| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:14 - Jul 20 with 4096 views | WeWereZombies |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 08:41 - Jul 20 by No9 |
I agree with you but & our family have much the same philosophy when it comes to eating but, take a look around modern housing. Those on low wages can only afford a living space with no garden. Often these people will work silly hours to make ends meet & when they finish work the markets are closed. Many will commute and find the only food outlet is that which has been built on or near the rail stations - typically M&S.
Lack of education means many people, unlike you, do not have the understanding of the damage processed foods can do to the body particularly children.
& governments can damage food by ignorance e.g. Ms Truss giving the OK to use dangerous chemicals means the residue of these are still in the cold pressed rape seed oils. |
Oh sh1t, I tend to buy a fair few products with rapeseed oil in them because I avoid palm oil (you need to check that chocolate you buy, CiL, I've seen it added in there) mainly due to the habitat loss (even the supposedly sustainable palm oil) it causes for orang-utans but also because I wonder about the effect that something that is used to prolong shelf life has on our bodies. |  |
|  |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:33 - Jul 20 with 4080 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 08:41 - Jul 20 by No9 |
I agree with you but & our family have much the same philosophy when it comes to eating but, take a look around modern housing. Those on low wages can only afford a living space with no garden. Often these people will work silly hours to make ends meet & when they finish work the markets are closed. Many will commute and find the only food outlet is that which has been built on or near the rail stations - typically M&S.
Lack of education means many people, unlike you, do not have the understanding of the damage processed foods can do to the body particularly children.
& governments can damage food by ignorance e.g. Ms Truss giving the OK to use dangerous chemicals means the residue of these are still in the cold pressed rape seed oils. |
Can lack of education really be an excuse anymore? There's far more education on healthy eating now than there ever has been (i.e. those Change 4 Life ads - something the coalition government got right). |  |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:37 - Jul 20 with 4069 views | WeWereZombies |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:33 - Jul 20 by Dolly2.0 |
Can lack of education really be an excuse anymore? There's far more education on healthy eating now than there ever has been (i.e. those Change 4 Life ads - something the coalition government got right). |
But there is talking down to people and there is making a connection and actually changing things. Difficult, given that you can put a Jamie Oliver meal in front of kids and their parents will still push chips through the railings at them come lunchtime - or was that just a one-off photo opportunity? | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:49 - Jul 20 with 4056 views | unbelievablue |
That's well and truly awful. I like Owen Jones, I think he's a brave guy, but that is dire. |  |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:52 - Jul 20 with 4042 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:37 - Jul 20 by WeWereZombies |
But there is talking down to people and there is making a connection and actually changing things. Difficult, given that you can put a Jamie Oliver meal in front of kids and their parents will still push chips through the railings at them come lunchtime - or was that just a one-off photo opportunity? |
Do you think the Change 4 Life ads are talking down to people? | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:53 - Jul 20 with 4035 views | No9 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:33 - Jul 20 by Dolly2.0 |
Can lack of education really be an excuse anymore? There's far more education on healthy eating now than there ever has been (i.e. those Change 4 Life ads - something the coalition government got right). |
Educatoin is important to get people to read labels instead of just chucking things in he basket.
if you do this you will notice that in some places things like country of origin and ingredients are not as informative as they should be.
Cameron failing to adequatelt fund the FSA has made things worse not better.
Although we know MSG is not good for you we now see an arguent being pushed to say it is harmless.
We also have the silly situation in the UK where the last operation can determine country of origin, e.g. low quality chicken from indeterminate sources can be imported and packed in the UK and sold as UK produce, that needs to be chanegd but it will get worse as we leave the EU and government takes in whatever it can get at cheaper and cheaper prices. |  | | |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:55 - Jul 20 with 4035 views | WeWereZombies |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:52 - Jul 20 by Dolly2.0 |
Do you think the Change 4 Life ads are talking down to people? |
Well I wouldn't have started that post as I did if I thought otherwise. A pedagogical approach does not always work, if you prefer me to put in milder terms, then. | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:01 - Jul 20 with 4030 views | gibbsm1 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 12:52 - Jul 18 by Dolly2.0 |
I can't see anything wrong with the article. He's giving an opinion but also citing evidence - and quoting ex-government adviser Sir Michael Marmot.
It seems you don't like it because it attacks the Tories. |
Dolly 2.0 and SB:
I accept that you have read my post and are drawing no conclusions on the points I have made. I am an Actuary, but not a longevity science specialist whilst probably knowing more than the average person. (I work in Capital and FInancial Reporting).
Irrespective of our thoughts on the causes of alteration in mortality over the period there are some accepted statistical points that I would like to add that I think render the article as close to useless from an Actuarial or Statistical perspective
Here is a list of potential mortality factors off the top of my head. Government spending, acute medical care, economic growth, air quality, ,political stability, employment, geographical population distribution, immigration, sex, smoker incidence, alcohol intake, diet, access to dental care, car safety, access to prescription drugs, tax, emigration......I could go one.
We have many potential factors affecting mortality, all need to be modelled independently and together (giving literally millions potential risk drivers)
We then have to apply this interaction to our underlying death data. We only have 7 years worth of data which is very little. remember no two deaths are the same because the sex, age, occupation, smoker status, geographical location access to healthcare etc of the deceased is so unique.
Hopefully this shows just why it is so irresponsible to draw conclusions on what 'one expert' says. The statistical points I raise are not opinions though.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that given we have barely seen a reduction in public spending (there is no austerity really) and the difficulties in modelling explained, there is no significant impact on mortality. [Post edited 20 Jul 2017 11:13]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:18 - Jul 20 with 4006 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:53 - Jul 20 by No9 |
Educatoin is important to get people to read labels instead of just chucking things in he basket.
if you do this you will notice that in some places things like country of origin and ingredients are not as informative as they should be.
Cameron failing to adequatelt fund the FSA has made things worse not better.
Although we know MSG is not good for you we now see an arguent being pushed to say it is harmless.
We also have the silly situation in the UK where the last operation can determine country of origin, e.g. low quality chicken from indeterminate sources can be imported and packed in the UK and sold as UK produce, that needs to be chanegd but it will get worse as we leave the EU and government takes in whatever it can get at cheaper and cheaper prices. |
You didn't actually answer my question.
I'm shocked by your last para. Didn't know this - and it's disgraceful. How is that allowed? | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:19 - Jul 20 with 4000 views | WeWereZombies |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:01 - Jul 20 by gibbsm1 |
Dolly 2.0 and SB:
I accept that you have read my post and are drawing no conclusions on the points I have made. I am an Actuary, but not a longevity science specialist whilst probably knowing more than the average person. (I work in Capital and FInancial Reporting).
Irrespective of our thoughts on the causes of alteration in mortality over the period there are some accepted statistical points that I would like to add that I think render the article as close to useless from an Actuarial or Statistical perspective
Here is a list of potential mortality factors off the top of my head. Government spending, acute medical care, economic growth, air quality, ,political stability, employment, geographical population distribution, immigration, sex, smoker incidence, alcohol intake, diet, access to dental care, car safety, access to prescription drugs, tax, emigration......I could go one.
We have many potential factors affecting mortality, all need to be modelled independently and together (giving literally millions potential risk drivers)
We then have to apply this interaction to our underlying death data. We only have 7 years worth of data which is very little. remember no two deaths are the same because the sex, age, occupation, smoker status, geographical location access to healthcare etc of the deceased is so unique.
Hopefully this shows just why it is so irresponsible to draw conclusions on what 'one expert' says. The statistical points I raise are not opinions though.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that given we have barely seen a reduction in public spending (there is no austerity really) and the difficulties in modelling explained, there is no significant impact on mortality. [Post edited 20 Jul 2017 11:13]
|
That is a very succinct and useful post (really only you, Gordon and eireblue have made points of any consequence in this rather typical 'he said, she said' thread). I would point out though that, accepting your view that there is no significantly more austere quality to British life in the last decade or so, individuals have found their lives significantly worsened by Government policy e.g. the increasing use of outside agencies to assess qualification for disability benefit - especially when this is reliant on telephone interviews which not everyone is adept at or, for the same reason, reliance on interaction over the internet.
So I think the polemical nature of the article is justified to indicate direction of travel or the dangers of submitting wholly to the general to the detriment of the particular, it is not as if Owen Jones is in charge of Government policy and his comments do at least open up the debate even if only to show the austerity flag as a bit ragged and in need of a rest to give way to more telling criticisms of policy. | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:22 - Jul 20 with 3997 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 10:55 - Jul 20 by WeWereZombies |
Well I wouldn't have started that post as I did if I thought otherwise. A pedagogical approach does not always work, if you prefer me to put in milder terms, then. |
I wasn't sure if you were specifically referring to those ads. I don't personally see anything wrong with them but each to their own. | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:32 - Jul 20 with 3986 views | StokieBlue |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:01 - Jul 20 by gibbsm1 |
Dolly 2.0 and SB:
I accept that you have read my post and are drawing no conclusions on the points I have made. I am an Actuary, but not a longevity science specialist whilst probably knowing more than the average person. (I work in Capital and FInancial Reporting).
Irrespective of our thoughts on the causes of alteration in mortality over the period there are some accepted statistical points that I would like to add that I think render the article as close to useless from an Actuarial or Statistical perspective
Here is a list of potential mortality factors off the top of my head. Government spending, acute medical care, economic growth, air quality, ,political stability, employment, geographical population distribution, immigration, sex, smoker incidence, alcohol intake, diet, access to dental care, car safety, access to prescription drugs, tax, emigration......I could go one.
We have many potential factors affecting mortality, all need to be modelled independently and together (giving literally millions potential risk drivers)
We then have to apply this interaction to our underlying death data. We only have 7 years worth of data which is very little. remember no two deaths are the same because the sex, age, occupation, smoker status, geographical location access to healthcare etc of the deceased is so unique.
Hopefully this shows just why it is so irresponsible to draw conclusions on what 'one expert' says. The statistical points I raise are not opinions though.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that given we have barely seen a reduction in public spending (there is no austerity really) and the difficulties in modelling explained, there is no significant impact on mortality. [Post edited 20 Jul 2017 11:13]
|
Very good post. I've had some experience of longevity models but it's great that you've laid out the various risk drivers and how they affect the overall data tables so clearly.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:33 - Jul 20 with 3984 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:01 - Jul 20 by gibbsm1 |
Dolly 2.0 and SB:
I accept that you have read my post and are drawing no conclusions on the points I have made. I am an Actuary, but not a longevity science specialist whilst probably knowing more than the average person. (I work in Capital and FInancial Reporting).
Irrespective of our thoughts on the causes of alteration in mortality over the period there are some accepted statistical points that I would like to add that I think render the article as close to useless from an Actuarial or Statistical perspective
Here is a list of potential mortality factors off the top of my head. Government spending, acute medical care, economic growth, air quality, ,political stability, employment, geographical population distribution, immigration, sex, smoker incidence, alcohol intake, diet, access to dental care, car safety, access to prescription drugs, tax, emigration......I could go one.
We have many potential factors affecting mortality, all need to be modelled independently and together (giving literally millions potential risk drivers)
We then have to apply this interaction to our underlying death data. We only have 7 years worth of data which is very little. remember no two deaths are the same because the sex, age, occupation, smoker status, geographical location access to healthcare etc of the deceased is so unique.
Hopefully this shows just why it is so irresponsible to draw conclusions on what 'one expert' says. The statistical points I raise are not opinions though.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that given we have barely seen a reduction in public spending (there is no austerity really) and the difficulties in modelling explained, there is no significant impact on mortality. [Post edited 20 Jul 2017 11:13]
|
You undermine your good points when you say at the end that we have barely seen a reduction in public spending and that there is no austerity. That's plainly nonsense. | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:34 - Jul 20 with 3981 views | gibbsm1 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:19 - Jul 20 by WeWereZombies |
That is a very succinct and useful post (really only you, Gordon and eireblue have made points of any consequence in this rather typical 'he said, she said' thread). I would point out though that, accepting your view that there is no significantly more austere quality to British life in the last decade or so, individuals have found their lives significantly worsened by Government policy e.g. the increasing use of outside agencies to assess qualification for disability benefit - especially when this is reliant on telephone interviews which not everyone is adept at or, for the same reason, reliance on interaction over the internet.
So I think the polemical nature of the article is justified to indicate direction of travel or the dangers of submitting wholly to the general to the detriment of the particular, it is not as if Owen Jones is in charge of Government policy and his comments do at least open up the debate even if only to show the austerity flag as a bit ragged and in need of a rest to give way to more telling criticisms of policy. |
Certainly in support of the debate and in the sense that it has opened up the opportunity discuss mortality drivers I am happy to contribute.
Journalistic integrity is important to me, which is why I would only read/listen to Owen Jones for the entertainment value. I would disregard everything he says as it's intellectual underpinning is close to zero and would not form my opinions on his analysis. This goes for many 'journos' on the right of politics too. Sadly, many people don't challenge in the same way.
The assessment of disabled people is regrettable, (probably) poorly administered and causes anxiety and suffering to those put in that position. We wouldn't like to go through this ourselves and for our family or friends. How else do government deal with this though? your example of government policy worsening our lives could be offset by a contra example though, such as sustained and improving levels of employment. | | | |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:42 - Jul 20 with 3968 views | gibbsm1 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:33 - Jul 20 by Dolly2.0 |
You undermine your good points when you say at the end that we have barely seen a reduction in public spending and that there is no austerity. That's plainly nonsense. |
Firstly, it is rather unkind of you to say that statistical facts are undermined by my last comment which I did state was an opinion piece.
Secondly, government spending has risen absolutely over the period, has slightly fallen in real terms and has risen as a proportion of GDP.
Some state below.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_spending_analysis
My opinion is that 'austerity' would reflect a genuine cut in spending or at the very least a flattening. | | | |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 12:04 - Jul 20 with 3941 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:57 - Jul 20 by blue_oyster |
The only reason the Tories don't deny it is austerity is so that people don't notice they are the same as the New Labour party. |
Correct. It was a farce when Osborne and Balls were up against each other. Osborne wanted to look tough and responsible whereas Balls wanted to use his "cuts too far and too fast" narrative.
They were both playing the austerity card for their own reasons. |  |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:03 - Jul 20 with 3909 views | WeWereZombies |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:34 - Jul 20 by gibbsm1 |
Certainly in support of the debate and in the sense that it has opened up the opportunity discuss mortality drivers I am happy to contribute.
Journalistic integrity is important to me, which is why I would only read/listen to Owen Jones for the entertainment value. I would disregard everything he says as it's intellectual underpinning is close to zero and would not form my opinions on his analysis. This goes for many 'journos' on the right of politics too. Sadly, many people don't challenge in the same way.
The assessment of disabled people is regrettable, (probably) poorly administered and causes anxiety and suffering to those put in that position. We wouldn't like to go through this ourselves and for our family or friends. How else do government deal with this though? your example of government policy worsening our lives could be offset by a contra example though, such as sustained and improving levels of employment. |
I think you have made a category error in your final paragraph. What I want to see, and what I hope most concerned with the welfare of others, want to see is a raising of the lower threshold on deprivation levels, in Rawlsian terms a higher point at which the difference principle operates than we currently have. Offsetting a general increase in well-being against severe, and possibly fatal, shortcomings in the treatment of the least well-off does not achieve that. | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:17 - Jul 20 with 3897 views | gibbsm1 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:03 - Jul 20 by WeWereZombies |
I think you have made a category error in your final paragraph. What I want to see, and what I hope most concerned with the welfare of others, want to see is a raising of the lower threshold on deprivation levels, in Rawlsian terms a higher point at which the difference principle operates than we currently have. Offsetting a general increase in well-being against severe, and possibly fatal, shortcomings in the treatment of the least well-off does not achieve that. |
You make the point well. It's a good way of thinking of things. I would counter that by saying that trends over time suggest the very poorest are getting wealthier while excepting that this pace may be slower than we'd like. | | | |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:20 - Jul 20 with 3892 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 11:42 - Jul 20 by gibbsm1 |
Firstly, it is rather unkind of you to say that statistical facts are undermined by my last comment which I did state was an opinion piece.
Secondly, government spending has risen absolutely over the period, has slightly fallen in real terms and has risen as a proportion of GDP.
Some state below.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_spending_analysis
My opinion is that 'austerity' would reflect a genuine cut in spending or at the very least a flattening. |
Even the Tories admit to austerity. They coined it (if you pardon the pun)!
Anyway, as to your facts, I haven't disputed them. | |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:36 - Jul 20 with 3871 views | gibbsm1 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:24 - Jul 20 by Dolly2.0 |
Cameron himself called it austerity!
Talking about what Dennis Healy did 40 years ago is whatabouterry in the extreme!
"Departmental budgets have been cut by an average of more than 20 per cent since 2010 (the Department for Communities and Local Government by more than 50 per cent) and more than £20bn of welfare cuts have been imposed (child benefit, for instance, is worth less than it was 17 years ago).
The consequences are visible to all in unaffordable housing, overcrowded schools, unrepaired roads, uncollected bins and closed libraries, gyms and children's centres."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/uk-has-endured-real-austerity |
This is not personal, please don't take it as so, but I think you have called on another odd example.
The New Statesmen has always had a slant towards socialism. The author here is an 'anti-austerity' campaigner, a career journalist with no background in Economics, statistics or government.
It's fine to read what he says, but it can't be quoted to support your argument. On reading this article there is virtually no content to it. It's all put together by content from other people such as Lamont.
We both agree that spending has increased overall? that is has fallen in certain areas? that fall is regrettable and damages people in the hear and now?
Presumably we disagree that the fall was ideological and not economically driven? that it is immoral for other generations to pick up this debt? that wealth transfer payments should be limited, driven by need and sustainable? | | | |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:44 - Jul 20 with 3860 views | Superfrans |
Owen Jones would be delighted to know that a thread about him on a right wing website is still racking up comments two days after it was first initiated... 😂😂😂😂😂 |  |
| |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:53 - Jul 20 with 3844 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Owen Jones has outdone himself this time on 13:44 - Jul 20 by Superfrans |
Owen Jones would be delighted to know that a thread about him on a right wing website is still racking up comments two days after it was first initiated... 😂😂😂😂😂 |
TWTD is a right wing website?!? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
