What's in the news?

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Tbh, I've seen no evidence of such at all. Which in itself it quite amazing. Just recently I've read a report that apparently "proves" that not getting 8 hours solid of sleep a night causes a higher risk of cancer. Doesn't mean I'm going to bed early. 

 

This obsession with living for as long as possible to the point of being borderline paranoid must be some by-product of our own inflated egos and to be frank, I find it rather tedious. 

Mhmm, and I'm sure that's despite a lengthy and thorough search.

[Toddybad]

I'm sure I remember saying this over a year ago.:

 

The government’s planned cuts to corporation tax look set to cost the public purse billions more in lost revenue than previously thought, according to new analysis.

The tax rate on company profits is slated to be cut from its current level of 19% to just 17% by the end of the decade. But even before the planned cuts, the UK already had one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed world.

An analysis based on HMRC data suggests that the loss of revenue from the planned cuts, initiated by former chancellor George Osborne but supported by incumbent Philip Hammond, could add up to more than £6bn.

HMRC recently raised its estimate for the amount a 1 percentage point increase in corporation tax could bring in for the Treasury from £2.8bn to £3.1bn per year – meaning the plan to cut taxes by 2p in the £1 could cost about £6.2bn.

Hammond confirmed in the autumn that he would go ahead with Osborne’s promises, despite the need to find £20bn a year more for the NHS by 2023-24.

There has been mounting opposition to the planned tax cuts, particularly as Britain’s public finances could come under huge strain from a disorderly Brexit.

Rupert Harrison, a former adviser to Osborne who now works at City investment firm BlackRock, said last week on Twitter that it was “hard to see why further cuts to corporation tax are good value"

[Innovindil]

15 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Mhmm, and I'm sure that's despite a lengthy and thorough search.

Read the first paragraph of page 2 for me please. 

[Innovindil]

21 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

You've reached the point where you think not eating food containing hormones that EU scientists believe cause cancer is an unhealthy obsession. That's like saying not smoking for health reasons is weird. 

 

Why do you need to see the evidence to believe the EU scientists and medical experts? If you did see the evidence are you suitably qualified to make a judgement? 

 

Climate change, food safety, environmental standards, the economic effects of immigration. Isn't it amazing the number of things right wing non-experts believe they understand better than highly qualified experts. 

 

 

American scientists believe it's safe. Which experts do I listen to exactly? And its not just me is it, wasn't the EU's original warbling shot down by the experts at wto level as being insufficient? 

 

Your last paragraph does crack me up though, I honestly don't think I've ever been typically right wing on any of the things you mentioned bar food safety. 

[leicsmac]

47 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

American scientists believe it's safe. Which experts do I listen to exactly? And its not just me is it, wasn't the EU's original warbling shot down by the experts at wto level as being insufficient? 

 

Your last paragraph does crack me up though, I honestly don't think I've ever been typically right wing on any of the things you mentioned bar food safety. 

Purely out of interest (and apologies if you've been asked this before), what do you make of climate change policy and the best way to proceed?

[Alf Bentley]

 

Poll suggests support for Labour among students has fallen 10% in the past year, mainly due to Labour not supporting a second referendum: 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-jeremy-corbyn-labour-student-support-second-referendum-peoples-vote-a8749036.html

 

That could partly (but only partly) explain why Labour is not surging ahead in the polls, despite the chaotic farce of the Tory Govt.

Easy to be cynical about the "ignorance of youth" in not realising that Corbyn has always been Eurosceptic. I'm not sure their elders, those saying "Why haven't we left? Just get out right now!" are any wiser. Only a few sad old (or young) gits have a detailed interest in politics....which is sort of necessary at a time of national crisis when Govt & Parliament handed the decision to the people....

 

It's also a reason why Labour focusing on achieving a general election could be seriously misguided:

- Continue to act cagey about a second referendum and they risk losing votes & seats in London/SE/big cities/university towns

- Support a second referendum and they risk losing votes & seats in struggling industrial or deindustralised areas of North/Midlands

Distinct chance that an early election could produce a Tory majority, in my view....

 

Given the imminence of Brexit, it's difficult to see how Labour could do as they did in 2017 - ensure that the election is mainly about other issues. That's quite apart from the issue of whether the public will want to hand the reins to Corbyn at a time of national crisis (rightly or wrongly - hard to do worse than the current govt).

 

Maybe Corbyn's continued "indecision" about Brexit is wiser than we think: give the Tories enough rope and they might hang themselves?

The Tories presiding over a completely disastrous or massively unpopular Brexit outcome (damaging No Deal or controversial "sell-out" deal) and/or a massive split in the Tory party could be a situation in which a Corbyn Govt becomes more likely. 

[Toddybad]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

American scientists believe it's safe. Which experts do I listen to exactly? And its not just me is it, wasn't the EU's original warbling shot down by the experts at wto level as being insufficient? 

 

Your last paragraph does crack me up though, I honestly don't think I've ever been typically right wing on any of the things you mentioned bar food safety. 

Can you link to the US report that states that? 

And the EU position is signed off by the WTO. 

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Purely out of interest (and apologies if you've been asked this before), what do you make of climate change policy and the best way to proceed?

Honestly, I'm on board with the general consensus of it being closely related to human activity, however I have no idea on what the best way to proceed is, it's quite clear to me there needs to be a world-wide effort to change it, but it seems almost impossible when everyone is on different levels. What could work for us will not necessarily work for others etc etc

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Honestly, I'm on board with the general consensus of it being closely related to human activity, however I have no idea on what the best way to proceed is, it's quite clear to me there needs to be a world-wide effort to change it, but it seems almost impossible when everyone is on different levels. What could work for us will not necessarily work for others etc etc

Yeah, that's a fair way of looking at it. Problem is that by the time the effects really become apparent, eg. influential people actually feeling them too, it might well be too late to take necessary action to guard against the change (I don't think for a moment we can stop such changes tbh, all we can do is merely adapt to them).

 

Seeking to future-proof humanity in whatever way we can is simply a good way of hedging our bets, even if we don't really know what those changes might be at the ultra-specific everyday level.

[Innovindil]

9 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

Can you link to the US report that states that? 

And the EU position is signed off by the WTO. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40449.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9xbPkwJDgAhUDWhUIHdyBDbwQFjAHegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3GjOCTBF4VLWubZuIooFre

 

This report has all of the reports used by the US to contest the ban named in it, some of those are us based, some of them are eu based. As far as I'm aware, they were enough for the WTO to judge the ban as unjust. Could be mistaken mind. 

 

And could you show me where the WTO signed off on the eu ban please? All I can find is when it was originally brought before the WTO, the eu lost, but chose to ignore the WTO ruling and it was settled between the US and eu with concessions based around hormone-free beef quotas. 

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, that's a fair way of looking at it. Problem is that by the time the effects really become apparent, eg. influential people actually feeling them too, it might well be too late to take necessary action to guard against the change (I don't think for a moment we can stop such changes tbh, all we can do is merely adapt to them).

 

Seeking to future-proof humanity in whatever way we can is simply a good way of hedging our bets, even if we don't really know what those changes might be at the ultra-specific everyday level.

Personally think that is a bit overly negative. People suggested the same when we stuck a big hole in the o-zone layer spraying chemicals all over the place. The world came together and with a bit of work it (somewhat) healed itself. 

 

If we are the reason for negative effects on the climate, I'm sure with enough interest (and money) behind it, we can turn it around. 

 

What goes up must come down and all that jazz. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Personally think that is a bit overly negative. People suggested the same when we stuck a big hole in the o-zone layer spraying chemicals all over the place. The world came together and with a bit of work it (somewhat) healed itself. 

 

If we are the reason for negative effects on the climate, I'm sure with enough interest (and money) behind it, we can turn it around. 

 

What goes up must come down and all that jazz. 

Yeah, allow me to clarify: I think that humans can reverse their own effects on the environment (reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other potentially negative gases to pre-industrialisation levels), but I also think that we can't do much about the classical climate cycles caused by complex factors often not involving humans (but which we may well be exacerbating).

 

Present day humanity has had the good fortune of living in a temperate and above all unchanging environment for the 10000-odd years it has take civilisation to get to where it is now, to say nothing of the only last couple hundred years of rapid industrialisation. That ten thousand years containing everything we are, every system we have developed, is a relative flyspeck in geological terms - a line on a page in the book of the Earth's history.

 

To think that won't change in some manner or other one day - aided by us or not - would be a big mistake IMO, and this is all why I think the argument about whether or not humans are responsible for the changes is rather moot; to use a metaphor I've used before, when the Titanic has just run into the iceberg it's probably not the best time to start pointing fingers at who set the course that got it there.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Read the first paragraph of page 2 for me please. 

Unfortunately my post responding to that with quotes lifted straight from the document got lost when the site went down earlier and I'm no longer at the pc to compile it again, but long story short you're talking about a quote referencing the studied and proven link between red meat and hormone reliant cancer strains.  The document also refs studies showing how specific isolated hormones used to boost cattle growth in the states decrease the growth time of cancers by 30-40%.

 

So basically your argument is that it's safe because the USA says so and because real scientists won't declare a 100% link when we currently have no studies directly comparing hormone & non-hormone meats and their effect on cancer. 

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Unfortunately my post responding to that with quotes lifted straight from the document got lost when the site went down earlier and I'm no longer at the pc to compile it again, but long story short you're talking about a quote referencing the studied and proven link between red meat and hormone reliant cancer strains.  The document also refs studies showing how specific isolated hormones used to boost cattle growth in the states decrease the growth time of cancers by 30-40%.

 

So basically your argument is that it's safe because the USA says so and because real scientists won't declare a 100% link when we currently have no studies directly comparing hormone & non-hormone meats and their effect on cancer. 

I'm talking about the quote that says "whether or not hormone residues in meat contribute to this risk is currently unknown". 

 

It's weird because to me that sounds like they don't have enough evidence to prove it's not safe. 

 

And please don't make up my arguments for me, I've never said it's safe, I've said that us experts thinks it's safe. Whether it "could maybe possibly" potentially cause some cancer growth in some people by some small chance of maybes is irrelevant and has never been the point I have been making. 

 

My point is would I rather have access to this beef than the current shitshow coming out of Poland and the answer is, and will be until I'm actually provided with substantial evidence, hell yes. Because why pay a premium for AT LEAST, equally poor shite. 

[Innovindil]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, allow me to clarify: I think that humans can reverse their own effects on the environment (reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other potentially negative gases to pre-industrialisation levels), but I also think that we can't do much about the classical climate cycles caused by complex factors often not involving humans (but which we may well be exacerbating).

 

Present day humanity has had the good fortune of living in a temperate and above all unchanging environment for the 10000-odd years it has take civilisation to get to where it is now, to say nothing of the only last couple hundred years of rapid industrialisation. That ten thousand years containing everything we are, every system we have developed, is a relative flyspeck in geological terms - a line on a page in the book of the Earth's history.

 

To think that won't change in some manner or other one day - aided by us or not - would be a big mistake IMO, and this is all why I think the argument about whether or not humans are responsible for the changes is rather moot; to use a metaphor I've used before, when the Titanic has just run into the iceberg it's probably not the best time to start pointing fingers at who set the course that got it there.

Well of course the world will end eventually, as will the human race. Anything that can die eventually will. Just enjoy the ride. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

I'm talking about the quote that says "whether or not hormone residues in meat contribute to this risk is currently unknown". 

 

It's weird because to me that sounds like they don't have enough evidence to prove it's not safe. 

 

And please don't make up my arguments for me, I've never said it's safe, I've said that us experts thinks it's safe. Whether it "could maybe possibly" potentially cause some cancer growth in some people by some small chance of maybes is irrelevant and has never been the point I have been making. 

 

My point is would I rather have access to this beef than the current shitshow coming out of Poland and the answer is, and will be until I'm actually provided with substantial evidence, hell yes. Because why pay a premium for AT LEAST, equally poor shite. 

 

21 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

scientists won't declare a 100% link when we currently have no studies directly comparing hormone & non-hormone meats and their effect on cancer. 

Nevertheless the provable facts are that red meat is associated with cancer risk and the hormones in question exacerbate cancer growth when isolated under laboratory conditions.  I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend this as a stick to bash the EU with. It's such an awful institution that you must already have enough sticks anyway.

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

Nevertheless the provable facts are that red meat is associated with cancer risk and the hormones in question exacerbate cancer growth when isolated under laboratory conditions.  I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend this as a stick to bash the EU with. It's such an awful institution that you must already have enough sticks anyway.

Because I get charged a premium on beef when numerous other countries don't? Surely not hard to grasp the idea. 

 

Meanwhile, we're getting sold low quality, "potentially" dangerous beef with no checks past the point of production. But that should go without saying since it's the original thing being brought up. 

Edited 28 January 2019 by Innovindil

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Well of course the world will end eventually, as will the human race. Anything that can die eventually will. Just enjoy the ride. 

Right, and I think we can, given the right amount of application, actually guard against that.

 

That's what I'm arguing for, dealing with the effects rather than arguing about responsibility for them - certainly not for doing nothing at all. No one lives forever, but at least let's make it a while, huh?

[Toddybad]

What a surprise. 

 

No-deal Brexit would mean shortages and price rises, say retailers

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/28/no-deal-brexit-price-rises-retailers-sainsburys-asda-ms-coop?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Because I get charged a premium on beef when numerous other countries don't? Surely not hard to grasp the idea. 

 

Meanwhile, we're getting sold low quality, "potentially" dangerous beef with no checks past the point of production. But that should go without saying since it's the original thing being brought up. 

So, what? We're assuming that this highly newsworthy illegal activity is representative of the entire EU meat industry?  You're generalising massively.  The EU has been a guiding light for improving animal welfare at an institutional level in a world where disgraceful battery farms are commonplace. This is a disgraceful story but it's unsanctioned behaviour and, unless you have any proof of it happening elsewhere, it's limited to one area.

[The Horse's Mouth]

If remain win a second vote do we have a third one to properly decide?

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, The Horse's Mouth said:

If remain win a second vote do we have a third one to properly decide?

I think it goes to extra time then penalties.

[The Horse's Mouth]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think it goes to extra time then penalties.

Will we get VAR for second referendum? Time we stopped living in the dark ages 

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

So, what? We're assuming that this highly newsworthy illegal activity is representative of the entire EU meat industry?  You're generalising massively.  The EU has been a guiding light for improving animal welfare at an institutional level in a world where disgraceful battery farms are commonplace. This is a disgraceful story but it's unsanctioned behaviour and, unless you have any proof of it happening elsewhere, it's limited to one area.

I'm an engineer, I'm taught you're only ever as strong as your weakest link. This one was only dredged up by a random investigation from the guardian, which should ring alarm bells. But much easier to dismiss (what they estimate) 300 brazen shit cow sellers as an anomaly than an actual problem. 

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Toddybad said:

What a surprise. 

 

No-deal Brexit would mean shortages and price rises, say retailers

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/28/no-deal-brexit-price-rises-retailers-sainsburys-asda-ms-coop?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Nothing like a good bit of scare mongering to get the old panic buying profits up is there.