Baxter Parp Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tory-austerity-deaths-study-report-people-die-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.html Landmark study links Tory austerity to 120,000 deaths Government is accused of 'economic murder' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Fifer Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 26 minutes ago, mizfit said: In other news, it looks likely that Police Scotland’s VAT Charge will be refunded in the next budget. Ross Thomson is currently trying to claim it as a Scottish Tory victory....seriously how the f**k did he manage to sneak into office? I'm glad the conversation moved on from the alcohol as I had a question regarding this. Why exactly was ScotGov required to pay tax on their police/fire services? Because they centralised them? Why is a local government VAT exempt but this new set up isn't? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 15/10/2017 at 15:49, mjw said: What's the connection between Grangemouth and the SNP? On 15/10/2017 at 18:33, pandarilla said: That's quite a defensive stance... I'd have guessed that grangemouth supplies an awful lot of Scotland's fuels (edited for my ignorance)? So the Scottish government have banned fracking but Scotland itself is heavily reliant on power supplied from fracking? The SNP government contributed £8m towards the INEOS shale gas import development . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 24 minutes ago, Big Fifer said: I'm glad the conversation moved on from the alcohol as I had a question regarding this. Why exactly was ScotGov required to pay tax on their police/fire services? Because they centralised them? Why is a local government VAT exempt but this new set up isn't? Because it was centralised rather than local, probably Westminster attempting to limit options available to devolved Governments to lessen the chances of them being made to look foolish/incompetent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Why poor folk? https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/sections/ph/research/alpol/research/completed/scotland Enjoy. Have you looked at it? Could you summarise? I’m at work. The reaction to it online seems to be exactly the way this conversation between me and you has been. Loads of people saying what a lot of nonsense with replies from folk saying look at this research. The reaction from people I am speaking to in work seems to be the same as mine, an extra £3 on a bottle of vodka is the answer to our drinking problems? I don’t think it’ll achieve much. People that can afford that who have a drinking problem will just pay it anyway. Youths will manage to scrape an extra £3 together or maybe cut back on something else (£3 is f**k all) and the poor folk in society who have a drinking problem will cut back elsewhere too on things that are probably much more important. And it probably will add up to a good amount of money for them.I have no problem behind the thought to it. No problem with it being enforced. It’s more the attitude that’s bothering me, the SNP getting on their high horse and seeing this as some sort of real answer to our problems because of this research. Just seems so out of touch, yet to speak to anybody who thinks this is a good thing. Just people online wheeling out the look at this research line who probably haven’t looked at it properly themselves, not saying you haven’t btw. I have no idea what kind of research you could actually do on this to come to this conclusion, but I will have a look at it when I’m home and maybe afterwards I’ll be totally convinced but I’m pretty skeptical.There’s already so many drinks that are already above the threshold anyway. I think the thought behind this is a good one but I don’t think it’ll solve anything and I think they need to try and keep on looking at alternatives to help people who have problems with alcohol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 All decent drink is already above the 50p threshold, this is to reduce the sale of floor sweepings/monkeys mouthwash, filled with chemicals and dubious additives 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 The stuff I've read is incredibly tedious but the main point seems to be that very heavy drinkers tend to go for whatever gives you more alcohol per pound, thus the popularity of cheap strong cider. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 The stuff I've read is incredibly tedious but the main point seems to be that very heavy drinkers tend to go for whatever gives you more alcohol per pound, thus the popularity of cheap strong cider. No more Limmy Frosty Jacks vines then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 28 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said: No more Limmy Frosty Jacks vines then. Some good has come of this after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 1 hour ago, 1320Lichtie said: Have you looked at it? Could you summarise? I’m at work. From the BMJ peer review: Conclusions Overall, the Bradford Hill criteria for causality were satisfied. There was very little evidence that minimum alcohol prices are not associated with consumption or subsequent harms. However the overall quality of the evidence was variable, a large proportion of the evidence base has been produced by a small number of research teams, and the quantitative uncertainty in many estimates or forecasts is often poorly communicated outside the academic literature. Nonetheless, price-based alcohol policy interventions such as MUP are likely to reduce alcohol consumption, alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 6 hours ago, Baxter Parp said: From the BMJ peer review: Conclusions Overall, the Bradford Hill criteria for causality were satisfied. There was very little evidence that minimum alcohol prices are not associated with consumption or subsequent harms. However the overall quality of the evidence was variable, a large proportion of the evidence base has been produced by a small number of research teams, and the quantitative uncertainty in many estimates or forecasts is often poorly communicated outside the academic literature. Nonetheless, price-based alcohol policy interventions such as MUP are likely to reduce alcohol consumption, alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. Now we have a great opportunity where we can collect some proper data. A properly conducted prospective study where we can correct for confounding factors is a must - I'd be astounded if there isn't plans to do this, it would be a highly useful public health study. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 After watching Jon Snow on Channel 4 news last night and his " interview" with Alex Salmond, then Andrew Neil tonight on This Week. The established news channels really are circling the wagons here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmothecat2 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 After watching Jon Snow on Channel 4 news last night and his " interview" with Alex Salmond, then Andrew Neil tonight on This Week. The established news channels really are circling the wagons here. Jon Snow is an idiot. He seems to think they way to interview anyone is by making them as uncomfortable as possible, interrupting their answers before they say anything meaningful and deliberately attacking people from an obtuse angle which totally misses the point. I've no sympathy with Salmond's decision to go on RT but he's not a politician any more and it's his choice. The current leader of the Labour Party had a platform on Iran's Press TV so he's hardly the first. Nicola Sturgeon probably said it best, disagree with the decision but it's his to make ultimately. Sturgeon is a far better first minister and leader than he ever was imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 REPORT: Theresa May's husband's firm named in the Paradise Papers leak http://uk.businessinsider.com/paradise-papers-philip-mays-capital-group-2017-11 Looks like he's an advisor in a tax dodging firm. Surely she can’t pretend she didn’t know that. She’s got to go now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/11-million-people-in-the-uk-are-not-just-about-managing-at?utm_term=.hqLX4w4Vq#.ixbW2n2jg 11 Million People In The UK Are Not "Just About Managing" At All, New Research Shows There are 18.9 million people in the UK living below the "minimum income standard", according to a new report, and government policies are hitting certain types of families harder. TL:DR - Tories are c***s. Not dead = just about managing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Have you looked at it? Could you summarise? I’m at work. The reaction to it online seems to be exactly the way this conversation between me and you has been. Loads of people saying what a lot of nonsense with replies from folk saying look at this research. The reaction from people I am speaking to in work seems to be the same as mine, an extra £3 on a bottle of vodka is the answer to our drinking problems? I don’t think it’ll achieve much. People that can afford that who have a drinking problem will just pay it anyway. Youths will manage to scrape an extra £3 together or maybe cut back on something else (£3 is f**k all) and the poor folk in society who have a drinking problem will cut back elsewhere too on things that are probably much more important. And it probably will add up to a good amount of money for them.I have no problem behind the thought to it. No problem with it being enforced. It’s more the attitude that’s bothering me, the SNP getting on their high horse and seeing this as some sort of real answer to our problems because of this research. Just seems so out of touch, yet to speak to anybody who thinks this is a good thing. Just people online wheeling out the look at this research line who probably haven’t looked at it properly themselves, not saying you haven’t btw. I have no idea what kind of research you could actually do on this to come to this conclusion, but I will have a look at it when I’m home and maybe afterwards I’ll be totally convinced but I’m pretty skeptical.There’s already so many drinks that are already above the threshold anyway. I think the thought behind this is a good one but I don’t think it’ll solve anything and I think they need to try and keep on looking at alternatives to help people who have problems with alcohol. In time it may be more than 50p a unit. Some people seem to think things stay the same forever. If the 50p per unit starting point won't have much of an effect, why are some people so against it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 I'm glad the conversation moved on from the alcohol as I had a question regarding this. Why exactly was ScotGov required to pay tax on their police/fire services? Because they centralised them? Why is a local government VAT exempt but this new set up isn't? Is local government VAT exempt?The public sector body I work for have to pay VAT. I believe we can claim some (not all) back, but we have to pay it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 26 minutes ago, McQuade said: And we can guess how her husband conducts his Tax affairs! Surely if you establish up a 'Blind Trust' you can set some parameters or guidelines, like "don't invest in offshore tax havens". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTG_03 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Surely she can’t pretend she didn’t know that. She’s got to go now. Nobody wants the job tho... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Fifer Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Is local government VAT exempt?The public sector body I work for have to pay VAT. I believe we can claim some (not all) back, but we have to pay it. I've no idea, but that's the reason I've seen for Scottish police/fire services having to pay VAT, because they're not run by local government 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.