know it.

"I think the current form of rugby union as it is played will change straight after the World Cup.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66662278

Kinda sad, but also kinda inevitable. It is hideously brutal, now. Huge players slamming into each other. Fun to watch, but relentlessly damaging. If I had sons rather than daughters I would not allow them to play rugby, if I had the choice

What will rugby evolve into, God knows. Something like rugby sevens? Rugby league with even less impact?

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno

In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE

How hard is that?

Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.

No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better

That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled

Call me Vixen please!

Vixen. cool name

I believe I have actually encountered a few Vixens, in the shady kink-world of Fetlife, usually indicates a switchy pet-player, perhaps with brat tendencies

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0413-5

Interesting (and more convincing), thank you. I'm not sure it was formally a Cochrane review, but it observed the form so that's good.

There’s no magic to being a Cochrane review. The last thing Archie Cochrane would have wanted is for his name to become a special marker of quality.

I agree with you, and yet again it raises the thorny point of qualitative assessment: how does one assess the quality of a review? Given the rising number of systematic reviews and metastudies, we need a way to distinguish between the good, the bad, and the impostors.

IIUC (I may not!) a formal Cochrane review has to register, whereas an informal one may observe the form but not register. Happy to be contradicted on this if wrong.

I think there’s a limit to checklist assessments and, ultimately, you just need to have some subject knowledge and dig into the details of the methods of the review, as with any study. That said, standards like PRISMA are useful.

Cochrane reviews have to register and go through a particularly thorough procedure and are then published through Cochrane. I don’t think it’s meaningful to talk about an informal Cochrane review. It’s just not a Cochrane review. You can’t separate the Cochrane process from the Cochrane bureaucracy.

In the section "Methods" the study in question has this sentence "We used guidance published by PRISMA [10] and Cochrane [11] to guide our methodology", where [11] refers to the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

So the question I'm asking is: did they register with Cochrane, or did they just use the methods? This isn't me being a dick (that comes for free ) but it illustrates the difficulty

The foxes have taken over the chicken coup according to Compass

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

RochdalePioneers said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A long but worthwhile read from the brilliant Jennifer Williams in the FT. I went to college in Oldham so know the town well. To read so many problems at a big high school is disheartening.

The Tories have absolutely broken the ability of so many families to get by, and also broken the budgets of the schools who are left to pick up the pieces.

https://www.ft.com/content/96a37654-f8ea-46e3-a5ab-ca1d69dc5ea0

Christ, that is a tough read, it left me in tears. The Tories have utterly broken this country, and unforgivably they have ensured that children, and especially poor children, have borne the brunt of it. I find it hard to control my anger at them sometimes.

Is this really the country we want? The society we believe to be just? I know PB Tories and their fellow travellers excuse almost everything, but is this what we have been reduced to? For what other benefit?

If we remove the (often) justified anger, then there's four simple questions which the politicans of all sides need to ask.

1) What are we currently spending money on?
2) What could we spend more money or or less on to make the changes which people want (and what are those changes)?
3) How can we increase the money to make the gap from 1 to 2?

Anything other than that is really just details.

Given that there appears to be little appetite for tax rises (except for the idea of raising mythical billions from the top 1%), and the books are still a long way from balancing, the conversation really needs to be around the scope of government.

What does government do currently, that it could stop doing without too many adverse effects?

Here’s a list of current spending by department:


Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-may-2022/public-spending-statistics-may-2022

The obvious standout figures are £20bn on ‘Energy Security and Net Zero’, £10bn on “Science, Innovation and Technology”, and nearly £10bn on the Foreign Office. DWP also spends £8.5bn on its own admin, and HMRC £6.5bn, which suggests that reducing complexity in the tax and benefits system could lead to savings there.

Extend NI to all income. Sorted.

Yes, I’d merge employee NI into income tax, which both simplifies the system and brings unearned income into scope. You could make it revenue-positive while cutting the ‘basic rate’ for most full-time employees and raising the basic rate threshold.

The legislation would be complex though, needing to calculate future entitlements from income tax rather than NI contributions, which is why it’s been in the ‘too-difficult’ box for so long.

I really don't get the difficulty with future entitlement calculation. E.g. qualifying years = qualifying NI years pre-2025 + qualifying ICT years post 2024. If you're paying any ICT in a year you're earning as much as the NI qualification.

We are already able to add in National Insurance credits for those who receive UC, JSA, ESA, Child Benefit or Carer’s Allowance.

The bigger challenge is the shock to those who have been used to preferential tax rates on unearned income (Malcom will burst a blood vessel). That shock* can be overcome by making the change gradually over several years - reduce employee's NI by 2% and increase ICT basic rate by 2% each year for 6 years.

(*Though I suspect nothing will mitigate Malc's apoplexy.)

Won't happen under Tory gerontophilia.

Look at the cutoff for *upper* levels of NI Class 1. Imagine the shock from smoothing out what would otherwise be a massive anomaly at roughly 50K pa annual income.

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay

It is not Tory gerontophilia. The state pension is £200 a week and no-one is helicoptering to Loch Lomond on that. No, it is simpler than that. Conservatives favour the better-off, hence higher rate tax relief on pension contributions and child benefit up to £100,000.

Sure. But the NI thing affects rich and old Tory-loving folk. 2% NI on income above 50K or so becomes a markedly larger chunk of income tax once the two are merged.

CorrectHorseBat said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

David Lammy is an idiot then.

You've only just realised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc

Anyone offering National Service is an absolute idiot and onto a vote loser. Young people don't want to be patronised any further, build some fucking houses.

National Housebuilding Service.
Everyone satisfied ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

UBS has posted the biggest ever quarterly profit by a bank after an accounting gain following its emergency takeover of Credit Suisse propelled pre-tax earnings to $29 billion.

The huge gain underscores the cut-price nature of the state-orchestrated rescue deal that UBS agreed in March.

The Swiss bank bought its stricken rival for $3.8 billion in a hastily arranged transaction that was brokered by the authorities as fears mounted that Credit Suisse was poised to collapse.

This knockdown price has now resulted in a one-off accounting boost, known as “negative goodwill”, for UBS because it bought Credit Suisse for significantly less than its fair value.

The bank announced the record profit in its second-quarter results, when it also revealed it expected to cut about 3,000 jobs in Switzerland as a result of the deal in the coming years. Thousands more are expected to be lost around the world, including in the City of London, as Sergio Ermotti, the UBS boss, embarks on the complex and risky task of integrating Credit Suisse, the rescue of which has created a sprawling banking giant employing about 120,000 people.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ubs-posts-record-breaking-29bn-profit-after-credit-suisse-rescue-rkx82nmt5

Where do the Swiss go when this one implodes?

Leon said:

Rugby - as we know it - is finished. This guy is right:

"Neuropathologist and former World Rugby adviser Prof Willie Stewart told the Associated Press: "I think this World Cup is the end of rugby as we know it.

"I think the current form of rugby union as it is played will change straight after the World Cup.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66662278

Kinda sad, but also kinda inevitable. It is hideously brutal, now. Huge players slamming into each other. Fun to watch, but relentlessly damaging. If I had sons rather than daughters I would not allow them to play rugby, if I had the choice

What will rugby evolve into, God knows. Something like rugby sevens? Rugby league with even less impact?

England substantially ahead of the curve on the end of rugby thing.

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno

In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE

How hard is that?

Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.

No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better

That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled

You're very silly today.

Leon said:

Rugby - as we know it - is finished. This guy is right:

"Neuropathologist and former World Rugby adviser Prof Willie Stewart told the Associated Press: "I think this World Cup is the end of rugby as we know it.

"I think the current form of rugby union as it is played will change straight after the World Cup.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66662278

Kinda sad, but also kinda inevitable. It is hideously brutal, now. Huge players slamming into each other. Fun to watch, but relentlessly damaging. If I had sons rather than daughters I would not allow them to play rugby, if I had the choice

What will rugby evolve into, God knows. Something like rugby sevens? Rugby league with even less impact?

Can't players decide for themselves whether they want to take the risk of playing rugby?

viewcode said:

As I keep pointing out, Government policy - actual policy - is to import between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people a year to increase growth and repress wages.

As migrants tend to be younger, the percentage of twentysomethings who are British nationals will decrease. If this cohort are conscripted, we will have a large group in the British armed forces who do not have British passports[1], and, when that group is discharged, their jobs will have been taken by the cohort of migrants that came in after them

In short this policy will create a large number of unemployed and poorer younger citizens with weapons training.

They didn't think this thru, did they...

[incidentally, has anybody noticed that we have just gotten used to incompetent and lying government like it was normal? Does anybody believe they will bring back national service or an analogue? Does anybody believe Grant Shapps will be competent? Does anybody believe they will stop the boats, or even try?]

Notes
[1] This is not necessarily weird, as Irish and Empire/Commonwealth citizens already do.

I'm still reeling from Sunak appointing Grant "Slimier than Gollum" Shapps to that position. Is there anyone in Government (except Boris, who has been defenestrated) with such a record of cynical .

Any of the Departmental Ministers would have been better. One can have a go at Mr Wallace, however he has made the big calls more or less correctly.

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno

In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE

How hard is that?

Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.

No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better

That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled

You're very silly today.

But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women

Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno

In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE

How hard is that?

Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.

No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better

That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled

You're very silly today.

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

coughcougcoughconfounderscoughcough

From memory, there is a famous apocryphal story about differential recruitment to Harvard. It was pointed out that women found it harder to gain entry. On closer examination it was found that this bias vanished when subject was taken into account, as women weren't applying for the obscure subjects with higher acceptance rates

Two obvious points

• The current cohort of female surgeons making their way thru the profession are younger than the previous (male-dominated) cohort, and it is this latter older group that do the more complex ops with higher failure rates
  
• I don't know if this bit is true, but if female surgeons pick different specialties than male surgeons, and those specialties have different failure rates, then that may explain
  

No, it was adjusted for patient and procedure related factors:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808894

Surely the interesting point is, trans WOMEN doctors are better than man doctors, because trans women are women, as any fule kno

In that case, all you have to do, @Foxy, is put on a dress and say "I am a woman", then you are indeed a woman, and you will be a better doctor ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE

How hard is that?

Truly Molesworthian logic there as all on PB sa.

No, it's magic. If you're a guy doctor like Foxy, you literally just put on a dress, call yourself Foxella, and you become a better doctor. Because trans women are women, and women doctors are better

That is the truth, and if you dispute it you will be cancelled

You're very silly today.

But it is the absolute logic of trans rights married to @Foxy's evidence of female superiority. IF women doctors are better, just put on your bra and say you're a woman, Bingo. NigellaB MD. You are now probably a better doctor, because trans women are women

Unless, of course, you dispute the assertion that trans women are women, but that gets you ejected from society

You change the cohort, and therefore the statistics.

The ground difference remains, but the numbers have changed, slightly.

There's no paradox here, however much you like to bring your obsession with trans people into every discussion.

Foxy said:

Scott_xP said:

rkrkrk said:

I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).

Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.

More by accident than design my Dad from Glasgow ended up in a squad with a bunch of lads from the South East of England.

Lifelong friends...

Better than being sexually harassed by a sergeant and eating pumpkins for the King in Malta, as my FiL did for a year in 1950.

Why did the King need help eating pumpkins?

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Scott_xP said:

rkrkrk said:

I think David Lammy is quite keen on some variant of this idea... to bring a better sense of national unity (teenagers from Buxton meet teenagers from Brixton kinda thing).

Genuinely I can see positives to this if done well. Probably not cheap though.

More by accident than design my Dad from Glasgow ended up in a squad with a bunch of lads from the South East of England.

Lifelong friends...

Better than being sexually harassed by a sergeant and eating pumpkins for the King in Malta, as my FiL did for a year in 1950.

Why did the King need help eating pumpkins?

And who was the King in Malta?

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Rugby - as we know it - is finished. This guy is right:

"Neuropathologist and former World Rugby adviser Prof Willie Stewart told the Associated Press: "I think this World Cup is the end of rugby as we know it.

"I think the current form of rugby union as it is played will change straight after the World Cup.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66662278

Kinda sad, but also kinda inevitable. It is hideously brutal, now. Huge players slamming into each other. Fun to watch, but relentlessly damaging. If I had sons rather than daughters I would not allow them to play rugby, if I had the choice

What will rugby evolve into, God knows. Something like rugby sevens? Rugby league with even less impact?

Can't players decide for themselves whether they want to take the risk of playing rugby?

Should we incentivise people to destroy their bodies and minds for our entertainment? Is it a fair and informed choice?

Stopping them juicing like mad might help.

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

Foxy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/female-surgeons-patient-outcomes-better-studies

Time for us guys to retire...

I expect part of the better results for women surgeons is from better behaviour and communication with the operating theatre staff.

Time for positive discrimination.

Or simply pick who is best for the job.

That's thinking for a different age.

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

UBS has posted the biggest ever quarterly profit by a bank after an accounting gain following its emergency takeover of Credit Suisse propelled pre-tax earnings to $29 billion.

The huge gain underscores the cut-price nature of the state-orchestrated rescue deal that UBS agreed in March.

The Swiss bank bought its stricken rival for $3.8 billion in a hastily arranged transaction that was brokered by the authorities as fears mounted that Credit Suisse was poised to collapse.

This knockdown price has now resulted in a one-off accounting boost, known as “negative goodwill”, for UBS because it bought Credit Suisse for significantly less than its fair value.

The bank announced the record profit in its second-quarter results, when it also revealed it expected to cut about 3,000 jobs in Switzerland as a result of the deal in the coming years. Thousands more are expected to be lost around the world, including in the City of London, as Sergio Ermotti, the UBS boss, embarks on the complex and risky task of integrating Credit Suisse, the rescue of which has created a sprawling banking giant employing about 120,000 people.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ubs-posts-record-breaking-29bn-profit-after-credit-suisse-rescue-rkx82nmt5

The Vampire Squid sticks its blood-funnel into another victim.

Your attack on hard working bankers is wholly unwarranted.