Also in the News - Part 2

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

 

Various stats based on inflation-adjusted figures.  General public spending significantly up, even allowing for the 11% increase in population since 2005.

 

I agree that the government is entirely unable to manage funds properly, but remember there are only 25 or so in the cabinet, and there is a lot of work involved.  If the powers that be are spending more and achieving less, the primary reason is because the civil Service aren't able to do the job as efficiently as they used to, and the secondary reason is that the ministers are (for whatever reason) unable to sack those among the useless civil service leaders who aren't doing a good job.  It has never been government policy, on either side of the divide, to spend more for less.  Unfortunately, that has frequently been government practice.

I see no mention of figures being inflation-adjusted here, but rather raw numbers. Could you clarify?

 

The spending as a proportion of GDP seems to be high right now - higher than twenty years ago, certainly - but not historically so.

 

I still honestly cannot see why essential services such as utilities, mass transportation, education and healthcare should be left to the vagaries of the market rather than government, as even if they can manage such funds for such projects better in terms of fiscal efficiency (a good question in of itself), that's hardly the most important arbiter of success when it comes to such services anyway.

[Foxdiamond]

25 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

 

Various stats based on inflation-adjusted figures.  General public spending significantly up, even allowing for the 11% increase in population since 2005.

 

I agree that the government is entirely unable to manage funds properly, but remember there are only 25 or so in the cabinet, and there is a lot of work involved.  If the powers that be are spending more and achieving less, the primary reason is because the civil Service aren't able to do the job as efficiently as they used to, and the secondary reason is that the ministers are (for whatever reason) unable to sack those among the useless civil service leaders who aren't doing a good job.  It has never been government policy, on either side of the divide, to spend more for less.  Unfortunately, that has frequently been government practice.

There are plenty of articles that refer to real cuts to public services.  

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

J.K.Rowling, GermaIne Greer, and Martrina Navratilova are among the people who have been ostracised and abused for their comments about the trans issue.  They aren't all true blue Tories, and they weren't abused by means of respectful debate.

 

This has to be a "culture war" topic.  A significantly large group of people is telling teenagers and younger that they are responsible enough to make severe chemical and physical changes to their bodies, at an age far below where they are allowed to smoke or get tattoos.  Men are playing women's sports and therefore ruining the game for women.  Women's refuges are being made open to men as well.  It's a big, vital issue, and it is inaccurate to say it affects only a few people, and it is inappropriate to say these activists should be allowed to get all their own way without opposition.

It isn't a big, vital issue. Certainly not for you or I.

 

It's an issue that affects a tiny proportion of people. 

 

Questions about women only spaces need to be discussed and determined by women, not shouty men, which unfortunately make up about 98% of those being noisy about the issue.

 

Sports associations make up their own rules and there are only handfuls of cases where they've made the types of decisions you're talking about, before realising those decisions might not be helpful. Again, those small numbers of outlier decisions are being seized upon by shouty men as evidence of massive problems in society.

 

It's an issue that requires sensitivity and calm discussion, particularly listening to those most affected, not shouty opinions by other people, which unfortunately is what we mostly see. 

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, Dunge said:

Are you sure you have the right link there? The question of how and whether to treat Under 18s with medication feels to me like a really significant question in this - which I appreciate you’re looking to answer, but the study in that link is for adults, and explicitly mentions preventing two individuals from partaking because they were underage.

 

I’m not even sure what the laws and ethics are on doing this sort of trial for U18s, mind.

 

But one of the pro-trans arguments I’m going to need a lot of convincing on is the suggestion that stopping trans-identifying minors from going through puberty is a good idea.

The study is about the efficacy of cross sex hormones as an intervention for gender dysphoria. The ethics of u18 RCTs is a minefield and is why a lot of medications used in paediatric populations are technically prescribed off label for kids, because the trials and licensing is for adult populations.

 

Stop trans kids going through puberty was a compromise. I see no good argument that cross sex hormones should not be available younger and allow trans kids to develop concurrently with their cis peers. What we can safely say is that forcing trans kids through the puberty of their assigned at birth gender is not a neutral act and actively causes harm. The previous link is, to my knowledge, the only RCT on transitional care, which is important because a lot of antitrans activists cite "low quality evidence" as an argument against the care, relying on the difference between the research meaning and the general public understanding of that phrase, but if you want to do the reading, the What We Know project by Cornell is a very good starting point to understand the overall status: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/

 

Gender transition improves well-being in trans people and familial acceptance massively improves mental health outcomes in LGBT+ children

 

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is your opinion. it is not a fact. The current NHS stance on this is as follows:

 

"Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair. Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria."

 

"Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

 

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones. These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as: breast development (caused by taking oestrogen) breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone). Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility."

 

So it is not even accepted by our own health services that puberty blockers are reversible. What's more, puberty blockers very often lead to teenagers later being given sex hormones, some of the effects of which are definitely not reversible.

 

 

 

 

This would fall under the political pressure I mentioned... The posology and pharmacology remains the same, the reason to treat precocious puberty and gender dysphoria as not possible to read across is not over medical differences.

 

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Huge amount of prejudice there.

 

Can you link to the Daily Telegraph articles about raped women please?  I read the Telegraph and I have obviously missed those articles.  

Had my right wing rags mixed up, the victim blaming screed was actually in the times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/telling-women-how-to-cut-the-risk-of-rape-is-anything-but-sexist-s5kskj82v

[Footballwipe]

There's a lot of back and forth on this topic and I have no desire to get involved in it.

 

However, I've seen teachers mentioned a couple of times and I have to say this is yet another example of where teachers can and probably will be criticised on the trans debate by either side when they have been given no formal training or have any experience in this field professionally.

 

They're inevitably going to come under huge pressure to be part of the education of young people on this topic and it will not end well. In an era where we're expecting teachers to do even more of a parent's job and bring their kids up for them, this is another critical issue that needs more than just lumping it on teachers shoulders.

 

Unfortunately, as you can see from the last few pages, no-one comes into the trans debate unbiased or without a view, and the majority of those are strong. Minds aren't going to be changed and there will be a lot of collateral damage whilst the shouty shouty goes on and on.

[Wymsey]

Is that some sort of security metal object inside one of King Charles' socks?..

 

 

Edited 8 September 2023 by Wymsey

[Zear0]

34 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Is that some sort of security metal object inside one of King Charles' socks?..

 

 

They carry a knife (Sgian Dubh) in their socks. Broken Britain...

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

 

Various stats based on inflation-adjusted figures.  General public spending significantly up, even allowing for the 11% increase in population since 2005.

 

I agree that the government is entirely unable to manage funds properly, but remember there are only 25 or so in the cabinet, and there is a lot of work involved.  If the powers that be are spending more and achieving less, the primary reason is because the civil Service aren't able to do the job as efficiently as they used to, and the secondary reason is that the ministers are (for whatever reason) unable to sack those among the useless civil service leaders who aren't doing a good job.  It has never been government policy, on either side of the divide, to spend more for less.  Unfortunately, that has frequently been government practice.

You've managed to reach strong opinions without any understanding of what you're talking about. 

 

For example, NHS spend, pre-COVID, up 1.8% in real terms across a decade. Population growth around 7%. Old age population growth around double that. Numbers receiving complex care grown significantly. Numbers requiring cancer treatment grown significantly. Social care in disarray (due to cuts elsewhere) so hospitals can't release patients. So spend up a tiny bit, demand up a huge amount.

The NHS has actually shown greater efficiency improvements across that time than any other organisation or part of the economy. 

 

And the NHS has been the best funded department in that decade. Others such as local government have seen huge slashes to their budgets, despite having more service requirements than before. 

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Is that some sort of security metal object inside one of King Charles' socks?..

 

 

That's a small decorative dagger called a Sgian Dubh, part of Scottish national dress. I wouldn't call it a security object. Used to be that it and other concealed knives were sharp enough to use as a defensive weapon but nowadays they're for show and blunt af

[Wymsey]

Very similar in appearance..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-66756965

 

[dsr-burnley]

6 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

You've managed to reach strong opinions without any understanding of what you're talking about. 

 

For example, NHS spend, pre-COVID, up 1.8% in real terms across a decade. Population growth around 7%. Old age population growth around double that. Numbers receiving complex care grown significantly. Numbers requiring cancer treatment grown significantly. Social care in disarray (due to cuts elsewhere) so hospitals can't release patients. So spend up a tiny bit, demand up a huge amount.

The NHS has actually shown greater efficiency improvements across that time than any other organisation or part of the economy. 

 

And the NHS has been the best funded department in that decade. Others such as local government have seen huge slashes to their budgets, despite having more service requirements than before. 

I understand what I'm talking about but my statistics are wildly different from yours on NHS spending.  We're using different sets of numbers, obviously.  Perhaps you could link to where yours are coming from.

  

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

This page is the one I originally posted, and shows real term trend health spending rising from about 150b in 2013-14 to about 170b in the last pre-covid year, 2019-20. (Fourth graph down.)

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget#:~:text=Planned spending for the Department,for spending on health services.

This page is the King's Fund analysis of Treasury data for NHS England and it shows a rise from (real terms, rebased to 2023) 115.5b in 2013-14 to 152.6b in 2022-23.

 

Either way, it's vastly more than 1.8%.  

[dsr-burnley]

10 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

It isn't a big, vital issue. Certainly not for you or I.

 

It's an issue that affects a tiny proportion of people. 

 

Questions about women only spaces need to be discussed and determined by women, not shouty men, which unfortunately make up about 98% of those being noisy about the issue.

 

Sports associations make up their own rules and there are only handfuls of cases where they've made the types of decisions you're talking about, before realising those decisions might not be helpful. Again, those small numbers of outlier decisions are being seized upon by shouty men as evidence of massive problems in society.

 

It's an issue that requires sensitivity and calm discussion, particularly listening to those most affected, not shouty opinions by other people, which unfortunately is what we mostly see. 

What children are being taught is a big issue.  Obviously it's a school of thought that if they have any dislike of the way they are made, they can change it via operations or drugs - whether it be gender, or size of breasts, or facial features, or height or weight.  There are physical or chemical ways to treat all of those things.  But to say that it's not a big issue that children can be taught any old stuff and nobody should care?  I disagree.

[dsr-burnley]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I see no mention of figures being inflation-adjusted here, but rather raw numbers. Could you clarify?

 

 

 

The fourth graph down is the clearest.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

What children are being taught is a big issue.  Obviously it's a school of thought that if they have any dislike of the way they are made, they can change it via operations or drugs - whether it be gender, or size of breasts, or facial features, or height or weight.  There are physical or chemical ways to treat all of those things.  But to say that it's not a big issue that children can be taught any old stuff and nobody should care?  I disagree.

But that isn't what they're being taught. That's what you've imagined they're being taught.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I understand what I'm talking about but my statistics are wildly different from yours on NHS spending.  We're using different sets of numbers, obviously.  Perhaps you could link to where yours are coming from.

  

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

This page is the one I originally posted, and shows real term trend health spending rising from about 150b in 2013-14 to about 170b in the last pre-covid year, 2019-20. (Fourth graph down.)

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget#:~:text=Planned spending for the Department,for spending on health services.

This page is the King's Fund analysis of Treasury data for NHS England and it shows a rise from (real terms, rebased to 2023) 115.5b in 2013-14 to 152.6b in 2022-23.

 

Either way, it's vastly more than 1.8%.  

Since its creation, NHS spending has increased by an average of 3.7 per cent per year in real terms. But from 2010/11 to 2018/19, NHS funding growth slowed to 1.4 per cent per year (I misquoted 1.8%).

 

The change in these years was from £130.2bn to £148.4bn. An £18bn rise across 9 years is approx 1.4% per year compounded (not bothered to calculate but it's certainly in that ballpark and given 1.4% is cited by several sources such as the NHS confederation I've no reason to waste my time calculating when I can see with my own eyes it's close).

 

From the end of 2019/20 figures are affected by covid.

 

Blue columns I think is predicted spend.

It should be noted that current NHS spend on care is also being significantly affected by energy prices, staff pay increases not being fully covered by central spend increases, general inflation and ongoing costs due to COVID. The NHS federation has an article here that discusses this (my first paragraph about the 1.4% is directly lifted from this article) https://www.nhsconfed.org/articles/is-nhs-awash-with-cash .

 

You should also be aware that twice during this whole period the NHS has not only delivered it's services, but has undergone full scale reorganisations, with all the associated costs they involve.

 

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I understand what I'm talking about but my statistics are wildly different from yours on NHS spending.  We're using different sets of numbers, obviously.  Perhaps you could link to where yours are coming from.

  

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

This page is the one I originally posted, and shows real term trend health spending rising from about 150b in 2013-14 to about 170b in the last pre-covid year, 2019-20. (Fourth graph down.)

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget#:~:text=Planned spending for the Department,for spending on health services.

This page is the King's Fund analysis of Treasury data for NHS England and it shows a rise from (real terms, rebased to 2023) 115.5b in 2013-14 to 152.6b in 2022-23.

 

Either way, it's vastly more than 1.8%.  

And having looked at the budget side, now let's look at the demand side. Suggested reading: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/nhs-pressures-in-england-waiting-times-demand-and-capacity/#:~:text=Rising demand for NHS acute,have risen in recent years.

 

Taken from that page:

 

Between 2010/11 and 2018/19:

• The number of hospital admissions rose 15%, from an average of 40,800 per day to 46,900. Older people accounted for most of the growth, with the proportion of patients aged 60+ rising from 45% to 49%
• The number of people going to major A&E departments has risen 13% from an average of 38,200 per day to 43,000. Meanwhile, the average number of four-hour waits in A&E each day rose from 1,500 to 7,900 – larger than the increase in demand
• The number of emergency admissions to hospital via A&E rose by 35% from 9,500 to 12,850 per day
• The number of people receiving a first treatment for cancer has risen by 27%, from an average of 657 to 859 per day. The number of urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer has more than doubled.

Rising demand for NHS acute services shouldn’t be seen in isolation. Pressure on social care and general practice can also lead to more demand for hospital services. It’s estimated that 1.4 million people have unmet need for social care, and waiting times for GP appointments have risen in recent years.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The fourth graph down is the clearest.

Still not seeing the proof that is inflation-adjusted, though.

 

In any case, I'll repeat the earlier point that even if the current government were not getting nearly enough efficiency for their buck when it comes to essential public services, the solution is a new government, not leaving such services at the mercy of a market that has shown time and again all over the world it will simply leave those unable to pay behind.

[ozleicester]

17 hours ago, Zear0 said:

They carry a knife (Sgian Dubh) in their socks. Broken Britain...

bloody yoofs in Larndon

[foxile5]

****ing massive earthquake in Marrakech.

 

I was there four weeks ago and none of the Medina is in any way earthquake proofed.

 

Think the death toll is going to be significant.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Wymsey]

The missing prisoner has been now sighted in the Chiswick region.

[Guesty]

Not sure the cyclist thought this through when he brought the case. I never heard about this before (happened in Belgium). He brings a defamation case because the dad posted this video after he refused to apologise for kneeing his 5 year old as he rode past. The cyclist originally got off with a 1 euro fine because, apparently, the social media backlash was punishment enough for knocking over a 5 year old.

 

The cyclist has now won his defamation case against the dad for putting the recording on social media (which he only did originally asking for advice). Now it's going viral all over the world, instead of just Belgium, so many more people are watching him. I bet when cyclists saw this they just sighed and were like: it's people like you who give us a bad name. The cynical part of me suspects this cyclist is quite well connected; not sure a working class teenager would get this treatment.

Edited 9 September 2023 by Guesty

[Tuna]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

The missing prisoner has been now sighted in the Chiswick region.

Been  nicked

[Chelmofox]

Didn't realise how bad Flintoff's facial injuries were.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66755339

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Been  nicked

Genius really. 

 

Been trained in evasion techniques by the army. 

 

Escapes prison ninja style. 

 

Stays in one of the most cctv covered cities on the planet. 

 

Can't believe they caught him.