news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Neil said:

thanks,  thats got some identifiable  causes of cancer  that might be said to be caused by deprived circumstances smoking and diet,  but there's fewer solid reasons for a stroke  in the same way as "smoking = lung cancer".

smoking is recognised as a cause of strokes, but with a less strong link than for cancer. strokes cant really be put down to poverty because they cant be out down to any cause that can then be linked (or not) to poverty.

 

mine was blamed on an existing blood clot, which might be blamed on  diet - me eating a lot of takeaways (but you need money and not poverty for takeaways) and it might be blamed on smoking, but those sorts of reasons don't work for a healthy living type like Michael johnson.

(i understand there's a few things that can be done to lessen the incidents of stroke mostly oldies taking cheap drugs  (blood thinners and statins) every day. the severity of the disability is down to how quickly unclotting_treatment can be started, and the nhs is rolling out improved treatment pathways  (dedicated stroke entrance at a&e / etc )to deal with that.

Socioeconomic disparities in first stroke incidence, quality of care, and survival: a nationwide registry-based cohort study of 44 million adults in England (thelancet.com)

🙂

[Neil]

30 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I watched some of that Starmer resolution foundation speech thingy...it was all turbo charging growth and new deals. He was asked about the 28bill thing a few times and reiterated the commitment to ramp up to that level of investment in 2nd half of parliament as long as meets fiscal rules (bet they regret the 28bill number now), he didn't say they would cut spending and that labour always invests in public services, but did talk about reform an not just throwing money at it etc., and that what he meant to say in that Telegraph article was that Thatcher was actually a massive c**t which got a standing ovation.

if labour are going to stretch the borrowing rules they should do it to build houses that's a win from all angles - improved assets / self funding when the houses are sold / fixing the housing crisis.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

has to be set low cos the immigrants we want to attract are care workers - which are low paid, with a high bar there's a risk of all the good jobs going to immigrants.

 

Labour market requirements are driving these migration numbers (as well as students/ukraine/HK)....and for a variety of reasons there's been a massive demand for immigrants to fill labour gaps in health/social care...maybe instead of castigating them someone needs to be honest with the public...because I swear to god a lot of people think they're all coming over on little boats from Rwanda and we need to send them back.

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Socioeconomic disparities in first stroke incidence, quality of care, and survival: a nationwide registry-based cohort study of 44 million adults in England (thelancet.com)

🙂

thanks i'll have a proper read of that later . one factor with a huge influence on outcomes will be if the person lives alone or not - otherwise it could be a long while until they get treatment cos the ability to call for help is diminished.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I watched some of that Starmer resolution foundation speech thingy...it was all turbo charging growth and new deals. He was asked about the 28bill thing a few times and reiterated the commitment to ramp up to that level of investment in 2nd half of parliament as long as meets fiscal rules (bet they regret the 28bill number now), he didn't say they would cut spending and that labour always invests in public services, but did talk about reform an not just throwing money at it etc., and that what he meant to say in that Telegraph article was that Thatcher was actually a massive c**t which got a standing ovation.

I haven’t watched it yet but at the end in the Q&A does he rubbish the idea of cuts/austerity?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

I haven’t watched it yet but at the end in the Q&A does he rubbish the idea of cuts/austerity?

bit vague, but kind of...said Labour always invests in public services....but in speech he does rule out increases in public spending...which would currently mean real term cuts in spending on unprotected departments I think.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

bit vague, but kind of...said Labour always invests in public services....but in speech he does rule out increases in public spending...which would currently mean real term cuts in spending on unprotected departments I think.

actually that isn't exactly true...what he did say was:

Now – I don’t think any of you expect me to announce Labour’s spending envelope on this stage, today.

And I won’t.

Nonetheless, it’s already clear that the decisions the government are taking, not to mention their record over the past 13 years, will constrain what a future Labour government can do.

...

The path to public service investment and keeping taxes competitive.

It will be a hard road to walk – no doubt about it.

Anyone who expects an incoming Labour government to quickly turn on the spending taps, is going to be disappointed.

 

[steviewevie]

he then is asked about this by a journalist and says

We are a party that always invests in public services.

...

..he is a big believer in public services. But public services do need reform

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

bit vague, but kind of...said Labour always invests in public services....but in speech he does rule out increases in public spending...which would currently mean real term cuts in spending on unprotected departments I think.

Just posted the clip he said he’s not in the business of cutting public services which seems clear to me.

[steviewevie]

Can see Cleverly is turning into a twat as all home office ministers do. Saying enough is enough on immigration numbers as if his govt has nothing to do with it, teaching those horrid immigrants coming over here to work in our health services a lesson by not allowing them to bring family, and at that min wage thing will just backfire and not work. All just to try and win an election (or not lose by a massive landslide). Twat.

[steviewevie]

44 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

yeah, there you go...no explicit cuts hopefully...but as things stand unprotected departments like local government will face real term cuts after Hunt's NI cut thing...so have to see what Labour does about that.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

The numbers are forecast to come down to 200k/300k anyway, this is pure politics bullshit like Sunak's halving inflation shite, but a lot more cruel.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, there you go...no explicit cuts hopefully...but as things stand unprotected departments like local government will face real term cuts after Hunt's NI cut thing...so have to see what Labour does about that.

Yesterday the story was Labour not spending and now magically today it’s moved to Labour cutting spending further. This is what Labour have to deal with from the media and it’s why they are how they are. 

[lost]

42 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The numbers are forecast to come down to 200k/300k anyway, this is pure politics bullshit like Sunak's halving inflation shite, but a lot more cruel.

Seems to be a policy both parties are targetting. Get as many of the 5m or so on benefits into to work so the country doesn't have to rely so much on immigration:

 

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, lost said:

Seems to be a policy both parties are targetting. Get as many of the 5m or so on benefits into to work so the country doesn't have to rely so much on immigration:

 

Oi, stop complaining about your back and get back to work so we don't have those horrid johnny foreigners coming over here.

[steviewevie]

21 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yesterday the story was Labour not spending and now magically today it’s moved to Labour cutting spending further. This is what Labour have to deal with from the media and it’s why they are how they are. 

he hasn't ruled out the cuts that non protected departments will face in next parilament after Hunt's mini budget.

[steviewevie]

 

13 minutes ago, lost said:

Seems to be a policy both parties are targetting. Get as many of the 5m or so on benefits into to work so the country doesn't have to rely so much on immigration:

 

anyway, it mostly about trying to stop people bringing their families...what a lovely policy. Will also affect british workers with foreign nationality partners/families, but that's their tough sh*t for not buying british I guess.

Edited December 4, 2023 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

can't bring your family...that will teach them....coming over here...wiping our arses...

[steviewevie]

Only wealthy people can marry a foreigner now. Better tell my foreign missus she has to go.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

he hasn't ruled out the cuts that non protected departments will face in next parilament after Hunt's mini budget.

Why are the media now talking about spending cuts when that hasn’t been a narrative at all up till now?

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Why are the media now talking about spending cuts when that hasn’t been a narrative at all up till now?

There are going to be spending cuts in next parliament...unless Labour reverses them.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

There are going to be spending cuts in next parliament...unless Labour reverses them.

Fair enough. Imagine if Starmer had said they would spend, the media would jump on that too. They can’t win either way.