The myth of starving Britain...

[biffvernon]

Indeed. The Americans, and many of us, cannot use that excuse.

[boisdevie]

Indeed. The Americans, and many of us, cannot use that excuse.

But surely those obese people - sorry not politically correct there - I should have said bubbly, big boned or 'cuddly' it's not their fault surely? Isnt it because of thyroid, or DNA or some medical issue or metabolism or age or or or

or because the vast majority of people (yes I know there are a FEW exceptions) eat too many calories and don't burn them off. But denial is wonderful isn't it? I used to have a drink problem. Was it society or circumstances that forced me to knock back the drink? Of course not. It was my own stupid fault.

[RenewableCandy]

As I understand it, the Polynesian thing is a genuine genetic effect: their culture's what makes them "obese" (example: "Big" is a complement in many of those type of cultures and is also used in the same way as "-San" (honourable) is in olde Japan), their body chemistry is what makes that "obesity" far less of a problem than its equivalent would be in a European person.

[vtsnowedin]

I've noted that the US MSM seems unable to do a story about hunger in America and interview someone that looks hungry. Instead they interview some food shelf keeper that is an axe handle and a half across the butt that has a hard time waddling between two rows of shelves without knocking cans off both sides. The narrative says one thing the pictures tell quite another.

Love the unit of measure there VTS. Would that be a full size felling axe or just a hatchet?

A full sized double bit, one side razor sharp for good work and the other used when you might strike into some dirt and dull it further. Both the axe and the expression inherited from my father.

[RenewableCandy]

Ah the things you'd lose by going over to the Metric system...

[vtsnowedin]

Ah the things you'd lose by going over to the Metric system...

Ah yes. One of the more scientifically literate ladies I know was complaining about her failure at a recent diet and referred to "The ever expanding universe of my A$$".
Doesn't give you quite the visualization of a axe handle does it?
But then she was complaining about fifteen pounds or so on a 145 lb, 5'-10" frame so was exaggerating quite a bit to begin with.

[RenewableCandy]

Meanwhile, Russia Today weighs in (sotospeak!)

Starved & evicted: Britain’s poor now treated worse than animals

If someone had told me a decade ago that the British government would deliberately starve my fellow countrymen in an attempt to bully them into slave labor jobs that wouldn’t even pay the bills, I would have laughed in their face.

But now I know I would have been the fool. This is indeed the breathtaking strategy of David Cameron’s LibDem-Tory coalition.

[vtsnowedin]

Meanwhile, Russia Today weighs in (sotospeak!)

Starved & evicted: Britain’s poor now treated worse than animals

If someone had told me a decade ago that the British government would deliberately starve my fellow countrymen in an attempt to bully them into slave labor jobs that wouldn’t even pay the bills, I would have laughed in their face.

But now I know I would have been the fool. This is indeed the breathtaking strategy of David Cameron’s LibDem-Tory coalition.

I don't know more then a bit about UK local politics so don't want to defend or offend either side but the writers using some very fuzzy math so might be full of it on other points. First off he builds a house for fifteen thousand pounds but neglects to add in the cost of the land then he pays for it over two hundred years instead of the usual thirty and assumes the house is so well built it needs zero repairs or refits in the entire two centuries and that the interest rate is zero. No mention of council tax or fire insurance either.
Now let's see? If we finance 15,000 at 5.25% for thirty years the payments would amount to 30,000 or thereabouts. Let it ride for another thirty years and your at 60K , keep doubling it every 30 and by year 200 the bank will have flayed you for 1,920,000. Tidy little sum there. Payments if divided equally would be 800 a month or 200 a week.
Better to pay it off in thirty years at just 85 per month and be done with it in time for the first major overhaul.

[RenewableCandy]

The housebuilding maths are ludicrous, true, but it is a verifiable fact that some 4-figure number of people have died in ways directly attributable to government policy (for example, mentions of income cut off in their suicide notes), and that there are now food banks, and there simply didn't used to be. What's more, some of these have actually run out of food to give.

[vtsnowedin]

The housebuilding maths are ludicrous, true, but it is a verifiable fact that some 4-figure number of people have died in ways directly attributable to government policy (for example, mentions of income cut off in their suicide notes), and that there are now food banks, and there simply didn't used to be. What's more, some of these have actually run out of food to give.

Do you think any government in the UK, no-mater how competent, will be able to avoid such things post peak?

[Little John]

The housebuilding maths are ludicrous, true, but it is a verifiable fact that some 4-figure number of people have died in ways directly attributable to government policy (for example, mentions of income cut off in their suicide notes), and that there are now food banks, and there simply didn't used to be. What's more, some of these have actually run out of food to give.

Do you think any government in the UK, no-mater how competent, will be able to avoid such things post peak?

If they are not overtly socialist, no. If they are overly socialist, maybe.

[vtsnowedin]

The housebuilding maths are ludicrous, true, but it is a verifiable fact that some 4-figure number of people have died in ways directly attributable to government policy (for example, mentions of income cut off in their suicide notes), and that there are now food banks, and there simply didn't used to be. What's more, some of these have actually run out of food to give.

Do you think any government in the UK, no-mater how competent, will be able to avoid such things post peak?

If they are not overtly socialist, no. If they are overly socialist, maybe.

You think that a socialist government will be better able to deal with the coming shortages in energy supply? Very naive considering past experience with socialist governments.

[Little John]

Do you think any government in the UK, no-mater how competent, will be able to avoid such things post peak?

If they are not overtly socialist, no. If they are overly socialist, maybe.

You think that a socialist government will be better able to deal with the coming shortages in energy supply? Very naive considering past experience with socialist governments.

Not naive at all. Socialism failed against capitalism on the way up because the one thing capitalism is good at is the efficient exploitation of resource. That's the problem. It's why we are on the brink of collapse. Take a look at many of the East-European, ex-Soviet countries and you will find the most fertile soils in Europe. A significant part of reason why is because their farming methods were less "efficient" and so they didn't F--k their soils up as much.

Socialism is not going to be particularly efficient at exploiting resources on the way down. But it will be a hell of a lot better at allocating them on the way down. If we want to avoid a return to barbarism, an equitable allocation of resources is now imperative.

[vtsnowedin]

If they are not overtly socialist, no. If they are overly socialist, maybe.

You think that a socialist government will be better able to deal with the coming shortages in energy supply? Very naive considering past experience with socialist governments.

Not naive at all. Socialism failed against capitalism on the way up because the one thing capitalism is good at is the efficient exploitation of resource. That's the problem. It's why we are on the brink of collapse. Take a look at many of the East-European, ex-Soviet countries and you will find the most fertile soils in Europe. A significant part of reason why is because their farming methods were less "efficient" and so they didn't **** their soils up as much.

Socialism is not going to be particularly efficient at exploiting resources on the way down. But it will be a hell of a lot better at allocating them on the way down. If we want to avoid a return to barbarism, an equitable allocation of resources is now imperative.

I'm pretty sure that the future will see more coming to the hand of those that work for it and defend it against all comers (including the government) then to the hand of those waiting for the government to deliver them their equitable share.

[Little John]

You think that a socialist government will be better able to deal with the coming shortages in energy supply? Very naive considering past experience with socialist governments.

Not naive at all. Socialism failed against capitalism on the way up because the one thing capitalism is good at is the efficient exploitation of resource. That's the problem. It's why we are on the brink of collapse. Take a look at many of the East-European, ex-Soviet countries and you will find the most fertile soils in Europe. A significant part of reason why is because their farming methods were less "efficient" and so they didn't **** their soils up as much.

Socialism is not going to be particularly efficient at exploiting resources on the way down. But it will be a hell of a lot better at allocating them on the way down. If we want to avoid a return to barbarism, an equitable allocation of resources is now imperative.

I'm pretty sure that the future will see more coming to the hand of those that work for it and defend it against all comers (including the government) then to the hand of those waiting for the government to deliver them their equitable share.

who said anything about handouts? Get your head out of your ideological arse.